If you want me to sum up the whole event it was simply a lesson in futility.
The first round goes to the angry liberal Miami students and staff. Brinkman's lawyer started off the discussion by referring to Miami as the "University of Miami," which is a fatal sin to Miami students. Miami University in Ohio is "Miami University" not the "University of Miami" Hurricanes. The students (who after Brinkman's introduction hissed instead of clapped) went wild after that, and the angry undercurrents got even worse when Brinkman referred to Miami President Dr. Garland as "Dr. Garlish" or "Garbund" or something a person who sues a University should not be mispronouncing in front of angry liberal college students. Brinkman went on to insult a variety of Ohio Republicans (including Governor Taft) which didn't look particularly good, either.
The second round went soundly to Brinkman and company. Angry liberal student after angry liberal student stood up and gave long orations about discrimination and civil rights and the 14th amendment. No matter how long the applause went or how loudly the crowd howled, every attack on Brinkman was soundly refuted.
The best example of this is when one of the students repeated the most-often cited attack on the Brinkman vs. Miami lawsuit. If one of the points of the suit is to save Miami money by not offering benefits to domestic partners then why waste student money defending a lawsuit?! One particular student went on and on about how his tuition is going to go up and how the state of Ohio doesn't give Miami enough money and on and on and on. After his speech the crowd gleefully leapt to their feet and clapped for longer than the original speech! However, Brinkman's lawyer smartly responded with what liberal college students fear - the truth. He replied that since Miami is a state agency its defense money comes from state coffers and would not influence the university budget at all. Being that this was a major talking point against Brinkman and it was so quickly and masterfully destroyed with one sentence it was no wonder that the students sat back in quiet confusion.
Finally, the decision rests soundly with Brinkman. As I had stated earlier I felt that it would be difficult and nearly impossible for him to prove that Miami's domestic partner benefits program attempted to "imitate" the institution of marriage. Brinkman wrapped up the discussion (a.k.a. liberal attack fest) by soundly restating that the benefits offered by Miami have nothing to do with the lawsuit. The violation of Ohio's constitution rests solely in the fact that Miami put together a concise and specific affidavit with the purpose of establishing the existence of a "domestic partnership" that brings with it specific benefits. This argument is very sound and through the extended clapping and whining of 3/4 of the audience no one was able to refute this idea.
Brinkman landed the knockout punch by reminding the students in the crowd that if they didn't like the Ohio Constitution's amendment against institutions imitating marriage that they should get together, gather 300,000 signatures, and put on the Ohio ballot a measure to appeal the amendment. After all, citizens of Ohio went through this same procedure to put this measure in the constitution originally - a measure which passed with 62% of Ohioans supporting it.
Quite a damning final statement. I wonder how many "activist" college student will do anything more to oppose Brinkman's lawsuit besides hissing at him and yelling "bullshit" in the shadowed background of a meeting room.
Also: There was also a contest of wills between random signage and clothing. The anti-Brinkman crowd wore stickers with an "equals" sign on them. However, the Miami College Republicans all had the same shirt with this paragraph on the back:
People that think they are always right annoy those of us who actually are.
Fantastic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
That's an interesting perspecive. I don't remember him failing to answer a single question, besides when a student asked him to elaborate on how "Issue one" made homosexuals "feel."
Rep. Brinkman's point was that Miami's domestic partner beneifts policy violates the Ohio constitution. Not a single student, staff, faculty, or community member (incluing you) were able to come close to refuting that claim. That was the point of the forum - to discuss the lawsuit.
It's also interesting that you consider my stance "biased." I came into this event just as doubtful as you were - I thought there was no way for him to argue this case logically (which was part of the reason for me going.) There was no dialog whatsoever contending any of his points; most people were there to argue Issue One, which is already passed and is law. His final point was therefore even more fitting as he passed on a charge to people like youself to fight for the repeal of Issue One if you dislike his lawsuit. I doubt you will.
Post a Comment