Marquette professor of political science Christopher Wolfe and Peter Guyon Earle, a Milwaukee civil rights attorney of the firm Earle & Brostrom, participated in a debate concerning the constitutionality and policy implications of same-sex marriages.

The debate, sponsored by the Public Interest Law Society and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, was moderated by law professor Peter Rofes and reflected a continuing endeavor by students to provide open discussion about homosexuality.

Wolfe, who opposes same-sex marriages, said there was a difference between the foundation of heterosexual and homosexual marriages.

“Marriage between a man and a woman is the institution that provides the framework for conceiving, bearing and educating children,” he said. “A homosexual union is never capable of achieving that kind of union, and the sterility of homosexual acts is due to no accident of matter, but to the nature of the act itself.”

Earle said the right for individuals to marry is protected under the due process clause of the fifth and 14th Amendments, which guarantee the fundamental rights of American citizens.

Wolfe said the vagueness of the Constitution has led to modern judges reading into the document “whatever they damn well feel like reading” to protect the autonomy of individuals and does not feel marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.

Earle called the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment “not an empty vessel, but a source of law that mandates equality and respect for all individuals,” and based his argument on the grounds that denying this right is a form of prejudice and ignorance.

After the debate, Earle said Wolfe’s views that homosexual activity is a disorder were “extremely archaic” and have “no basis in law or science whatsoever.”

Wolfe said he felt his argument that “accepting same-sex marriages will commit our nation to a view of sex which undermines the social institution of the family” was ignored in Earle’s argument, which Wolfe said focused on the prejudice of denying same-sex marriages.

Jeff Powdrill, first-year law student, thought the forum was a good idea.

“I didn’t agree with (Wolfe),” Powdrill said. “I think he’s a little bit closed-minded, but nonetheless he’s here, he’s talking and his words aren’t hateful but made for more of a compassionate discussion.”

Roxanne Johnson, vice president of programming for Public Interest Law Society and a second-year law student, said her organization decided to join forces with the Federalist Society to organize this debate because of the Supreme Court’s June 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court declared the Texas anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional.

“I was very impressed that two very articulate and well-educated men could differ on an important constitutional question,” Johnson said.