Illusions of Equality
Jun 28, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
About 15 years ago a new Catholic parish was erecting its single-building church and social center. The pastor asked the religious sister who acted as Director of Religious Education to choose the tiles for the parish center’s bathrooms. The gentleman’s bathroom was outfitted in a rather pretty shade of gray with darker accents. The ladies room, however, startled everyone who entered it; gazing into the mirrors at their bilious reflections, woman after woman grimaced and asked “who on earth decided on spicy-mustard yellow?” 
Complete to a shade—with brown accents, no less—the lavatory quickly became known as the “vomitory,” and Sister Decorator made a sincere apology for the Jaundice Surprise. “I thought pink or rose would be too feminine, too Barbie, and the yellow would be less stereotypical,” she explained.
This was consistent with Sister’s feminist conscience, which had earlier caused conflict when she tried to introduce inclusive language to the Gloria, because “some people have issue with their fathers, and this makes it difficult for them to recognize God-as-Father.” Her intention was to wipe out any and all “feminine social constructs” while simultaneously inserting feminine perspectives or downgrading the masculine, wherever she could. There was a staggering incoherence to her efforts: femininity was bad, but women were good; men were alright but masculinity was a horror, except when a woman could achieve equality with masculine constructs. Equality was the highest good.
Sister was a good person; she was very kind and a hard worker, but she was so obsessed with notions of equality that she lost her ability to see people as anything but types and categories. At a ministry thank-you dinner, we shared a table and, emboldened by wine, I suggested her version of the Gloria was insensitive to many: “You’re right that some people have issues with their earthly fathers,” I said, “but it’s for that very reason that we want to hear about—and need to know—our Heavenly Father. When you take that from us, we have nothing—no earthly father, no heavenly one, either.”
The astonished sister answered that she had never heard such an idea before, and that she was sure I must represent a very small minority, and as interesting as she thought my sentiments, she was certain that the larger society was better served by gender-free prayer. Language mattered: it made us all equal before God and God equally accessible to all of us.
Language does matter. It was only after the inclusion of “church-protective” language that New York State’s gay marriage bill was passed. It was because the language of “civil unions” was deemed insufficient to the cause that only the language of “marriage” would do. “Equality!” was the word heard over and over again on the streets and in the headlines, and it is one of those powerful words to which we instinctively wish to add our assent, even if we know in our hearts that true equality exists only within the Triune God, and in our willingness to place ourselves before and within its mysterious depths.
Watching the men and women celebrating outside The Stonewall Inn—the jubilant young ones and the quietly pleased men who said they had been together and waiting for this moment “for 42 years”—I understood their glee, but couldn’t help thinking that they, like the sister from our parish, were ultimately chasing an illusion. Sister hoped to define God’s mysterious essences by “broadening” the language in a paradoxically narrowing way; to “equalize” the path to God-knowledge by removing from our language and imaginations any instinctively recognizable markers. The Stonewall partiers worked to deconstruct and redefine something that is both obvious and mysterious: the God-designed joining of two broken beings into one flesh, whose coming together is so powerful that humanity (which cannot create a flea) becomes co-creative with Him in a mutual assent to life.
In both cases, the emphasis was on defining an entity—be it God or marriage—according to one’s own lights and desires, and then tamping down or forbidding any instinctive understanding of that entity’s nature, for the sake of getting exactly what one wanted.
And since nothing is free, their “equality” came at a price: Sister’s obsessive focus on gender-language eventually closed her off to other voices and other words, until she became her very own cloister, leaving the very lively parish community for a safe-but-sterile environment where she is not challenged to relate to God in any way other than what she has permanently settled-on and declared for herself.
It is similar for the gay community now, too. Clutching a hard-won, if illusory, prize of worldly “equality,” and being “like everyone else,” they perhaps do not yet realize what they are rejecting—the challenge and adventure that leads to the pearl of great price: the call to be “other” than your own declaration. It is actually a personal call, and an individual one, made to each of us—it is a call that transcends the voluntary boxes we place around ourselves, our types and categories, and it is never sterile. The adventure begins when you hear the call, and respond not with a “give me,” but with a “please take.”
And this is not something new or a profound understanding:
though he was in the form of God,
Jesus not not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave . . . Because of this, God greatly exalted him
– Philippians 2:6-7,9
Nothing is equal, and it has been true since Eden; we can have our lives just as we like them. But what we claim for our own often limits God’s access to our hearts, and His working in our lives. What we give to God leads to the veriest pearl.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here. The New York Times article on church exemptions can be found here.
Comments:
6.28.2011 | 7:33am
Thomas R says:
As a celibate man with same-sex attractions I liked this. Thank you for it.
