I was surprised to find, in the pages of a respected and influential publication at my very own place of work, the notion that my queer family is a “caricature” of a family. This is not argument, but aggression, for which ignorance isn’t much of an excuse.
In light of the awaited Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, Ben Kaufman ’17 and Wyatt Smitherman ’16 debate what affects the decision might have. Kaufman argues same-sex marriage will not necessarily set a precedent for other non-traditional marriages, while Smitherman claims allowing same-sex marriage may have unexpected consequences.
Kinsey Morrison ’18 was the youngest speaker at a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court on April 28, preceding a hearing of oral arguments over the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans. The Family Equality Council (FEC)—which links and provides support for LGBTQ parents and their children around the country—asked Morrison to deliver a…
Marriage in the United States is not, as it is romanticized, a way to celebrate love, but a way to dole out financial and social benefits. These benefits, however, are often inaccessible to low income people, a category queers and people of color disproportionately fall under.
Today we hope to talk about an issue of utmost importance for our generation—an issue that can, and should, unite us rather than divide us along political lines. That issue is same-sex marriage, and specifically the court case that could make marriage equality the law of the land at last.
In a response to the Alabama Supreme Court struggle over the legality of same-sex marriage, Ben Kaufman ’17 and Wyatt Smitherman ’16 debate the moral and practical arguments at play for and against same-sex marriage in the United States.
It is even more disturbing—and ominous for the future of our democracy—that Stanford’s student leaders all seem to agree that suppression and coercion, rather than dialogue and debate, is the appropriate response to dissenting ideas. Those few campus organizations they want to suppress are small and politically powerless, so the anti-free speech activists have no problem overpowering them with their superior political muscle.
The messy public debate that has swirled around the Chick-fil-A corporate empire over the past month is one we should be having, and one that adds an important new set of voices to the defining civil rights issue of our time.