One Response to Notre Dame Marriage Debate: Corvino v. Gallagher
  1. Sebastian

    I came to this site after seeing a promotion for Corvino in one of my university’s publications. The linked video to that advertisement included the presentation rebutting the “unnatural” arguments against homosexual behavior. This presentation is a part of Corvino’s opening argument in this debate.

    Gallagher intimated that the majority of the audience was in favor of homosexual marriages. As such, few difficult questions were asked of Corvino. Even his “not ‘unnatural'” argument caricatured opponents as operating out of emotional or traditional arguments, but not out of intellectual ones.

    The answer to my first question may probably be found in other writings by Corvino, but I will post it here anyway: would he approve of a state that had no positive or negative law concerning marriage? In other words, would he be in favor of a state that eliminated legal marriages?

    Subsequently, if not, what should the parameters be for rulers of the state to determine which understandings marriages should be endorsed/subsidized/recognized? In American society, when are the beliefs of the electorate (which determines many of our rulers) invalid?

    If Corvino would support the full abdication of state power over marriage, would he support private institutions that discriminated against relationships that they believed should not be considered marriages?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Please enter your name, email and a comment.