I'm commenting on this months later, but I'd like to defend Professor Corvino on this point.

It's true that with respect to publicly advocating against civil liberties for non hetero people, Gallagher is among the worst of the worst (right up there with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson.) And I can understand some why some people have sentiment that she is basically evil. I myself yelled at her during a Q&A session, once.

But, the joint project between her and Corvino was actually a great idea because it is ultimately advantageous, not only for the cause of marriage equality, but also for reducing homophobia in general. Here's why.

First, consider this. You can discern at least three kinds of oppositional positions that people take on the issue of homosexuality.

The first is found in people who think it is wrong because they accept an interpretation of some religion in which God said it's wrong. It is nearly impossible to change the mind of a person who takes this position, because you'd have to basically get them to do something that they perceive as the most egregious act of evil: turn their backs on God. People like this are rigid in their interpretations and traditions, and they would lose much by altering their views. They are so deeply entrenched in their religious subcultures that changing their views would mean losing any status or comfort among their "tribe". They are either complicit in perpetuating this system, or they are brainwashed/bullied into submitting to it, or both.

The second kind of attitude is this. Some think that identifying as non hetero obviously "unnatural" (I.e. gross,) and while they aren't brainwashed, they've grown up around the idea that it is forbidden by religious law, and therefore they assume it is wrong. They are usually churchgoers, but they are also "plugged in" to secular society. They view religion as an authority to some extent, but this is mostly due to family traditions rather that deep personal entrenchment. They think the people in the first group I described are a bit over the top sometimes, but would claim solidarity with them if pressed on the point.

The third group is comprised of people who are either apathetic or ambivalent about non hetero rights. They may or may not identify as being religious, but in any case it isn't a deep aspect of their identities. They may have never considered the issue of discrimination against non hetero people enough to take a strong position on it. Plausibly, they haven't thought about it because they they aren't affected by it. They might not put much stock in religious authority, but since Western culture includes an undercurrent of homophobia, they just sort of unthinkingly default to a discriminatory attitude. (Often, though they aren't aware of just how fucked up it is to have such an attitude.) And because they have no motivation to do otherwise, they just assume that homophobic stereotypes, etc are true. However, if they become motivated to consider the issue, they will be open to reason.

Now, suppose we wanted to combat that homophobic undercurrent in society. To do this efficiently, we should focus our time and other resources where we can make the widest and most lasting impact. The average person will be in group 3, it is has more people than the other two groups and they are the most open minded, to. So at first, it might seem best to focus on them.

But, actually this is not the case. Group 3 is negatively influenced by two factors: homophobia in general society and lack of personal interest. The problem is that it takes a lot to change a person's default position on an issue he doesn't care about. (Here's an analogous example: How hard would I have to work to convince you that the word "logic" is misused in society so that whenever you hear it you should always think it means something different that what you thought it meant before?)

Group 2 isn't the place to focus, either. They have some vested interest in whether non hetero people are discriminated against; they're loyal to their religion and want laws that reflect out, but they also don't want people to think they are unfair or too extreme. So they'll at least pay attention to what you're saying, and there is a chance (albeit a small one) of changing their minds. However, they are directly influenced by the propaganda from the first group. They watch Fox News, for example, instead of BBC. If they watch CNN, it's through a filter. Their minds are poisoned to interpret ideas as being "liberal" whenever they come from an source that isn't "approved" by the first group. For that reason, they won't fully hear the message in secular media because it will be drowned out by the first group's b.s. resounding in their heads.

However, if we somehow could get a complete, unadulterated message across to them, it's likely they would at least stop saying the stupidest shit like, "homosexuality is scientifically unnatural" or "gay men are all pedos" or "if gay marriage, why not bestiality?" Etc. In turn, the undercurrent that influences the third group would quiet down some, and the default position would become less homophobic.

Our goal, then, should be this. We need to find a way to reach the second group directly and without having our message filtered. So, finally, we come to the first group.

Gallagher is obviously among them. Also among them is the "Focus on the Family" company, and John did the same thing with people from there. By debating them directly, point for point and on their own territory, you are effectively gaining a direct audience with the second group. And even though the first group is there spouting their bullshit as always, you're able to respond in real time. The impact is huge. Think about it: how much stupider does Bill O'Reilly look when John Stewart hands him his ass on his own show?

Furthermore, the fact that Corvino is reserved, intelligent, calm and friendly with his opposition does a ton to undercut the claim that "the liberal f### are all wild eyed pervs trying to snatch up your little boys." You can't accuse him of being overly emotional, angry, or an anarchist. He even looks like a republican! (He's not, haha, trust me.)

Obviously, group 3 people aren't going to change their minds. That doesn't really matter, since the average person (I.e., in group 3) thinks they're a bit nuts. The point is that Corvino's interaction with them effectively undercuts homophobia at its very source.