A group of Georgetown students joined hundreds of activists and concerned citizens at a rally in downtown Washington, D.C., last week to protest the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment and call for equal rights for homosexual couples.
The rally, organized by the Human Rights Campaign, an organization that works to advance legal rights for the LGBTQ community, featured speeches by gay rights leaders as well as several D.C. City Council members. Participants filled all corners of the intersection in front of the HRC office building on Rhode Island Avenue and 17th Street, where the rally was held. They cheered on speakers, chanted and held signs with slogans such as “Civil Unions: Separate but not equal” and “When it comes to private choices, I decide.”
Speakers lauded the recent motion by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to recognize same-sex unions as marriage, and many said that they saw the Massachusetts decision as critical in their struggle for equality and rights.
“This is the first time ever a court has told us we are equal,” Cheryl Jacques, president and executive director of the HRC, said. “Now is our time.”
According to Maria Moser (COL ’04), a part-time employee at the HRC, over 3,000 people attended the rally at its peak, including contingents from over 15 gay rights and liberal groups from within the D.C. area, and numerous college students.
The rally came following President Bush’s recent endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which calls for amending the U.S. Constitution to establish marriage solely as the union between a man and a woman.
The Federal Marriage Amendment was introduced last May by Rep. arilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), but the timing of Bush’s recent endorsement may have served to propel the gay marriage issue into the partisan spotlight in time for this year’s presidential election.
“When Bush supported this amendment, I felt more angry than I ever have at the man,” Noah Riseman (COL ’04) said while attending the rally.
“[The Federal Marriage Amendment] is a horrible attempt to write discrimination into the Constitution,” Riseman added. “Instead of progressing toward equality, it’s progressing toward inequality.”
“Marriage is a personal matter,” Whitney Leinster (SFS ’05) said. “I don’t see how people in heterosexual marriages are threatened [by gay marriage].”
In the days leading up to the rally, students also tabled in Red Square in an effort to collect signatures for a nationwide HRC petition to Congress opposing the amendment and attesting that LGBTQ families should have the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual families. The HRC provided cell phones and laptops, and students were encouraged to contact their Representatives to express their opposition.
Simulated same-sex marriage ceremonies, complete with homemade wedding cake, were also staged at the table to raise awareness of the issue.
According to Liam Stack (COL ’04), a chief coordinator of the tabling, over 1,200 students, faculty and staff signed the petition during the three days of tabling in Red Square.
“This is by and large the most positive response [to a student-coordinated petition] I’ve ever seen,” Moser said. Moser, who also assisted with the tabling efforts, said that although GU Pride and College Democrats facilitated the tabling efforts by publicizing the event over their e-mail list-serves, the demonstration was organized by concerned students, independent of any single club or group.
Moser and Stack both said that they felt gay marriage was essential in order to guarantee equal legal rights, including hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights, to same-sex couples and their families. They concurred that they felt the proposed amendment was antithetical to the rights-giving purpose of the Constitution. In an e-mail, Stack described the proposed amendment as “the codification of discrimination.”
“We can’t send a message too clearly that this is wrong; this is against what our country stands for,” Moser said.
Yet not every student who saw the display in Red Square shared their opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment.
“We encountered people who were not receptive, and that’s unfortunate, but first we have to get out there and start the dialogue before anything else can happen,” Emily Napola (COL ’06), who also assisted in the tabling efforts, said. She described the dissenting students, however, as “respectful,” and added that she felt that raising awareness of gay rights issues was paramount, even if that came with some initial opposition.
“There are people at our school, and this affects them,” she said. “Beginning to think is a good thing.”
Supporters of the proposed amendment argue that marriage, as it has traditionally been for centuries, in all types of cultures, should strictly be confined to between a man and a woman. President Bush’s remarks on Feb. 24 explained that marriages between men and women are in the best interest of children, and additionally promote the improvement of society. He continues, remarking that it is not in the best interest of the country to remove marriage from its original roots of culture and tradition.