6.28.2011 | 7:55am
Bangwell Putt says:
When the proponents of same sex "marriage' were able to convince people of good will and common sense that marriage is a matter of church doctrine, their battle was virtually won - and, in the case of New York, actually won.
6.28.2011 | 8:47am
The Moz says:
Brilliant, again...this line is especially insightful: but she was so obsessed with notions of equality that she lost her ability to see people as anything but types and categories.
Equality, one of the new pagan gods of the secular consumerists (Oprah was the high priestess until recently) erases the real, tangible differences that exist between people and in the process corodes our very uniqueness, turning us into like you said types and categories. Just so that we're all Equal, when everyone knows that the very soul of the Equality movement is based on the recognition that we are all infact not equal, that we are all individual.
Equality, one of the new pagan gods of the secular consumerists (Oprah was the high priestess until recently) erases the real, tangible differences that exist between people and in the process corodes our very uniqueness, turning us into like you said types and categories. Just so that we're all Equal, when everyone knows that the very soul of the Equality movement is based on the recognition that we are all infact not equal, that we are all individual.
6.28.2011 | 8:56am
Alan says:
We all must strive to avoid the blindness that this article explores. But there is blindness as well in mistaking an historical creation--monogamous opposite-sex marriage--for the essence of marriage. Beyond that, it seems to me that the analogy to the gender-neutral Gloria breaks down at a decisive point. I cannot recognize God the Father in the gender-neutral language, so something has been taken from me. But I can have my opposite-sex marriage even if others have same-sex marriage.
I may of course be wrong on this, but the history of mistaking what is historical (e.g., the role of women, the hierarchy of racial groups) for what is natural cautions against a too quick assumption that one has penetrated to the nature of any social institution.
I may of course be wrong on this, but the history of mistaking what is historical (e.g., the role of women, the hierarchy of racial groups) for what is natural cautions against a too quick assumption that one has penetrated to the nature of any social institution.
6.28.2011 | 9:06am
Paul Luca says:
The principle of equality is having a revolutionary effect on life in contemporary India. The impact is more dramatic there than elsewhere because perhaps no other major society in recent history has known inequalities so gross or so long preserved.
6.28.2011 | 9:43am
Don Roberto says:
Just as feminist equalizers diminish the beauty of the differences and uniqueness given by God to men and women, so too do the Cuomos and Newsoms diminish the meaning from marriage. A heavy price will be exacted.
†
†
6.28.2011 | 9:55am
David Nickol says:
Elizabeth Scalia says: "Watching the men and women celebrating outside The Stonewall Inn—the jubilant young ones and the quietly pleased men who said they had been together and waiting for this moment 'for 42 years'—I understood their glee . . . "
At least Elizabeth Scalia can see clearly enough to acknowledge the whole thing is not a plot to destroy marriage, the family, and the Church. In much of literature, television, and the movies, it's just a given that when two people fall in love and want to commit to each other, they get married. A lot of heterosexuals are apparently immune now to the power of the idea of marriage, but a lot of homosexuals still see it as a way to express their commitment to a partner. There is a great deal I disagree with in what Elizabeth Scalia says, but at least she is willing to admit that the people she disagrees with are mistaken rather than evil.
At least Elizabeth Scalia can see clearly enough to acknowledge the whole thing is not a plot to destroy marriage, the family, and the Church. In much of literature, television, and the movies, it's just a given that when two people fall in love and want to commit to each other, they get married. A lot of heterosexuals are apparently immune now to the power of the idea of marriage, but a lot of homosexuals still see it as a way to express their commitment to a partner. There is a great deal I disagree with in what Elizabeth Scalia says, but at least she is willing to admit that the people she disagrees with are mistaken rather than evil.
6.28.2011 | 10:16am
Lewis says:
"she was so obsessed with notions of equality that she lost her ability to see people as anything but types and categories."
Meanwhile, the Roman Church is so obsessed with notions of the difference between men and women that it has lost its ability to see people as anything but types and categories. Thus, only men can become priests, and only men, not women, can marry women.
Meanwhile, the Roman Church is so obsessed with notions of the difference between men and women that it has lost its ability to see people as anything but types and categories. Thus, only men can become priests, and only men, not women, can marry women.
6.28.2011 | 10:19am
SteveP says:
Thank you, Elizabeth Scalia, for the fine essay – it seems faintly sad at the wounds others inflict on themselves.
“Watching the men and women celebrating outside The Stonewall Inn—the jubilant young ones and the quietly pleased men who said they had been together and waiting for this moment ‘for 42 years’—I understood their glee, but couldn’t help thinking that they, like the sister from our parish, were ultimately chasing an illusion.”
