College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Panel brings up Prop. 8 discussion

Got Milk?

By Ariel Carmona, Staff Writer

Print this article

Published: Monday, June 1, 2009

Updated: Monday, June 1, 2009

Milk Harvey

Suzanne Khazaal/Poly Post

Two days after the California Supreme Court decided to uphold Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage, more than 160 students packed Ursa Minor for a screening of “MILK” last Thursday. The film addresses the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to a government position in a major city.

In the wake of the California Supreme Court’s 6-1 ruling last Tuesday upholding Proposition 8, more than 160 students packed Ursa Minor for a screening of the award-winning film “MILK.”

The screening, held last Thursday, was followed by a panel-discussion on the progress of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender movement.

The event was hosted by Students for Marriage Equality at Cal Poly Pomona and co-sponsored by Q-SAFE and the Pride Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning and Ally Resource Center.

“We thought it was a good year to do this because of the election that just happened and to help raise awareness,” said Ashlee Kendall, Q-SAFE president. “We wanted to open it up to the general student public.”

Helen Lieng, a second-year mechanical engineering student and newly elected ASI multicultural senator at large, said she is a advocate for human rights and saw the benefit of showing the film.

“I have many gay and lesbian friends, and I think it’s a really good event to bring people out,” she said.

Lieng said the event received a lot of word-of-mouth and thought it was a good outlet, especially on a college campus.

“Even though there’s a lot of publicity out there on Prop. 8, a lot of students don’t follow through on it.”

The film, starring Sean Penn, chronicles the struggles of Harvey Milk, who succeeded in becoming the first openly gay elected official in San Francisco in the 1970s.      

The film touches on issues important boththen and now, including the clash between the gay civil rights movement and conservative opponents like Anita Bryant.    

Through the use of flashbacks, the movie depicts Milk’s career from his 40th birthday to his death and highlights the toll his activism for the gay movement took on his personal life.

Kendall was visibly shaken following the film as she introduced the panelists.

It consisted of pre-law and political science professors Jill Hargis and David Speak, and ethnic and women’s studies professors Anita Jain and Jocelyn Pacleb.

The panelists were asked what progress they thought had been made since the time of Harvey Milk and where they perceived the gay movement had fallen short.

They were also asked to comment on the future beyond Prop. 8, and to give their opinions on where the movement would go both politically and socially.

Speak answered the first question by saying, “We’ve made a lot of progress in lots of ways. A film like this can become quite popular.”

Speak said the film is a good example and reflection of the progress made by the movement since the 1970s.

“We’re now in a really awkward position,” said Speak. “Couples are now recognized as legally married. It’s hairball time. The legal process is going to have to burp this one up.” 

“We need to deal with issues of color,” Jain said, “It doesn’t seem to me that all the movements work together. It makes no sense to me.”

Pacleb said she thought it was important to acknowledge the diversity within the LGBT community. Where she thought the movement had failed was in addressing the racial and class differences that exist within the gay community.

In regards to what the future holds beyond Prop. 8, Jain said, “A lot of the studies have indicated Prop. 8 is a youth issue. Studies also show if they had put interracial marriages up to a vote, there’s a lot of evidence that would have also passed. I have hope.”

All the panelists agreed that certain groups have been marginalized within the movement including lesbians and transgenders, and the current LGBT equality movement mirrors previous civil rights and women’s rights movements.

“This movement could include almost everyone, when you’re talking about bisexuality.

Everyone has different issues, and it’s sometimes hard to address all of them,” said Hargis. “It seems like it’s going to go back to the streets. Harvey Milk’s message is still as powerful as ever.”

Currently, states in the U.S. that allow same-sex marriages include Iowa (which issued its first marriage licenses April 27, a few weeks after its Supreme Court gave approval,) Vermont, (where weddings will begin in September) Connecticut, Maine and Massachusetts.

Nations that allow same-sex marriages include the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Spain.

“For a lot of folks who are on the other side of this issue, it seems unnatural,” said Speak.

“It also seemed so to those who thought of blacks as slaves. We have to raise their consciousness. It [the vote on Prop. 8] was not about gay rights, it was about constitutional amendments.

That’s what was decided then and I think it’s in our advantage to treat it so.”       
 

 

Reach Ariel Carmona at news@thepolypost.com

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

3 comments

Bryan
Thu Jun 11 2009 02:30
So I should ask you Michael should we end all marriages that don't reproduce or have kids? How about old people, should we end their marriages because they can no longer "reproduce"? Its a odd view you are taking, I know many different sex couples who don't have kids.

There is no harm in gays getting a civil marriage, but there is much harm to keep it away ...for no other reason then to steal the personhood of that gay couple and to tell them to sit at the back of the bus.

Your name
Wed Jun 10 2009 13:38
It's not a question of reproduction or of religion, people just want to meddle that to confuse the issue. It's a clear case of civil rights. I'm pretty sure that people said similar things about black people in the 50s when they wanted to keep them segregated or marginalized. It's a Constitutional issue because they Constitution says that "All men are created equal," it doesn't say, "unless you're gay, or black, or a minority"
Michael
Tue Jun 2 2009 21:42
I don't think gay people should marry because of two things.

1. It doesn't make any sense for gay people to marry, other than for love and financial benefits from the US Government. (This is debatable, but I'm just going to throw it out in the open.) With that said, the title of marriage is sacred to religions, until the government twisted it and decided to want to pitch into add in financial benefits to couples. With religion, religion states that a bonded unity if formed between Man and wife, through the witness of God. not a bonded unity between man and man, or wife and wife.

2. Humanity, couples of the same sex cannot reproduce as per created with this very purpose of having two genders. If not for reproduction, then what is the purpose of having a male and a female? Doesn't it make sense?

So in the end it gay marriage isn't justifiable, other than the conditions of equal rights per the amendments to the constitution. Moreover, will the gay couple continue to love each other or want to marry once the government takes back the financial benefits?







log out