2008 Woodie Awards
Gallagher, Silbaugh Face Off on Same-Sex Marriage
Katie Mapes
Issue date: 11/9/06 Section: News
- < prev Page 2 of 2
Gallagher began her opening statement by asking those audience members who supported, and then those who opposed, same-sex marriage to raise their hands. A substantial majority of the crowd chose the former option, and she later urged that audience to recognize that support of gay marriage was equivalent to advocating a major ideological shift in societal conceptions of marriage. Further, she expounded, advocates of gay marriage should recognize that the opposition "is not merely rooted in animus or fear" but instead has concrete concerns.
The two debaters clashed on several specific points. While Silbaugh argued that bans on gay marriage are per se discriminatory, Gallagher asserted that it is "not discrimination to treat different things differently." Similarly, Gallagher described marriage as an institution historically regulated out of concern for children and their families. Silbaugh countered that marriage law has not been primarily, or even notably, about procreation for at least 200 years.
Both participants agreed that the same-sex marriage debate is largely symbolic; that is, that while the benefits awarded to married couples by the state are very important, they are not ultimately the central issue at play.
After both candidates had spoken, and given a five minute rebuttal, the floor was opened up to questions from the audience. The first questioner, who mentioned that his own marriage - to a man - was coming up in a few weeks, asked Gallagher whether she assumed that same-sex marriage would confer the same financial, emotional, and health-related benefits on the married parties as she believes straight marriage does. Gallagher responded that evidence on that point is currently lacking, but that it probably would. Still, she said, if she is correct and marriage as we know it is essential to perpetuating a healthy society through the next generation, gay and lesbian people need marriage to be a strong institution as much as straight people do, and their welfare would be equally compromised were marriage as an institution to be undermined.
Another questioner asked the panelists if they believed gay marriage would open the door to other institutions, such as polygamy. Silbaugh responded that gains made by the gay rights movement have been incremental over a period of many years - marriage is only the latest development. That type of movement, she believes, is almost entirely lacking in regards to polygamy.
At the close of the debate, panelist Bob Bordone thanked the participants and congratulated them on remaining civil throughout. Alluding to his role in the Harvard Mediation Program, he recounted that he asked the debate's organizers "Do you want me to moderate this or mediate it?" He continued, "I was very pleased I didn't have to mediate it."
The two debaters clashed on several specific points. While Silbaugh argued that bans on gay marriage are per se discriminatory, Gallagher asserted that it is "not discrimination to treat different things differently." Similarly, Gallagher described marriage as an institution historically regulated out of concern for children and their families. Silbaugh countered that marriage law has not been primarily, or even notably, about procreation for at least 200 years.
Both participants agreed that the same-sex marriage debate is largely symbolic; that is, that while the benefits awarded to married couples by the state are very important, they are not ultimately the central issue at play.
After both candidates had spoken, and given a five minute rebuttal, the floor was opened up to questions from the audience. The first questioner, who mentioned that his own marriage - to a man - was coming up in a few weeks, asked Gallagher whether she assumed that same-sex marriage would confer the same financial, emotional, and health-related benefits on the married parties as she believes straight marriage does. Gallagher responded that evidence on that point is currently lacking, but that it probably would. Still, she said, if she is correct and marriage as we know it is essential to perpetuating a healthy society through the next generation, gay and lesbian people need marriage to be a strong institution as much as straight people do, and their welfare would be equally compromised were marriage as an institution to be undermined.
Another questioner asked the panelists if they believed gay marriage would open the door to other institutions, such as polygamy. Silbaugh responded that gains made by the gay rights movement have been incremental over a period of many years - marriage is only the latest development. That type of movement, she believes, is almost entirely lacking in regards to polygamy.
At the close of the debate, panelist Bob Bordone thanked the participants and congratulated them on remaining civil throughout. Alluding to his role in the Harvard Mediation Program, he recounted that he asked the debate's organizers "Do you want me to moderate this or mediate it?" He continued, "I was very pleased I didn't have to mediate it."
Be the first to comment on this story