Yes, it is an illusion; they thought they could take it by force in 1969 and it slipped from their fingers. It has taken some forty years for them to have accumulated the money necessary to purchase the object of their violence. What has been purchased will wither away.
“Watching the men and women celebrating outside The Stonewall Inn—the jubilant young ones and the quietly pleased men who said they had been together and waiting for this moment ‘for 42 years’—I understood their glee, but couldn’t help thinking that they, like the sister from our parish, were ultimately chasing an illusion.”
Yes, it is an illusion; they thought they could take it by force in 1969 and it slipped from their fingers. It has taken some forty years for them to have accumulated the money necessary to purchase the object of their violence. What has been purchased will wither away.
6.28.2011 | 10:36am
Mike says:
I was hoping for a "like" button because I have nothing of substance to contribute.
But, alas, I will just say it:
Excellent piece!
But, alas, I will just say it:
Excellent piece!
6.28.2011 | 11:42am
Brian English says:
"A lot of heterosexuals are apparently immune now to the power of the idea of marriage, but a lot of homosexuals still see it as a way to express their commitment to a partner."
Then why, in foreign countries that have adopted gay marriage or civil partnership laws, and in states in this country that have done the same, have so few gay couples expressed their commitment to a partner? In Sweden and Norway, the commitment rates are far lower than those of heterosexual couples. The divorce rates are also higher.
Then why, in foreign countries that have adopted gay marriage or civil partnership laws, and in states in this country that have done the same, have so few gay couples expressed their commitment to a partner? In Sweden and Norway, the commitment rates are far lower than those of heterosexual couples. The divorce rates are also higher.
6.28.2011 | 11:43am
Michael M says:
In this series of recent articles Ms Scalia is addressing the problems of homosexuality with great skill and thoughtfulness for the humanity of those involved.
6.28.2011 | 11:54am
Troy says:
Interesting. I agree with David's comment: "At least Elizabeth Scalia can see clearly enough to acknowledge the whole thing is not a plot to destroy marriage, the family, and the Church. " Love is love and as much as all of us want to try to define love and other words for others, it just cannot be. How dare any of us individuals, the government, or the Church try to do so. We know nothing of the love between two other people.
6.28.2011 | 12:08pm
Jan says:
Troy writes:
" Love is love and as much as all of us want to try to define love and other words for others, it just cannot be."
This is sentimental muddleheadedness and it is an example of Scalia's point.
Perhaps it isn't the authors fault, since English has so few words to express different kinds if love. For example, Greek uses at least four different words for love. Other languages use more. All things are not the same.
" Love is love and as much as all of us want to try to define love and other words for others, it just cannot be."
This is sentimental muddleheadedness and it is an example of Scalia's point.
Perhaps it isn't the authors fault, since English has so few words to express different kinds if love. For example, Greek uses at least four different words for love. Other languages use more. All things are not the same.
6.28.2011 | 12:44pm
Brad says:
PC gender neurosis, a result of the feminist meltdown of the 60s and 70s, shows itself today in constant usage of "them" when discussing a SINGULAR object or subject of KNOWN gender. Pet peeve on socio-political and grammatical levels.
Swedish pre-school has banned (the tyranny of the left is ok with banning) "he" and "she". Program those tiny minds while ya can.
Swedish pre-school has banned (the tyranny of the left is ok with banning) "he" and "she". Program those tiny minds while ya can.
6.28.2011 | 12:56pm
Don Roberto says:
Dear Troy, et al:
As Jan implies, love and sex are two different, if often related, things. And real love involves a free-will decision. Real love lasts after disfiguring injury. Real love involves a lifelong effort to help the beloved find the Way. Real love is not the temporary physical attraction of the Newsoms and Cuomos and the vast majority of so-called (and 100% self-identified) "homosexuals."
We have been and continue to be misled by those who redefine a behavior as some kind of inherent trait. The whole "gay" movement is a perverted worship of the carnal, and thus can be described, if we are honest, as evil. (And for those who don't really believe in evil, you don't need religion to see the bad results that come of it, including lack of progeny, STDs, and mental illness.) And, though many Catholic leaders have a hard time explaining the problem, it is part of a larger slippery slope into degeneracy. What do you think the sex-ed textbooks will be teaching in NY five years hence (if they aren't already)? The inevitable result of social acceptance of anything—be it or cannibis or cannibalism—is more of it.
May God in His mercy please help our children. †
As Jan implies, love and sex are two different, if often related, things. And real love involves a free-will decision. Real love lasts after disfiguring injury. Real love involves a lifelong effort to help the beloved find the Way. Real love is not the temporary physical attraction of the Newsoms and Cuomos and the vast majority of so-called (and 100% self-identified) "homosexuals."
