From Baltimore OUTLoud

Same-Sex Marriage, Homosexuality Debated at PFLAG Event

Analysis by Steve Charing

October 17, 2005

COLUMBIA -Over 140 people crammed the meeting room at Columbia's Owen Brown Interfaith Center to hear a debate that was intended to be on the topic of same-sex marriage. The event, organized by the Howard County chapter of PFLAG-Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, was held on October 11 with various members of the television and print media present, and was moderated by a representative of the Howard County chapter of the League of Women Voters.

"I believe it's important that we all become as educated as possible on the issue of civil marriage for same-sex couples," said Colette Roberts, chairperson of the PFLAG chapter, prior to the event. "Having an honest debate shows that society will benefit from sharing this basic human right."

Proponents of same-sex marriage were Anthony McCarthy, an ordained minister and well-known gay activist and radio talk show personality, and Dan McCarthy, a PFLAG dad and a co-chairman of the chapter's Advocacy Committee and a member of its Steering Committee.

Opponents included long-time anti-gay activist Tres Kerns (who founded TakeBackMaryland.org and is executive director of VoteMarriage.org), and Grady Tallington, Jr., the field director of VoteMarriage.org and a former youth minister.

Asked why he was willing to plead his case before a largely lgbt and lgbt-friendly audience, Kerns told OUTloud that "We were wanting to do this around the state and hear different perspectives." He added, "The Bible teaches us to reason together."

Anthony McCarthy was asked just before the debate what he hoped could be accomplished in engaging these opponents of same-sex marriage. "We want this to be a debate about civil marriage, not religion," he said.

Unfortunately he, along with many members in the predominantly pro-lgbt audience, were disappointed.

Anthony McCarthy and Dan McCarthy presented well constructed, well reasoned arguments during the five-minute opening statement segments that centered on the rights for lgbt people to marry, which would provide children of same-sex couples with protections that only heterosexual families now enjoy.

Tres Kerns, however, basically steered clear of the issue at hand and instead launched into attacks of homosexual sexual acts and wrapped his comments around HIV/AIDS. He presented unverifiable and ostensibly distorted statistics that actually caused some members of the audience to laugh. He did, however, respond when pressed that he cannot support gay marriage if he cannot support homosexuality. Grady Tallington, Jr. predictably led the audience down the trail of biblical quotes and passages that appeared, at times, to be muddled and, like Kerns, also failed to address the debate question of same-sex marriage.

As the debate progressed, it became apparent that the Kerns-Tallington team was avoiding the central issue and continued to cite health arguments against homosexuality in general and presented the views of God as they saw it. "Homosexual sex is not healthy," said Kerns repeatedly throughout the evening. Referring to statistics cited on his website as if it was an authority, Kerns made such dubious claims as "lesbians have a higher rate of alcoholism, STD's, and smoking" than the general population.

Throughout the 45-minute debate segment (written questions from the audience followed), the McCarthy team attempted, to no avail, to keep the debate on point. Both effectively, at times brilliantly, presented arguments on how marriage for same-sex couples was good for society in general and for children, and that religion should not have any influence on government policies. In response to Kerns' attempt to blame homosexuality for society's ills, a consistently calm Dan McCarthy asked his opponents, "Why blame homosexuals for the problems of heterosexuals? How can gay people be blamed for heterosexual infidelity?"

The Question and answer period produced more of the same. The opponents of same-sex marriage (in actuality they were opponents of homosexuality) continued to duck the central question. Some 20 questions were written by audience members on related religious and social issues, but the questions, screened and read by the League of Women Voters representative, were answered virtually by Kerns and the McCarthy's; Tallington was all but silent during this segment.

The debate was unprecedented in the PFLAG chapter's nearly 11 year history. It had great potential to hold a civil dialogue on a subject that will re-emerge as a major issue when the ruling on the lawsuit, Deane and Polyak v Conaway, is handed down.

But to many in the audience, it was a one-sided affair with one group articulately arguing the issues while the other appeared to spew out, in soft-spoken voices, canned demagoguery against gays and lesbians. One audience member observed, "I don't think they can legitimately argue the case against same-sex marriage, so they come up with these ludicrous comments and statistics."

Included in the audience were over a dozen lgbt youth - part of the chapter's Rainbow Youth Alliance. This is an important issue for them as they contemplate their future. "The kids were angry," said RYA co-facilitator Ray Sheets. "They came to hear a debate. Instead they heard a lot about HIV/AIDS and questionable statistics. They wanted to learn more about same-sex marriage."

But other PFLAG members were ecstatic with the huge turnout, the decisive performances by Dan McCarthy and Anthony McCarthy, and the excellent questions raised by a respectful audience.