At the "Speak out on Prop 8" panel Monday night, three professors offered provocative thoughts on the gay marriage question. The event was organized after California voters approved Proposition 8 this past election, which puts a strictly heterosexual definition of marriage into California's constitution.

History professor Alice Kessler-Harris opened with a heavy dose of feminism.  Until the 21st cetury, no same-sex conception of marriage has ever prevailed. Why has it always been this way? Because marriage establishes a hierarchy - the patriarchal one. This is clearer in the past when marriage required women to explicitly transfer their civil to spouses. And the hierarchy we get from marriage is the source of authority in the society as a whole. Marriage that is not heterosexual would be a "revolutionary act" because it would force an authoritarian society to recognize its own authoritarian root.

Next was Katherine Franke, law professor and head of the Gender and Sexuality Law Program.  Special thanks to her for some much needed legal background. The day after California passed Proposition 8 by referendum, a lawsuit was filed to invalidate the result. The claim is that the definition of marriage in prop 8 makes a change to California's constitution that isn't legally possible by referendum. The question is whether prop 8 makes a "revision" or "amendment" to the constitution. "Revision" means a change to an existing part of the constitution - i.e changing the bicameral legislature to a unicameral one. "Amendment" means adding something original to the constitution that isn't already addressed. The question is important because "amendments" can be instituted by majority referendum, but "revisions" require two-thirds support from the state legislature. While prop 8 may seem to easily fit the category of amendment because the California constitution doesn't currently say anything about marriage, lawyers in the suit argue that it qualifies as a revision because it alters the meaning of equal rights.

Franke tossed in a political word as well. Angry about how poorly the campaign against prop 8 had been run, she felt a more effective tactic for expanding marriage rights would be for society to boycott marriage altogether. Get divorces, no more Mr&Mrs, no wedding rings, etc.

Kevin Millard from Fordham Law School spoke about the high level of support prop 8 received from the black community in California. The main reason for this support  was that the marriage debate had been cast only as a cultural issues  on civil rights terms. This excluded other voters who might support a broader definition of marriage for other reasons than cultural equality. Millard's examples arecouples who don't get married because of the bureaucratic costs and potential economic losses. Millard believes the absence of this "triangulation of interests" between those who dislike the marriage status quo is a major obstacle to support for a wider marriage definition, especially from the black community.