We have been and continue to be misled by those who redefine a behavior as some kind of inherent trait. The whole "gay" movement is a perverted worship of the carnal, and thus can be described, if we are honest, as evil. (And for those who don't really believe in evil, you don't need religion to see the bad results that come of it, including lack of progeny, STDs, and mental illness.) And, though many Catholic leaders have a hard time explaining the problem, it is part of a larger slippery slope into degeneracy. What do you think the sex-ed textbooks will be teaching in NY five years hence (if they aren't already)? The inevitable result of social acceptance of anything—be it or cannibis or cannibalism—is more of it.
May God in His mercy please help our children. †
6.28.2011 | 12:57pm
Harlan says:
Nice job trying to spin this around to make those seeking equality come off as the ones being closed minded and not understanding the full nature and glory of God's creation. Stay on that straight and narrow path, my friends.
The new law in New York has less to do with changing our understanding of some divine plan that God has commissioned us for and much more to do with allowing homosexuals the same LEGAL RIGHTS that are given to heterosexual couples.
The new law in New York has less to do with changing our understanding of some divine plan that God has commissioned us for and much more to do with allowing homosexuals the same LEGAL RIGHTS that are given to heterosexual couples.
6.28.2011 | 1:14pm
Bruce Boyd says:
"In both cases, the emphasis was on defining an entity—be it God or marriage—according to one’s own lights and desires, and then tamping down or forbidding any instinctive understanding of that entity’s nature, for the sake of getting exactly what one wanted."
This is very well said.
One wonders what the reaction will be when people whose desires are for more than one person decide that they, too, want "marriage equality".
This is very well said.
One wonders what the reaction will be when people whose desires are for more than one person decide that they, too, want "marriage equality".
6.28.2011 | 1:49pm
David Nickol says:
Brad,
You say, "Swedish pre-school has banned (the tyranny of the left is ok with banning) 'he' and 'she'. "
ONE Swedish preschool, named Egalia, in Stockholm, has done this.
You say, "Swedish pre-school has banned (the tyranny of the left is ok with banning) 'he' and 'she'. "
ONE Swedish preschool, named Egalia, in Stockholm, has done this.
6.28.2011 | 2:14pm
Brian English says:
"The new law in New York has less to do with changing our understanding of some divine plan that God has commissioned us for and much more to do with allowing homosexuals the same LEGAL RIGHTS that are given to heterosexual couples. "
What LEGAL RIGHTS would those be? If those LEGAL RIGHTS that are only available to married couples are of such great significance, why is it that there are so many heterosexual couples, including the man who signed this law and his live-in girlfriend, who knowingly deprive themselves of those LEGAL RIGHTS?
What LEGAL RIGHTS would those be? If those LEGAL RIGHTS that are only available to married couples are of such great significance, why is it that there are so many heterosexual couples, including the man who signed this law and his live-in girlfriend, who knowingly deprive themselves of those LEGAL RIGHTS?
6.28.2011 | 2:29pm
Magdalene says:
This will not be the end. Persecuation for those who stand firm on the true meaning of marriage will ensue. Because really there is no human law that will ever change the natural law; sodomy is perversion.
It may come as a shock but one can love another and not have sex with them!!! But sexual addictions are the norm of the day and they are taught and promoted to children now.
It is NOT about 'love'. Love desires the greatest good for the other which is heaven. Look at the so called gay pride parade (pride is, of course, the first of the seven deadly sins) and does it look normal or does it look obscene?
Tolerance has led to legalizing and it will lead to forced acceptance and then to persecuation for those who do not. It is demonic at the core.
It may come as a shock but one can love another and not have sex with them!!! But sexual addictions are the norm of the day and they are taught and promoted to children now.
It is NOT about 'love'. Love desires the greatest good for the other which is heaven. Look at the so called gay pride parade (pride is, of course, the first of the seven deadly sins) and does it look normal or does it look obscene?
Tolerance has led to legalizing and it will lead to forced acceptance and then to persecuation for those who do not. It is demonic at the core.
6.28.2011 | 2:37pm
Jan says:
Bruce Boyd writes:
"One wonders what the reaction will be when people whose desires are for more than one person decide that they, too, want "marriage equality"."
I expect those people will eventually be granted marriage equality. Polygamy has a much more sensible rational than SSM, it has cultural roots going back centuries, and it is currently practiced all over the globe. There are all sorts of interesting "marriage" permutations one can expect. The word has lost it's meaning to a great degree. Which by the way has been the goal of many liberal and radical activists for decades. And now that it seems commonsense to many that the State has the power to declare and define nature...well...it's an interesting time isn't it? Caligula "married" his horse if I remember correctly. But then again, he was insane.
