A proposed resolution to express the SGA’s opposition to Amendment One was the core issue of Thursday night’s Senate meeting. About 15 members of the Elon student body and community attended the meeting to express their opinions regarding the resolution.
Freshman Austin Faur was the first to address the SGA during open discussion.
“Before you all vote on this (resolution), I ask you to consider two questions,” he said. “The first, what is marriage? And the second, what does it mean to discriminate?”
Faur argued that the government gives benefits to married, heterosexual couples because they are able to have children, which guarantees a future generation.
“Why should the government grant (homosexual couples) the benefits of martial status and tax breaks when they do not have the capacity to produce the very things for which these benefits are given, (which are) children?” he said
Amendment One is not discriminatory against homosexual couples because they do not have the capacity to marry, he said.
“Amendment One is simply defining marriage. Before you cast your vote, please consider (my initial questions),” he said.
Randy Orwig, senior pastor of the Elon Community Church, countered Faur’s argument.
“The idea that we come here only for purposes of procreation does not speak to what we are really wanting to get to,” he said. “There are unintended consequences of this amendment. As a government, we need to recognize what it means to have equality. This amendment will…write discrimination into the (state’s) very constitution.”
Lynn Huber, associate professor of religious studies, next approached the podium to respond to Faur’s argument and to explain to the senate her position on Amendment One.
“Marriage is not all about children,” she said. “I am a lesbian, and I have the capacity to marry… Historically, marriage has not been defined in the same way. It has not always been a one man, one woman institution. I encourage you to think and remember that marriage does change over time.”
Open discussion ended after Lauren Clapp, advocacy and education chair of Spectrum and author of the resolution, localized the debate.
“I hope you think of this in the context of Elon,” she said. “We have an institutional commitment to diversity. What kind of message would it send if we didn’t pass a resolution saying Amendment One is discriminatory?”
After brief remarks from the Senate and the Executive Board, senators explained their positions on the resolution during open forum. Many argued to pass it.
“We just passed a resolution that defines diversity, and we have the responsibility to protect it,” said Greg Zitelli, junior class senator.
But not all were in in agreement.
“We’re really here to support our constituents,” said Ryan Budden, sophomore senator. “Making a broad statement that Elon does support this (resolution) is difficult because I have talked to students who are against (the SGA resolution)”
The forum was closed, and the voting procedure began. The resolution was passed in a 25-1-12 vote.
In other news, the finance committee approved an executive allocation of $300 to neuroscience board for a farewell meal in honor of faculty members involved in the neurology department.