Jessica Cole Photo
Maggie Gallagher came to, of all places, New Haven and Yale to speak against gay marriage. It was an uphill battle. She was ready.
Gallagher (at right in photo) was the “no” side in a debate Wednesday night on the topic: “Resolved: Same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.”
As president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Gallagher has become a national spokeswoman for the case against gay marriage. She debated Wednesday night against Evan Wolfson, executive director of the organization Freedom to Marry. The Yale Political Union sponsored the debate in the campus’s Sudler Hall before a standing room-only crowd which hissed or pounded after the speakers made their cases.
Gallagher took a quick poll from the lectern before beginning her remarks. No surprise: more than three-quarters of the auditorium was inclined to support same sex marriage. The majority of the community members sitting in the back rows of the auditorium hissed as she walked onstage.
“You can’t close down questions like ‘What is marriage?’ ‘Why is the law involved in marriage?’” Gallagher, a 1982 Yale alumna, responded.
The thrust of her argument rested on the role of marriage in creating a social structure around a child. Children, she said, need both a mother and a father in order to be healthy, and marriage is a necessary cultural mechanism to facilitate that commitment to child-rearing.
“If we move to same sex marriage, I’m pretty sure that the idea and ideal that you need a mother and father…is going to go,” she concluded in her opening remarks.
She was later asked how opposing gay marriage would allow more children to have mothers and fathers. She responded by defining marriage as a union “with a public purpose” – the purpose of raising healthy children in a healthy community.
Wolfson called the denial of marriage rights to same sex couples as a form of discrimination.
“Ultimately there is no good reason for this denial,” he said. “Whether or not people approve of gay people, the government should not be used as a weapon to impose…discrimination.”
Student questioners sought to clarify the definition of marriage, one of the most controversial portions of this debate on a national scale. When we say “marriage,” asked various students in their follow-up remarks, What do we mean? Who does the term necessarily exclude? And is our definition based in valuable tradition or antiquated social norms?
One student speaker, stumped at the podium by a follow-up question posed by Gallagher, said with a flourish, “The lady has caught me in a paradox.”
Wolfson’s consistent insistence that no one could “show us a reason why we should be denied” resonated with the audience, which had dwindled as the debate exceeded its second hour. The resolution was passed with 49 in the affirmative, 16 in the negative, and seven abstentions.
Students tended to ask the speakers abstract, philosophical questions. Community attendees such as Ken Cornet focused more on personal experiences.
In 2000, Cornet and Joe Mustich, two justices of the peace from Washington, Connecticut, found themselves officiating at the marriages of heterosexual couples while being unable to get married themselves.
“You get a bundle of rights if you marry under the law,” Cornet said about their battle to have their partnership recognized.
The pair, who just celebrated their 31st year together, were finally able to tie the knot when Connecticut legalized gay marriage in 2008.
Packing up his bags after Wednesday night’s debate, Cornet stated that the discussion had been worth the drive. “There’s always value [in the debate],” he said as he put his arm around his husband’s shoulders.