"One wonders what the reaction will be when people whose desires are for more than one person decide that they, too, want "marriage equality"."
I expect those people will eventually be granted marriage equality. Polygamy has a much more sensible rational than SSM, it has cultural roots going back centuries, and it is currently practiced all over the globe. There are all sorts of interesting "marriage" permutations one can expect. The word has lost it's meaning to a great degree. Which by the way has been the goal of many liberal and radical activists for decades. And now that it seems commonsense to many that the State has the power to declare and define nature...well...it's an interesting time isn't it? Caligula "married" his horse if I remember correctly. But then again, he was insane.
6.28.2011 | 2:55pm
Lewis says:
"PC gender neurosis, a result of the feminist meltdown of the 60s and 70s, shows itself today in constant usage of "them" when discussing a SINGULAR object or subject of KNOWN gender. Pet peeve on socio-political and grammatical levels"
Help. Shakespeare was also a victim of PC gender neurosis, using "them" when discussing a singular object. Perhaps he was Swedish.
Help. Shakespeare was also a victim of PC gender neurosis, using "them" when discussing a singular object. Perhaps he was Swedish.
6.28.2011 | 3:49pm
Edward Alleyn says:
Thank you for a fine essay. May God have mercy on New York.
By the way, I've just been reading Paul (Corinthians) on women. If you have a mind to, would you address his advice concerning them one of these days?
By the way, I've just been reading Paul (Corinthians) on women. If you have a mind to, would you address his advice concerning them one of these days?
6.28.2011 | 4:06pm
David Nickol says:
Magdalene,
You say, "This will not be the end. Persecuation for those who stand firm on the true meaning of marriage will ensue. Because really there is no human law that will ever change the natural law; sodomy is perversion."
The earliest Christians were willing—in many cases *eager*—to suffer and die for their faith. Nowadays, Christians opposed to gay rights seem terrified that if the people in the office where they work find out that they are anti-gay, they will be unpopular. It seems to me conservative Christians do not have the courage of their convictions. They denounce modern society, and then they expect to be given "religious exemptions," and they whine of someone calls them bigots. Gay people have held up a lot better under Christian intolerance than Christians seem prepared to do under the allegedly future persecution of the "homosexual agenda." Fortunately for timid Christians, future persecution is actually a fantasy. Do you know how *comfortably* you all live now? Do these words have any meaning today?
Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me.
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
You say, "This will not be the end. Persecuation for those who stand firm on the true meaning of marriage will ensue. Because really there is no human law that will ever change the natural law; sodomy is perversion."
The earliest Christians were willing—in many cases *eager*—to suffer and die for their faith. Nowadays, Christians opposed to gay rights seem terrified that if the people in the office where they work find out that they are anti-gay, they will be unpopular. It seems to me conservative Christians do not have the courage of their convictions. They denounce modern society, and then they expect to be given "religious exemptions," and they whine of someone calls them bigots. Gay people have held up a lot better under Christian intolerance than Christians seem prepared to do under the allegedly future persecution of the "homosexual agenda." Fortunately for timid Christians, future persecution is actually a fantasy. Do you know how *comfortably* you all live now? Do these words have any meaning today?
Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me.
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
6.28.2011 | 4:13pm
Tony says:
I too, like Thomas R, am a same-sex attracted guy living a celibate life. It is difficult and I very much appreciate these reflections by Elizabeth. We all need a compass to guide our lives to make it less easy to steer off course. Thanks.
Regards from Canada.
Regards from Canada.
6.28.2011 | 4:20pm
The Auld Curmudgeon says:
People who think gender-free pronouns and suchlike will ensure a society of equality should contemplate the Japanese language and society. Or even contemplate that in the German language "manliness" is a feminine noun ("die Maennlichkeit"). Theories free of empirical content: they always =sound= good, but they simply don't work.
6.28.2011 | 4:51pm
Brian English says:
"Fortunately for timid Christians, future persecution is actually a fantasy. "
Tell Catholic Charities in Massachusetts that. You could also explain that to Elaine Huguenin and her husband. I am sure they will be very comforted by your words.
Tell Catholic Charities in Massachusetts that. You could also explain that to Elaine Huguenin and her husband. I am sure they will be very comforted by your words.
6.28.2011 | 5:14pm
Jan says:
Margaret writes:
"Tolerance has led to legalizing and it will lead to forced acceptance and then to persecuation for those who do not. "
Thankfully Margaret we have a first amendment. I don't expect persecution in the future as much as I expect more nonsense. Of course I could be wrong. So be it.
