In Camera

A few weeks ago, an informal anonymous poll of 25 students in my family law class on the question of whether or not gay marriage should be permitted yielded a surprising result. Despite the religious conservative reputation of my school, not one student said that same-sex couples should be prohibited from marrying.

I attend Pepperdine University School of Law where, in addition to its already considerable conservative political pedigree and association with the Church of Christ, at least two high profile faculty members have actively promoted legislation that would limit the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman. In particular, Richard Peterson lent credibility to his appearance in controversial advertisements supporting Proposition 8 by identifying himself as a Pepperdine law professor and, a year later, Pepperdine law school dean Ken Starr argued before the California Supreme Court that Proposition 8 in fact did not deny gay couples any inalienable rights. In turn, Pepperdine law school students are also perceived to be more politically conservative as a group than most law school classes.

In light of similar legislation limiting the definition of marriage in several other states, our family law professor decided to prompt discussion by taking a vote. He handed out blank sheets of paper to all 25 students present, asking them to respond “yes” or “no” to whether there should be legislation allowing same-sex marriage and to briefly explain why or why not. The votes were tallied on the board as the professor read each response aloud.

Twenty three people unequivocally said “yes,” that there should be legislation permitting same-sex couples to marry. Reasons in favor of same-sex marriage included protecting all family units regardless of their form, avoiding discrimination based on immutable characteristics, protecting the fundamental rights of homosexuals, and the absence of a valid state interest or even a rational basis for preventing homosexuals from marrying. Two students hedged their responses, voting “yes” because they felt that they did not have the Constitutional right to impose their differing beliefs on others.

Many students expressed surprise, saying that they expected a substantial portion of the class to be opposed to same-sex marriage and citing the school’s conservative reputation and the actions of its leadership. Perhaps some students held their tongues and this skewed the results, but perhaps not.

On the one hand, this informal poll does not prove anything about what Pepperdine teaches, Pepperdine’s students, or law students in general. It was a small non-representative sample taken from a self-selected group. On the other, it suggests that support for same-sex marriage among ascending generations of lawyers and policymakers may be stronger than it is for older generations.