Although state and federal authorities are challenging and eliminating laws against same-sex marriage, some members of the community are extremely unhappy with these developments.

“We have essentially removed procreation from marriage,” Robert Lockwood, an area spokesman for the Catholic Church, said. He was referring to American society. “All we’re effectively doing is really harming marriage and the family which as a result really, really harms the society and middle class.”

The Defense of Marriage Act, which U.S. Congress passed in 1994, held that marriage is “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” It also said that states are not required to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples that were performed in other states or in other countries like Canada. Pennsylvania’s state version, which also restricts marriage to a legal union between a man and woman, was passed in 1996.

But, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning the federal DOMA in June, the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s version has come into question.

Campus advocates for the LGBT community at Pitt, such as the Rainbow Alliance group, have hailed the Supreme Court’s overturning of the federal law as a “victory.”

According to Michael O’Brien, the vice-president of Rainbow Alliance and sophomore majoring in Russian and German, said the group’s members hope that it is one more step in the direction of a more accepting Oakland.

But others in the community are not happy with the idea that Pennsylvania could follow suit in recognizing same-sex marriage.

Lockwood, a representative for the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, said that he hopes that Pennsylvania laws stay unchanged.

In Lockwood’s opinion, taking down Pennsylvania’s DOMA would be “tremendously foolish.”

Lockwood said he believes that the traditional definition of marriage is the best definition because it meets the needs for procreation. He understands a family to consist of a man and a woman who produce children and care for those children. To include others in what a family is, would be detrimental to society as whole.

“In one sense, it would have no impact on the Diocese whatsoever, in that how the diocese recognizes or celebrates marriage wouldn’t change,” Lockwood said. 

Though many Americans agree with Lockwood and respect that official position of the Catholic Diocese, recent data shows that a small majority of voters are supportive of same-sex marriage rights.

According to a July Gallup poll, 54 percent of polled Americans, 2,027 randomly selected adults in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, think that marriages between same-sex couples should be valid, as opposed to 27 percent of polled Americans in 1996.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane supports same-sex marriage and believes that barring LGBT persons from marriage is unconstitutional. In a letter sent from Kane’s office to Governor Tom Corbett, Kane’s chief of staff said the act is “one of the last discriminatory statutes.” 

In the coming months those who are on opposite sides of the issue may have to find a way to reach a peaceful agreement in regards to LGBT rights and stigmas against them.  For now, Pitt’s Rainbow Alliance, as well as other campus organizations like the LGBT Student Health Research Center, are taking every measure possible to be sure that Pittsburgh is a welcoming city and campus.

“There are some lost causes,” O’Brien said, referring to those who oppose homosexulity. “There are going to be people who don’t want to listen. [But] Pitt is just fantastic for finding allies who are supportive and want to help the cause.”