The truth of the matter is that homosexuals shun marriage like the plague once it becomes lawful. Marriage is what it is and the exertions of activists and clueless judges or legislatures won't change that. Life goes on. Heterosexuals will keep having families and gays will continue living as they always have. People already make distinctions between "gay marriage" and " traditional marriage". Now, I don't think all of this is just, good, or fair. I think it's essentially foolishness and I don't think it going to help anyone truly flourish. But, I guess societies have always done stupid things. Nature, like the Church goes on. They're both greater than any civilization.
"Tolerance has led to legalizing and it will lead to forced acceptance and then to persecuation for those who do not. "
Thankfully Margaret we have a first amendment. I don't expect persecution in the future as much as I expect more nonsense. Of course I could be wrong. So be it.
The truth of the matter is that homosexuals shun marriage like the plague once it becomes lawful. Marriage is what it is and the exertions of activists and clueless judges or legislatures won't change that. Life goes on. Heterosexuals will keep having families and gays will continue living as they always have. People already make distinctions between "gay marriage" and " traditional marriage". Now, I don't think all of this is just, good, or fair. I think it's essentially foolishness and I don't think it going to help anyone truly flourish. But, I guess societies have always done stupid things. Nature, like the Church goes on. They're both greater than any civilization.
6.28.2011 | 5:22pm
Alan says:
Why didn't the sister just use the grey shade in both restrooms? Seem like she wasn't quite as into equality as you would like for your story.
In fact, maybe your story breaks down for the same reason. Maybe it is possible to have broad equal treatment across groups and still respect for the differences among individuals.
Maybe gender neutral language for God makes sense because the need of humans to assume that God is restricted by our genders is a relic of pagan gods and not becoming of a true All Mighty.
Maybe the State's definition of marriage should fit the State's populaces need and not any one religion's needs. Maybe the problem with language is your need to define it for others. Maybe the problem isn't for those who look to increase equality but is for those like you who can't contend with changes to their position of power and world view that our increasingly integrated society brings.
In short, maybe the only problem here lies with you and rather than projecting on others you should confront what you are rejecting - "the challenge and adventure that leads to the pearl of great price: the call to be “other” than your own declaration. It is actually a personal call, and an individual one, made to each of us—it is a call that transcends the voluntary boxes we place around ourselves, our types and categories, and it is never sterile."
In fact, maybe your story breaks down for the same reason. Maybe it is possible to have broad equal treatment across groups and still respect for the differences among individuals.
Maybe gender neutral language for God makes sense because the need of humans to assume that God is restricted by our genders is a relic of pagan gods and not becoming of a true All Mighty.
Maybe the State's definition of marriage should fit the State's populaces need and not any one religion's needs. Maybe the problem with language is your need to define it for others. Maybe the problem isn't for those who look to increase equality but is for those like you who can't contend with changes to their position of power and world view that our increasingly integrated society brings.
In short, maybe the only problem here lies with you and rather than projecting on others you should confront what you are rejecting - "the challenge and adventure that leads to the pearl of great price: the call to be “other” than your own declaration. It is actually a personal call, and an individual one, made to each of us—it is a call that transcends the voluntary boxes we place around ourselves, our types and categories, and it is never sterile."
6.28.2011 | 7:32pm
Richard M says:
This is one of your most insightful essays to date, Elizabeth - thanks for sharing it.
6.28.2011 | 8:12pm
Aaron Rasmussen says:
"Equality, I spoke the word
as if a wedding vow.
But I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now."
-Bob Dylan, My Back Pages
I enjoy reading Ms. Scalia very much.
Marriage carries with it certain practical benefits. For example, spouses can generally make end-of-life care decisions for each other without the existence of a living will. Property can be transferred between spouses, or inherited, easily and usually with great tax benefits. Most health insurance benefits earned through employment will cover a spouse, but not a "life partner". The legal rights, responsibilities and obligations that come with marriage are substantial.
The effects of these rights go well-beyond the material, tangible benefits they impart. Imagine if the person you loved was dying in a hospital and you were not allowed to visit or stay with them the way a spouse would, or to make decisions on their behalf when they are no longer able. You may have been together for 30 years, but to the hospital you have no more rights than a stranger off the street. To be married is to be able to participate fully in the life of the other person. It is not about sexuality - it is about true partnership.
And so, while I agree whole-heartedly that "equality", taken to extremes, is an illusion (and it is dangerous to pursue any illusion), we should not lose sight of the fact that it has a basic, common sense, honest-to-goodness application to social reality that is essentially constructive and not destructive. That is particularly true when it comes to the law. "Equal justice under law" is what it says on the outside of the Supreme Court building. That is neither a platitude nor a utopian illusion. It is a statement of basic decency and fairness. And many people see the denial of the right to marry for same-sex couples as a violation of that principle.
