Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse defends marriage at Columbia University in this short hour-long exchange. This is your chance to hear how anti-child advocates of same-sex marriage really are. And Dr. J links SSM to unilateral divorce at the end of the Q&A, too. Awesome! This debate really needed to go for twice the time, and I look forward to hearing MORE debates from Dr. J.
Details:
Columbia University’s Federalist Society hosts a debate between Dr J and Professor Katherine Franke based on the question “Is Marriage Equality Possible?” About an hour of audio includes opening position (Dr J), arguments (Prof. Franke), and rebuttal (Dr J), as well as a brief question-and-answer period.
Dr. J’s opening speech (15 min.)
Two basic contentions:
- 1) same-sex marriage is not the equivalent of traditional marriage
- 2) if we legislate that they are equal, then we are really redefining marriage by changing the essential purpose of marriage
A case study from Ireland:
- a known sperm donor for a lesbian couple was excluded from having a relationship with the child he conceived
- after the child was born, the sperm donor wanted regular contact with the child, but the women opposed giving him access
- same-sex marriage requires that courts are able to assign parental rights instead of having rights assigned biologically, as with traditional marriage
- That is why SSM is different from TM
What is the purpose of marriage?
- Marriage is about attaching mothers and fathers to children, and mothers and fathers to one another
- Children are born helpless from two opposite-sex parents and they need parental guidance and care during development
- In TM, there is no third party needed in order to have a child
- In TM, the biological parents have rights and responsibilities for the child
- TM is about providing the child with justice
- Every child is entitled a relationship to both biological parents, and is entitled to care, protection and nourishment from both parents, and every child is entitled to a stable family environment
- the problem is that children don’t have standing to sue for these rights in court
- so the purpose of marriage is that we have a social construct to provide these rights to children naturally, without the state having to intervene
The purpose of marriage according to SSM?
- In SSM, the essential child-centered purpose marriage is replaced with new purposes like pooling resources and having same-sex couples recognized by society
SSM redefines marriage in four ways:
- it diminishes the entitlement of children to a relationship with both biological parents
- it diminishes the identification of parental roles with biology
- it requires the state to determine parental relationships, instead of recognizing biological parents
- it enshrines the idea that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, that children don’t really need mothers AND fathers
Dr. Franke’s opening speech (20 min.)
Hard cases make bad law 1: the presumption of paternity
- consider the case where a mother is married and has an affair resulting in a child
- the Supreme Court has ruled that the father of the child has no right of contact
- this is a case where marriage gets in the way of biological parents having a relationship with the child
- so it can be the case where marriage is in conflict with the relationships to biological parents
Hard cases make bad law 2: the purpose of marriage can be changed
- marriages was used to keep peace between families and communities
- marriage used to be about trading and trafficking of women
- so the concern for offspring was not always the greatest concern
TM and SSM are both equally able to create stability for children:
- same-sex unions are just as stable for children as TM marriages
Same-sex unions do provide justice for the child:
- giving the adults in same-sex couples the social recognition that opposite sex married couples have is good for children
Children can sue in court
- children can use guardians to sue their parents in court to get their rights
Opposing SSM is racism
- opposing same-sex marriage is equivalent to racism
- we could abolish marriage completely and let individuals form private contracts, then the state would really be neutral on marriage
Dr. J’s rebuttal speech (5 min.)
The state cannot be neutral on marriage
- what the deinstutionalization of marriage means is that the private contracts are made by adults and children will have no consideration in those contracts
Regarding the adultery case
- the presumption of paternity is there to protect the marriage
- such borderline cases almost never happen with TM, whereas in SSM these third party problems occur in 100% of the cases
Children are not happy being separated from their biological parents
- adults do not have a right to exclude a child’s biological parents from having a relationship with them, and children are often not happy being excluded from their biological parents
- How would the legalization of same-sex marriage affect your liberty?
- New study shows that same-sex unions are less monogamous than heterosexual unions
- Why do people favor traditional marriage over same-sex marriage
- Christian man fired after gay rights group contacts his employer to complain
- Catholic church will stop all charity work if same-sex marriage passes in DC
- Which family configuration is best for raising children?
- New Mexico Human Rights Commission fines couple $6000 for being Christians
WINTERY KNIGHT 