The Leighton Auditorium played host to “The Gay Marriage” debate on October 25. John Corvino, chair of philosophy at Wayne State University, engaged Maggie Gallagher, former president of the National Organization for Marriage, in the debate over same-sex marriage and its consequent effects in society if made into law.

Corvino opened the discussion with a well-delivered argument for why same-sex marriage would in no way diminish the sanctity or quantity of heterosexual marriages.

“It’s not like there is a limited number of marriage licenses, and once we run out, they’re gone,” said Corvino.
Holding that marriage is not a zero-sum game, Corvino suggested that by allowing homosexual unions we only increase the quantity of quality relationships.

“Relationships are strengthened by marriage,” he said, “why wouldn’t we want more strong relationships?”

Corvino obviously knew his audience as he laced his speech with jokes and asides aimed at the college-age mentality. One of his lines received more applause than at any other moment in the debate: “When told that same sex marriage does not work because the parts simply don’t fit I reply, well…yes… they do.”

While Corvino used his personable charm to discuss the big picture, Gallagher was more solemn and relied on her personal experience as a single mother in her argumentation. Having raised her son without the help of a father, Gallagher recognized the importance of both a male and female presence in a child’s development.

“In every way we know how to measure, children are at risk if their parents don’t get–and stay– married,” said Gallagher.

During her time as a Yale undergrad, Gallagher became pregnant with her son who grew up questioning where his father was. Gallagher noted that there seemed to be an innate desire within her son for the presence of both a mother and a father. Her primary concern was that by allowing same-sex marriage, children would grow up devoid of a certain stability found in heterosexual marriage.

“Maybe you know a way that I do not,” Gallagher spoke to the audience, “but I do not know of any better way to raise children than with a mother and a father.”

Gallagher was also troubled by the effect same-sex marriage would have on culture as a whole, not just as it pertained to marriage. She believed that by treating issues of same-sex orientation in the same manner in which society treated race, the result would be a change in societal norms.

“The energy and impetus for gay marriage is about establishing this new public moral norm,” Gallagher said. This norm, Gallagher believed, would be anti-family and detrimental to how society has functioned for hundreds of years.

Both speakers were given a chance to make closing arguments. Gallagher once again affirmed that the union between man and wife must contain some inherent quality that has allowed it to thrive in all society in all time. Corvino challenged her point saying, “There is enough love and compassion to go around. There is enough marriage to share.”

Though it was billed a debate the evening read more like a screenplay. Each debater seemed more like an actor playing the part than one truly concerned with the outcome of his argument. This is not surprising when one considers the two debaters are co-authors of the book Debating Same-Sex Marriage. More than once Gallagher and Corvino made mention to the book and its being available for purchase after the debate.

This is not to say that John Corvino, the self-proclaimed “gay moralist,” does not have a significant personal interest in the matter, nor is it to say that Maggie Gallagher’s work for the National Organization for Marriage was done indifferently. However, at the very least the integrity of the debate must be called into question. If this were the sincere investigation into a hot-button issue it claimed to be, then why did “The Gay Marriage Debate” feel so much like a staged show?

Peter Flores is a senior joint major in Philosophy and Theology. He considers himself the G.K. Chesterton of the South. Contact Peter at pflores1@nd.edu.