Students and residents in the Washington D.C. area offered diverse opinions regarding June’s historic U.S. Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling, with many people’s views mirroring how they feel about homosexuality as more than just the right to marry.
On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled same sex marriage is a Constitutional right, prompting passionate response from dissenters but candid support from those who contend homosexuality is natural and the denial of rights misguided.
“It isn’t right to denigrate people for something that isn’t their fault,” said Cafoncelli Antonio, a 76-year-old professor at American University, who explained that revolutionary genetic studies have proven the genomes of a person determine their sexuality.
While Antonio cited scientific arguments about homosexuality’s origins, others interviewed cited personal relationships and religion as reasons to favor or oppose same-sex marriage.
Pro-gay sentiment however, was rather high amongst the majority of people interviewed in Northwest Washington D.C. as many believed that they were not affected by homosexuals getting more rights, so they said it made no sense to fight against same-sex marriage.
“Who am I to judge?” said Sarah Belson, dean of the American University’s School of Education.
However, on the opposite end of the spectrum, those who didn’t favor the ruling, were firm in their dissent.
“Family business is a woman’s business,” said Alex Medouni, a 50-year-old resident of Washington D.C. discussing his opposition the same-sex marriage ruling. “The victims are children.”
Four people interviewed this month who were against the ruling agreed children would not have a solid family foundation or moral compass under laws granting same-sex marriage.
But, Ned McFadden, 45, found the argument that children would be harmed unpersuasive. He noted children who grow up in a society that grants marriage rights to those regardless of sexual orientation will be better off.
“The family is changing,” McFadden said while discussing the ruling’s societal consequences.
Others interviewed this month said they were opposed to the ruling because the federal government had no business interfering in state and local self-rule.
That argument, however, didn’t sit well with American student Kara Suvada.
“Human rights take precedent over states’ rights,” Suvada.