John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher: Debating Same-Sex Marriage: New York: Oxford University Press: 2012. What is currently being debated about same-sex marriage equality within the United States, Australia and elsewhere? I'll deal with these questions in this series of reviews. John Corvino is a gay philosopher at Detroit's Wayne State University. In his opening essay, he usefully seperates the civil and institutional recognition of marriage, which can and does occur in secular and religious contexts, with the purely ceremonial and ritual religious celebration, commemoration and solemnisation. Ceremonies can exist without legal recognition, and secular civil marriage has conversely existed in New Zealand since 1847. What is marriage? Married people mutually enable and care for one another, through exclusive intimacy from one to another, regardless of whether or not they are capable of having children- after all, we don't discriminate against elderly couples who fall in love and marriage past their years of potential fertility, nor against couples where one partner is disabled and incapable of producing ova or sperm. As for Christian Right hyperbole and apocalyptic rhetoric about the 'cataclysmic' consequences of opening up marriage to include same-sex couples, he neatly skewers it through evoking similar past apocalyptic rhetoric about the advent of liberalised divorce laws, use of contraception as a method of deliberate family planning, interracial marriage, married women's legal property ownership (and criminalisation of spousal rape). There are some divergences from our own situation. For example, the United States didn't have all that much in the way of prior unmarried straight cohabitant rights, which served as a template for civil unions and almost full and substantive spousal entitlement equality in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and elsewhere. As for the parenting question, he cites the usual findings from the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. So, given that abundant evidence, why exclude us from spousal equality and equal parenting responsibilities when there are far more heterosexuals who abdicate their parental responsibilities? The above evidence is from adoption, fertility treatment and compassionate surrogacy, which are the predominant methods of enabling same-sex parenting in the United States, New Zealand and elsewhere. Usually, same-sex parental responsibilities are accquired before civil unions and/or marriage equality. Then there's the slippery slope argument in which same-sex marriage is said to 'lead' to polyamory and polygamy, despite the recent British Columbian Supreme Court verdict in which the long-standing recognition of monogamous same-sex marriage was distinguished from polygamy, because the latter version involves violence against women, spousal rape and pedophile child marriages, at least in the dysfunctional and abusive schismatic "Mormon" polygamist sects that were the subject of that legal analysis and case law. And what a surprise to learn that anti-SSM polemicist Stanley Kurtz exaggerated the legal 'recognition' of polyamorous relationships in the Netherlands (and Canada). Moreover, Corvino is indeed correct when he notes that polygamy usually occurs in antigay jurisdictions. Finally, he usefully draws our attention to the Christian Right's apparent endorsement of ulterior motives beyond obstruction of marriage equality, which amount to discrimination in the provision of goods, services and venues when the latter are state-funded and have secular uses, as well as inclusive school curricula. We're no stranger to this in our own context with Bob McCoskrie and Robert George, for that matter. Maggie Gallagher is a Christian Right activist and former leader of the "National Organisation for Marriage" (which opposes same-sex marriage equality). She believes that there should be religious continuity between ritual, ceremonial and civil recognition of heterosexual marriages, durable parenting and the creation of active and responsible citizenship. While those are commendable goals in themselves, Gallagher appears to deny the real world context of heterosexual marriages and parenting. Casual sex, unmarried cohabitation, regular contraceptive use, marital infidelity and solo parenting are all facets of everyday life amongst straight couples and relationships. Neither straight sex or marriage neccessarily lead to pregnancy, childbirth and parental responsibilities. Extramarital affairs happen, and so does divorce. At best, Gallagher is referring to what sociologists call an 'ideal type', which bears little resemblance to actually observable real-world situations. Unfortunately too, Gallagher engages in exactly the same kind of scaremongering and misrepresentation that Corvino so adroitly exposes in his argument for marriage equality. Once again, it appears that we must state that marriage equality and same-sex parenting will not have adverse effects on meaningful religious freedom- the right to specific beliefs, formation of consciences based on those beliefs, freedom of worship and assembly, free speech and broad areas of religious practice. However, there can be no such thing as absolute freedom of religious practise, for that would allow religious practises that harm others- like polygamy (!), parental refusal to undertake child blood transfusions and (in the Southern United States) Pentecostal use of poisonous snakes and strychnine during acts of worship. Moreover, what about those of liberal Christian denominations, liberal religious believers from other traditions and liberal people of secular ethical orientation? Meaningful religious freedom must include their right to religious belief, conscience, assembly, worship and speech as well as that of marriage equality opponents. It must also include freedom from religious coercion. Clearly, Gallagher derives considerable personal existential security and meaning from her conservative Catholic religious beliefs. Unfortunately, her Catholic variant does not enjoin reciprocal respect for liberal religious or inclusive secular philosophical traditions. Moreover, she oddly excludes lesbians from discussions of same-sex parenting, although logic suggests that they predominate as same-sex parents. Corvino's arguments have some novel aspects and useful new information. However, Gallagher's response is one that I am unfortunately conversant with. However, I do recommend this book as a useful tool in the ongoing marriage equality debate. - Reviewed by Craig Young Craig Young - 24th October 2012