Two legal experts debated the constitutionality of same-sex marriage at an event hosted by the NYU Law and Religion Society in Vanderbilt Hall on Tuesday. With the Supreme Court awaiting to hear several challenges to state laws on the topic, the debate focused on whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires states to license same-sex marriages or recognize valid out-of-state marriages.

Matthew Coles, an adjunct NYU Law professor and deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, and Jeff Shafer, a senior counselor for the Alliance Defending Freedom, carried debates about equal opportunity to marriage.

Coles said bans on same-sex marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause by denying couples the benefits the institution affords.

“The government didn’t create marriage, but it has created an enormous structure of law and policy around it,” Coles said. “What the four constitutional amendments at issue in this case in effect do, is they say we the state have created a complex, well thought out infrastructure to recognize and protect family. Oh, but you families that are headed by same sex couples? You can’t enter it.”

Shafer said he felt popular opinion was situated against him at NYU, but he said tried his best to offer a rational rebuttal. His argument centered on the idea of marriage between a man and a woman being a cultural institution, crucial to the integrity of society and childrearing.

“If marriage is to be an egalitarian institution, then that necessitates a redefinition of parenthood,” Shafer said. “If the law ratifies as normative both adoption and the use of surrogate mothers, by saying they are equal to traditional procreative development, there might come a time when it’s normal for a child to have only a transactional relationship with their biological parents.”

Stanley Chen, a third-year NYU Law student, agreed with Shafer’s views on the constitution and sided with him when asked who won the debate.

“Personally I’m biased, but I think Jeff Shafer won only because I share his views on the Constitution,” Chen said. “That being said, I think Coles did a great job, and I’d probably agree with him if my worldview was different.”

NYU alumna Chien-Yu Liu felt that despite the valiant effort Shafer put in, Coles ultimately won because he had a
better argument.

“Personally, I would say professor Coles won because he had a very well-constructed argument,” Liu said. “But on the other side, I really appreciate how hard [Shafer] tried, and how he probably had done all he could to make his arguments as sound as possible, although I do have some doubts as to the basis of his arguments.”

A version of this article appeared in the Wednesday, March 11 print edition. Email Michael Adams at [email protected].