There was some concern over protests that never materialized when controversial KOGO 600 AM talk show radio host Steve Yuhas spoke to the College Republicans at University of California San Diego (UCSD) Warren Lecture Hall Friday evening. Not a single protester attended the event, much to the surprise of those in attendance.

In the days leading up to the event, various complaints were sent to the College Republicans and administration at the school concerning Yuhas speaking, but the event went on without incident.

Jonathan Israel, vice-chair of the College Republicans welcomed Yuhas to express a different opinion on the same-sex marriage issue since he claimed no opposing voices were heard at Gavin Newsom’s April 11 same-sex marriage discussion at UCSD in which Newsom defended his decision to grant marriage licenses to over 4,000 couples in February of 2004.

“There was no alternative point of view represented so we decided to have our own event,” said Israel.

Yuhas argued marriage is not a right but a privilege, and the public should decide on any change in the law by way of the voting process. He referenced Newsom’s controversial decision to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February of 2004.

“I think that Gavin Newsom and his quest on the cover of Newsweek or whatever he was doing, in fact made about 4,000 victims out of people from 48 states and eight different countries. He was an adamant supporter of the right of people to marry. Unfortunately he was the wrong person to do it,” said Yuhas. “The people who decide gay marriage and issues of marriage and issues of who should and who should not enter into the institution are the people and your elected representatives.”

Yuhas also said same-sex couples are only after the financial benefits of marriage and that granting marriage licenses to them would cost taxpayers money.

“Marriage benefits cost money. It is a compelling state interest to save the taxpayer dollar,” he said.

Anthony White, event coordinator for the San Diego chapter of Equality California/Marriage Equality doesn’t agree same-sex couples are only after financial benefits.

“Certainly same-sex couples feel that they should be allowed to marry to attain the same financial benefits that opposite-sex couples do. However, just like with heterosexual couples, financial benefit is by far not the primary reason for loving same-sex couples to want to have access to marriage,” said White.

White cited a co-authored study by the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Project and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (IGLSS), which released findings in May of 2004 based on California.

“If financial contributions are Mr. Yuhas’ main concern, he should consult the data. According to independent studies, California would save $25 million dollars and the Federal government would save $1 billion dollars annually in tax revenue if same-sex couples were allowed to marry due to increased revenue from means-tested government programs and other tax consequences,” White said.

Yuhas said there were three different ways you can argue against the same-sex marriage issue: religious, tradition and secular. He said you could throw the religious argument out because there are always people who are atheist and the argument doesn’t hold up.

In terms of the traditional argument, Yuhas cited Newsom’s argument in which he compared the African-Americans’ struggle for equality, women’s struggle for rights and gays who favor same sex marriage.

“That would be all well and good except it’s comparing apples and oranges. It’s not a good comparison,” said Yuhas. “In order to compare blacks, Asians and Hispanics and whatever protected class you’re talking about, you have to compare it to another protected class and like it or not, gays are not a protected class. It’s just that simple,” he explained.

“The Supreme Court is not going to add another other group to the protected class. Congress isn’t going to either. It’s going to take an act of enormous public outrage to make gay marriage happen.”

White says being a protected class should not matter when it comes to rights.

“What we are talking about are human beings here, not ‘protected classes’. Of course, if any group of people is being denied fair treatment under the law and fair access to the institutions of government, it should be protected from such denials and have that right protected by the courts, the legislature or both,” he said.

Yuhas contends the secular argument against same-sex marriage would win since the state has a compelling interest to decide who should marry. He said one of the compelling state interests is to further the population of society and since same-sex couples can’t do that so there is no reason for the state to grant them the benefits of marriage.

The Gay & Lesbian Times posed a question to Yuhas concerning other rights heterosexual couples take for granted such as being able to marry someone from another country, allowing bi-national couples to stay together.

“If you fall in love with someone from another country and if you have trouble bringing that person to where you live, go to where they live,” Yuhas answered.

“His vile comment that bi-national same-sex couples should just leave the country certainly tells you about Mr. Yuhas’ true motives,” said White. “Perhaps you could apply the same logic to previous civil rights arguments. How ludicrous would it seem to ask African-Americans to just leave the country if they want full equality? Would Mr. Yuhas have asked women that want the right to vote to simply move to a country that allows them to vote?”