The Week In Review: Horsey Stuff, Same-Sex Marriage Debate At The Law School

Above: Mares and foals.
Below: Me and other students at the law school, protesting speaker Maggie Gallagher.

Among the useful skills I have learned this week (I wish I could say have mastered, but that is far from reality, more accurate would be to say "among the many skills I've been introduced to this week...")--
at any rate, are shoeing horses, de-shoeing horses (is there a term for this?) and restraining foals. I have no photos of the shoeing part because that involved cadaver feet and so was not particularly photogenic.

I was not surprised to find that shoeing or de-shoeing a horse, as it may be, requires some strength. I was, however, most definitely able to do it despite a bit of a struggle. The farrier informed us that it takes on average an hour and a half to shoe all four feet of a horse. It's a labor intensive, physically demanding job.

I was more surprised to find out that while foals appear cute and perhaps even cuddly to some, they are a pain to handle! They kick, bite, toss their head about and are generally unpredictable and uncooperative. And I'm told the foals we were working with were relatively easy to handle compared to most. I am glad, for the umpteenth time, that I am not going into equine medicine. It is definitely not my calling. I'm also incredibly impressed with my classmates who seem to be able to handle horses calmly and competently, and am exceedingly grateful that such people exist.

Sorry if the next part is a bit discombobulated... I am quite ignorant about law and so that makes it challenging to follow cases or write about them.

The debate on same-sex marriage at the law school between conservative Maggie Gallagher and Cornell Professor Cynthia Bowman was a nice change of pace from the issue du jour for first year students at the vet school this week, coagulation.

The main thrust of Maggie Gallagher's argument seemed to be that it is a misrepresentation to argue that the legalization of same-sex marriage will not have negative consequences for religious Americans. She did concede without argument that First Amendment protections would keep churches from being forced to perform gay marriages. What she purports to be concerned about is that anyone who does not support gay marriage in the future will be treated akin to someone who espouses racist views today, that there will be no acceptable room for dissent. She also brought up the impact of non-discrimination policies on church groups (and here she loses me a bit because non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation are in place in some states that haven't legalized same-sex marriage as far as I understand it so the connection to same-sex marriage seems a bit fuzzy to me). Catholic charities in Boston apparently stopped operating its adoption agency after the legalization of gay marriage in that state because it did not want to have to be required to facilitate adoptions to gay couples. Gallagher would really, really like to see exceptions made for church groups in such cases, and made an argument that it would be akin to the exceptions granted to doctors who will not perform abortions.

Of course, the Ocean Grove, NJ case involving the beach front pavilion came up (I cannot summarize this case at this late hour other than to say it was church property that it has been contended was being used as public property and the church got into hot water when it denied use of the property to a lesbian couple that wanted to perform their civil union ceremony there). I barely follow legal arguments and am already sick of this case. I almost wish the ruling had gone the other way so that it wasn't used so much.

What didn't come up, interestingly, was a case heard in the Supreme Court this week regarding UC Hastings College of the Law's Christian Legal Society (read here and here). This seems to be exactly the kind of case that Gallagher is arguing will impinge on religious liberty (her terms) since the group is in court for wanting to deny the ability to vote and hold leadership positions to students who do not share their anti-homosexual beliefs and the law school believes that violates their non-discrimation policy. At least to the best of my understanding of the case, which is complicated.

Back when I was in high school, I believed in the importance of open dialogue between conservatives and liberals as a way to create understanding and tolerance (for acceptance is not always possible) on both sides. In fact, I gave my valedictory speech on this very subject, having been deeply affected by the then-recent assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by fellow Israeli and right wing extremist Yigal Amir. I hoped that by bridging the gap between polarized segments of society with debate, similar tragedy would be prevented in the United States.

Almost half a lifetime later, I am more skeptical of the usefulness of debate for creating understanding, more entrenched in my views and less inclined to try to be all-inclusive. I think gay marriage is long overdue. And I tend to agree with Gallagher that as gay marriage gains acceptance and becomes legal in more and more states, there will be less and less of a tenable position defending a position against same-sex marriage. I believe that in time, homophobia will be seen as analogous to racism. I'm OK with that. I don't want to create room for dissent about what constitutes discrimination when it comes to gay rights. I want it to be perfectly clear that gay rights are human rights.

And so I left the law school thinking about how I have changed in my views on the purpose of debate on such topics. And also pondering some of the legal nuances (at least nuances to me, about arguing from a point of religious liberty versus equality, something Professor Bowman said that I definitely cannot recapitulate at this late hour, sadly).

And in less than eight hours I will be sitting in CPS rounds on oncology, so it is definitely time for bed!