Someone like Sister Decorator makes an easy target - but let's not forget that there are many easy targets out there among the Christian faithful who have taken their beliefs to strange and destructive extremes. We don't let the bad examples delegitimize the principle. Almost any principle will become distorted and ugly when stretched beyond its beneficial use.
Equality has become an absurd fetish for some. But pointing out this reality, and then extrapolating that into a criticism of those individuals who are struggling to achieve basic legal rights is unfair. It demeans those who are seeking common sense, practical equality under the law.
as if a wedding vow.
But I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now."
-Bob Dylan, My Back Pages
I enjoy reading Ms. Scalia very much.
Marriage carries with it certain practical benefits. For example, spouses can generally make end-of-life care decisions for each other without the existence of a living will. Property can be transferred between spouses, or inherited, easily and usually with great tax benefits. Most health insurance benefits earned through employment will cover a spouse, but not a "life partner". The legal rights, responsibilities and obligations that come with marriage are substantial.
The effects of these rights go well-beyond the material, tangible benefits they impart. Imagine if the person you loved was dying in a hospital and you were not allowed to visit or stay with them the way a spouse would, or to make decisions on their behalf when they are no longer able. You may have been together for 30 years, but to the hospital you have no more rights than a stranger off the street. To be married is to be able to participate fully in the life of the other person. It is not about sexuality - it is about true partnership.
And so, while I agree whole-heartedly that "equality", taken to extremes, is an illusion (and it is dangerous to pursue any illusion), we should not lose sight of the fact that it has a basic, common sense, honest-to-goodness application to social reality that is essentially constructive and not destructive. That is particularly true when it comes to the law. "Equal justice under law" is what it says on the outside of the Supreme Court building. That is neither a platitude nor a utopian illusion. It is a statement of basic decency and fairness. And many people see the denial of the right to marry for same-sex couples as a violation of that principle.
Someone like Sister Decorator makes an easy target - but let's not forget that there are many easy targets out there among the Christian faithful who have taken their beliefs to strange and destructive extremes. We don't let the bad examples delegitimize the principle. Almost any principle will become distorted and ugly when stretched beyond its beneficial use.
Equality has become an absurd fetish for some. But pointing out this reality, and then extrapolating that into a criticism of those individuals who are struggling to achieve basic legal rights is unfair. It demeans those who are seeking common sense, practical equality under the law.
6.28.2011 | 8:18pm
Jay says:
Thank you Elizabeth Scalia for your writing. "...we know in our hearts that true equality exists only within the Triune God".
I'm reminded of St. Augustine, "If you see charity, you see the Trinity".
I'm reminded of St. Augustine, "If you see charity, you see the Trinity".
6.28.2011 | 8:22pm
Jan says:
It appears my comment was lost in the ether, so to repeat:
Magdalene writes:
"Tolerance has led to legalizing and it will lead to forced acceptance and then to persecuation for those who do not. "
Thankfully Magdalene we have a first amendment. I don't expect persecution in the future as much as I expect more nonsense. Of course I could be wrong. So be it.
The truth of the matter is that homosexuals shun marriage like the plague once it becomes lawful. Marriage is what it is and the exertions of activists and clueless judges or legislatures won't change that. Life goes on. Heterosexuals will keep having families and gays will continue living as they always have. People already make distinctions between "gay marriage" and " traditional marriage". Now, I don't think all of this is just, good, or fair. I think it's essentially foolishness and I don't think it going to help anyone truly flourish. But, I guess societies have always done stupid things. Nature, like the Church goes on. They're both more powerful than any civilization.
Magdalene writes:
"Tolerance has led to legalizing and it will lead to forced acceptance and then to persecuation for those who do not. "
Thankfully Magdalene we have a first amendment. I don't expect persecution in the future as much as I expect more nonsense. Of course I could be wrong. So be it.
The truth of the matter is that homosexuals shun marriage like the plague once it becomes lawful. Marriage is what it is and the exertions of activists and clueless judges or legislatures won't change that. Life goes on. Heterosexuals will keep having families and gays will continue living as they always have. People already make distinctions between "gay marriage" and " traditional marriage". Now, I don't think all of this is just, good, or fair. I think it's essentially foolishness and I don't think it going to help anyone truly flourish. But, I guess societies have always done stupid things. Nature, like the Church goes on. They're both more powerful than any civilization.
6.28.2011 | 8:37pm
Joseph Marshall says:
Very, very nice Elizabeth. You're really picking up some speed. I'm beginning to look forward to Tuesdays.
