Tech must take stand on gay marriage

The Pride festival roars into Atlanta this weekend with masses of revelers converging on Piedmont Park for a three-day celebration.

Although Midtown Atlanta is usually the epicenter of the legions of rainbow-colored flags, tight Abercrombie muscle shirts, and scantily clad women, the festivities rarely cross past the interstate and over onto campus. For the average student taking summer classes, the Pride festival is just another hot summer weekend.

While previous years’ celebrations have always taken on a semi-political theme, the issue that is on the minds of many of this year’s Pride participants is the upcoming referendum on a Georgia constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the state-a referendum the Georgia General Assembly approved in a contentious vote this past April.

After this weekend, the issue of same-sex marriage is going to be even louder and more unavoidable as a turbulent November voting day approaches. If the ban on same-sex marriage passes, not only will lesbians and gays not be able to marry, they will also be denied any benefits that would recognize their relationship as a couple.

Therefore, if Georgia’s voters say yes to the ban, the gay and lesbian community will not be the only ones who suffer; Tech’s reputation will also be harmed.

Universities as diverse as Princeton and Georgia State University are adopting policies that allow same-sex couples to have the same benefits as heterosexual couples. These institutions recognize the importance of tying success in a student’s personal life with success in the academic world.

Although Tech currently has anti-discrimination policies for factors including sexual orientation, without including domestic partnership benefits, anti-discrimination policies are meaningless.

Tech currently does not offer benefits to students in same-sex relationships. By comparison, the Institute does provides a wide range of benefits to heterosexual couples.

For example, heterosexual married couples can pay a nominal fee that allows their spouses to use the services of the Student Heath Center and Campus Recreation Center. Their spouses can also receive BuzzCards, use the library facilities, and otherwise have their relationship recognized by the Institute through any other incidental benefits.

Another example is Tenth and Home, the new family housing facility that is currently being built, is one of the signature projects of the Institute. According to the promotional material on its website,“Tenth and Home is a family housing building; with the exception of single parents living with their children, no singles will be permitted to live at Tenth and Home.”

This advertising proves deceptive. According to Dan Morrison, Associate Director of Residence Life for the Department of Housing, “At this time, we are only able to offer family housing to married couples whose marriage is recognized by the State of Georgia,” a fact not mentioned in any of the materials on the website.

If Tech continues to lag behind other universities in offering these benefits to same-sex couples, then it is possible that gay people will choose to attend a university other than Tech where their rights and relationships are recognized.

Some people believe that same-sex marriage, or any official recognition of those relationships, violates their moral or religious beliefs.

But there was a time in Tech’s history when “moral and religious beliefs” were used to prevent women and African-Americans from attending. While each of the communities has faced different struggles, the opposition they encountered was always the same. History shows the real motivations behind these “religious and moral” arguments: ignorance and fear.

Sitting in the gallery of the Georgia House of Representatives, I listened as legislators spewed their hatred and animus towards lesbian and gay persons. While they would cloak their arguments in biblical verses to protect the sanctity of marriage, they failed to understand the core argument in this marriage debate:

You cannot separate acceptance of lesbian and gay persons from acceptance of the relationships of lesbian and gay persons with each other. Hatred of the same-sex relationships is little different than hatred of gay and lesbian people individually.

Ultimately, the opinions and beliefs of either individuals-or the state government through a constitutional amendment-will not prevent gay and lesbian persons from falling in love.