Marriage debated

Same-sex and traditional marriage advocates clashed over whether or not the government should legalize gay marriage during Wednesday night’s 16th Great Debate at the Tsai Center, where most of the about 200 students in attendance made their approval of gay marriage very clear.

Same-sex marriage supporters said marriage is a fundamental right that needs to be extended to same-sex partnerships to ensure not only equal protection under the law, but also the strengthening of the American family.

“People really need the government to treat them equally and fairly,” said Gay ‘ Lesbian Advocates and Defenders Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto, the lead debater for the affirmative side. Bonauto was also the lawyer who successfully argued to legalize same-sex marriages before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. “These families, like all others in Massachusetts, should be treated equally.”

But traditional marriage proponents were quick to point out that legalizing same-sex marriages would create a “slippery slope” and open the door to other groups striving for the right to wed. The speakers said same-sex marriage supporters have interpreted Massachusetts law in a way that would allow any person to marry anything – as evidenced by speakers saying people could soon marry toasters.

Using such an interpretation could be construed as allowing polygamous and polyamorous marriages, said Amherst College jurisprudence professor Hadley Arkes, the lead debater for the opposition to gay marriage. It is precisely for reasons like those, he said, that marriage should remain restricted to a man and a woman.

Arkes also said if same-sex marriage were to become the law of the land and the definition of marriage were expanded, many heterosexuals would look to take advantage for economic benefit. He used an example that two sisters could wed simply to enjoy the advantages of marriage, such as social security benefits, even though their union would be completely platonic.

“Marriage is inescapably sexual,” Arkes said.

But affirmative speaker and second-year School of Law student Zachary Coseglia equated same-sex marriage with the outlawing of interracial marriage in the United States during the 1960s and said the country adapted then and will now.

“America has endured the evolution of marriage, and it is so much better for it,” he said to loud cheers from the audience.

Coseglia said marriage in America has deteriorated to the point of being a joke, as more than 50 percent of weddings end in divorce and Britney Spears is able to go to Las Vegas and quickly marry then divorce. But he added that even though Spears’ marriage may not have been serious, it should still be allowed, as should same-sex nuptials.

“I do think Britney should be able to marry anyone she chooses,” he said. “And so should I. And so should you. And so should all gay and lesbian Americans.”

But anti-gay-marriage speaker and Family Research Council Vice-President Genevieve Wood plowed through the affirmative’s arguments and stated it plainly.

“Ultimately I think it’s a very simple debate … about family structure,” she said. “We’re talking about what the actual makeup of marriage is.”

Pushing aside links between same-sex and interracial marriage, Wood said that in that instance, “the problem was not the definition of marriage.”

She also pointed out that even though many in the audience scoffed when Arkes said same-sex marriage could lead to other forms of matrimony, it could happen under the law.

“Beyond the fact that you might think such relationships are weird, the question is how the law will see it,” Wood said.

The other debaters from each side included Jonathan Rauch, from the Brookings Institute, for the affirmative, and David Rini, a College of Communication junior, for the negative.

Following the debate, COM Journalism Department Chairman Robert Zelnick, who moderated the debate, asked audience members to go to the side of the room – negative or affirmative – that they believed won the debate. He declared the affirmative side the winners before some audience members had even finished getting out of their chairs.

“I came in on the affirmative side and I thought that the affirmative did a wonderful job,” said COM senior Julie Hochheiser after the event. “No valid points were presented on how gay marriage would be a detriment to society.”

But College of Arts and Sciences graduate student Ben Johnson said it was the negative that prevailed, despite the audience’s decision.

“I think the negative made the best points just because theirs went un-refuted,” he said.