Eagleionline

In 2009, BC Law has been given a front-row seat in the fight over marriage equality.  Between hosting a symposium on the “Jurisprudence of Marriage,” Professor Fitzgibbon’s television advertisement opposing marriage equality in Maine and White House advisor Melody Barnes’ comments during her appearance last week, the issue has been unavoidable.  And it is about to get even more attention.

Today, the Federalist Society will be hosting Maggie Gallagher, the President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.  Gallagher is one of the nation’s leading opponents of marriage equality.  NOM was involved in the passage of Proposition 8 in California last November and was a major contributor to repealing the same-sex marriage law in Maine.  Less than two weeks after her organization’s self-described success in stripping thousands of same-sex couples of the right to marry in Maine, a powerful emotional setback for gay and lesbian Americans and their supporters everywhere, Gallagher will be continuing to push against marriage equality at BC Law today.

It is a strange event for the Federalist Society to host.  As an organization committed to libertarian principles and states’ rights, it seems odd to provide a forum for a speaker who believes that defining personal relationships is an appropriate role of the government and who herself heads an organization pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into efforts to have the government “save” civil marriage.  In fact, a number of well-known libertarians, including former Solicitor General Ted Olson and columnist Andrew Sullivan have come out in support of marriage equality.  At the very least, as vigorous supporters of states’ rights, the Federalist Society should be supportive of each state’s right to determine its own marriage laws - a position Gallagher certainly does not support. 

Gallagher’s opposition to marriage equality is based on her belief that same-sex relationships are fundamentally inferior to relationships between men and women.  In her words, “same-sex marriage is unjust because it is founded on an untruth.  Same-sex unions are not marriages.”  In her view, the purpose of marriage is to promote procreation and create an ideal environment for raising children and therefore same-sex couples must be excluded from the institution.  This view, of course, ignores the fact that regardless of whether gay couples are legally married (or straight ones for that matter), they will continue to form these relationships and raise children.  Her opposition to same-sex marriage is based on outdated views of marriage and unfounded prejudices against gay couples. 

First, there is simply no evidence to support Gallagher’s view that gay couples are unfit parents.  In fact, numerous psychological studies have concluded just the opposite.  Children raised by loving same-sex parents are as well-adjusted as children of straight parents.  Drawing on her own experience as a single mother, Gallagher argues that like children of single mothers, children of same-sex couples lack the normalizing influence of both a father and a mother.  To her, families with single parents or parents of the same-sex cannot provide the ideal environment to raise a child. 

However, experience has shown that the key to raising children is neither gender nor how many parents are in the household, but providing a stable and caring environment for them to grow and learn, with unconditional love and support.  What can a straight couple provide that a gay couple cannot in this regard?  It surely cannot be examples of “morality” or gender roles.  Gay parents are just as capable as straight parents of providing the necessities: love, devotion and responsible role models. 

Second, Gallagher’s arguments are based on her antiquated notion of marriage.  The idea that modern marriage exists primarily to promote procreation and child-rearing is silly and ignores the reality of the expansive role marriage plays in peoples’ lives.  I think most married students at BC Law will attest to the fact that their marriages are more than just a prerequisite for procreation.  It is true and we agree that marriage is an important institution for protecting and stabilizing families - it is one of the reasons same-sex couples are so eager to obtain its protection.  However, marriage is also about the support of adult relationships.  Society is stronger when the bonds between its citizens are stronger.  When one person can unquestionably rely on another for emotional, physical and financial support, we all benefit.  We also cannot forget the undeniably human desire to share one’s life experiences with another person - this desire is as strong for gays and lesbians as it is for heterosexuals.  Denying official state recognition of this bond on the grounds of sexual orientation is unfounded and unfair.

Finally, Gallagher often tries to shield her arguments in the protective cloak of religious belief, where any argument against her own is met with a charge of religious intolerance.  While society may eventually call Gallagher’s views on same-sex marriage bigoted and backwards, as the percentage of Americans who oppose marriage equality continues to dwindle, it will always protect her right to hold those views.  Neither the law nor social policy can dictate popular cultural opinion. 

But in another way, if Gallagher wishes to protect her right to her religious views, she should celebrate the protection of civil marriage equality for same-sex couples.  The right to marry and the right to free exercise of religion both involve important autonomy rights.  They are both about respect for self-definition and recognition that such decisions should be left to the individual and not the orthodoxy of a majoritarian state.  When we recognize and affirm one (the right to freely choose one’s life partner), we logically recognize and affirm another (the right to freely choose one’s religion). 

In this oddly titled event, “Same-Sex Marriage: Why Not?,” expect Gallagher to give her old-fashioned and unfounded reasons why same-sex couples should be denied or stripped of the protections and benefits of marriage.  But have faith that society is changing.  With each generation, the stigmas and stereotypes that divide us fall apart and support for equality increases.  It is up to our generation to take advantage of the slow shift and push for equality.  At a time when more than half of all marriages end in divorce and unstable families create untold childhood pain and high costs to society, instead of trying to demean loving relationships and families, shouldn’t we be focused on strengthening the social and legal bonds that bring us together? 

 -Lambda

UPDATED: one sentence redacted based on today’s event, as it did not seem to reflect accurately Maggie Gallagher’s stated views on the ability of gay parents to raise well-adjusted children.  Rather than say no, she indicated that results of studies may not be reliable.  Rather than misconstrue her view, the sentence was removed.