The Strange Beast that is Marriage

                When I asked Dr. Skott Brill if he’d be voting this year, he only laughed and said, “Actually, I’m going to be voting in about 15 minutes.” Brill, a philosophy professor here at Frostburg State, contends that he’ll be voting ‘yes’ for question six: legalizing marriage for the LGBT community.  “I believe it’s an equality issue, fundamentally,” he explained, “Marriage is a strange beast made of both governmental and religious components. Allowing gays and lesbians to wed is an explicit recognition of equality in the face of the massive discrimination they’ve previously experienced. Legally, we have no good reason to tell committed homosexual couples they cannot enjoy the benefits of their heterosexual counterparts. In addition, the symbolic significance of marriage sends the message that we allow heterosexual couples are somehow above homosexual couples. It’s a message of disrespect.” Dr. Brill acknowledges the difference between civil unions and institutional marriage. He asserts that religious factions should be able to employ doctrine in the situation, but religion has no place in government. Though economics are an important aspect of marriage, he contends that the main reason a state should legalize gay marriage is the benefit of companionship. Equal marriage rights would increase the likelihood of people being cared for by others in their times of needs, maximized by “folks marrying, committing to something hard to get out of.” Dr. Brill believes that respectively, America is far behind in the legalization of gay marriage. He expects legalization in this election in at least the states of Maryland and Maine; however, he argues for national legalization relatively soon. “I believe it’s a generational issue. Older generations die off; excuse my being blunt, but they’ll die off and those are the people who don’t support it. This upcoming generation of young people, I think, is more accepting.”          

                Students seem to hold the same views as Dr. Brill- not as in depth or assertive, but the younger generation’s mindset does support his argument. Most students our age either don’t care for the new law, or they passionately advocate for the idea of freedom and equality. Many students on campus planned to either vote for the law or not vote on it at all. Many argue that they wouldn’t appreciate being told who to marry, as Cathy Close states, “I’d want to marry who I want; I don’t care what makes you happy. You should [marry who you want] too.” Students identified that there’s “no difference between our love [heterosexual couples] and theirs [homosexual].” In religious circumstances, some students don’t differentiate between marriage and civil union. When faced with the religious refusal of marriage, she explained, “They shouldn’t discriminate. God loves everyone.”

                Despite the abundance of tolerance on campus, there are some who defend the religious stance on marriage. “I’m not voting, but I’d vote ‘no’, due to my religious beliefs,” Vince Morton told me on the issue of question six.  In contrast to the passionate avocation or apathetic indifference felt all over Frostburg, there exist many opposing views. Once the difference between marriage and civil union was explained, he clarified his stance on homosexuality, “I came to college and saw it was a lifestyle choice. I matured from hating for beliefs. Religiously, I’m against the lifestyle but when looking at society, not so much.” In civil unions, Vince largely supports the separation of church and state.