There is a chronic confusion between what is meant by "equality" as a rhetorical goal and what is really involved in "equal protection of the law". It is this which is at work here in the legalization of gay marriage. But both Sister Decorator and you are confused about these two things. Without agendas, a moment's thought will suffice to dissolve the notion that "equality" is the same as "identicality". But the issue of gay marriage is not about identicality.
It is important to note that such gay marriages that will take place will largely be "civil marriages" but not religious ones. Why? Because a little research has brought me to this article, "Problems and Solutions regarding Natural Marriage and Civil Marriage" by Fr. Paul Sretenovic. Now I don't know what this good father's position is in the politics of the Church, but he is far more forthright than anyone else I have read about the Church's position on non-Christian marriages. He may be in error, and, if so, I invite correction. But he is admirably clear, and this is very refreshing. Here is how he describes our post-Enlightenment situation:
"the State abolished the superiority of the Catholic Church before civil law. All religions are equal before the law – says the indifferentist democratic aphorism – and therefore the Catholic marriage should be on the same level as the Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, or any other marriage. Doing this, the State frontally rejected Catholic marriage. It completely denied the Sacrament its temporal rights and decreed that only civil marriage was valid."
He describes the actual and practical process of religious marriage today as essentially two marriages, one Catholic and the other Civil with the priest acting as the agent of civil authority, and it is only that second marriage that stands under law.
Fr.Sretenovic further notes that up to Vatican II, the Church adamantly opposed to the notion of Civil Marriage at all. He then points out that after Vatican II:
"The same doctrine continued to be defended in theory, but a different policy was adopted in practice....the Church adopted a modus vivendi [a way to live] with the Modern State. She set aside the fight for a restoration of the Catholic State as well as her rights regarding Catholic marriage. The Church agreed to coexist with the Modern State, closing her eyes to the fact that Catholics had to “marry” again before the civil authority in order to have their civil rights recognized."
It is these same civil rights that have just been recognized, for gay couples, by the State of New York. And this clearly has no impact whatever on the "civil rights" of Catholic [or other Christian] couples. None.
Now if, in fact, the Church's point of view actually remains approximately like this:
"marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman in order to generate and educate offspring to conserve and propagate the human race. If a marriage between non-baptized persons was entered into with this purpose, then Catholic doctrine considers it legitimate. This kind of marriage exists today among Jews, Arabs, and pagan peoples.....When the Church recognizes these marriages as legitimate she is not saying that those religions are true, because they are not. Nor is she affirming that the civil authority by itself has the full right over marriages, because it does not. She is just acknowledging them as an authority that witnesses and ratifies the contract between the two parties."
I am left to wonder just what "right" of recognition the Church does claim toward marriages among the unbaptized. Certainly the unbaptized themselves would be astonished at such a claim. At least I would be. I am also left wondering just what special "temporal rights" the Church still claims [at least in theory] for the marriage Sacrament.
Are some marriages, as George Orwell puts it, "more equal than others" before the law? Should they be?
If so, that is the real problem. It is not about gays. Not really. It is about the unresolved issue of whether or not "all religions are equal before the law". I must say that I have to personally stand by the notions that "civil rights" for one is civil rights for all, that this commitment to providing "equal protection of law" is a commitment that the State has a right to make in all matters [including marriage], and that all religions should remain equal before the law, whatever claims they may make of possessing the Truth.
As one of the "unbaptized" and as the follower of a religion that embraces about 1/300th of the American people, I think my point of view has some practical reason on its side.
There is a chronic confusion between what is meant by "equality" as a rhetorical goal and what is really involved in "equal protection of the law". It is this which is at work here in the legalization of gay marriage. But both Sister Decorator and you are confused about these two things. Without agendas, a moment's thought will suffice to dissolve the notion that "equality" is the same as "identicality". But the issue of gay marriage is not about identicality.
It is important to note that such gay marriages that will take place will largely be "civil marriages" but not religious ones. Why? Because a little research has brought me to this article, "Problems and Solutions regarding Natural Marriage and Civil Marriage" by Fr. Paul Sretenovic. Now I don't know what this good father's position is in the politics of the Church, but he is far more forthright than anyone else I have read about the Church's position on non-Christian marriages. He may be in error, and, if so, I invite correction. But he is admirably clear, and this is very refreshing. Here is how he describes our post-Enlightenment situation:
"the State abolished the superiority of the Catholic Church before civil law. All religions are equal before the law – says the indifferentist democratic aphorism – and therefore the Catholic marriage should be on the same level as the Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, or any other marriage. Doing this, the State frontally rejected Catholic marriage. It completely denied the Sacrament its temporal rights and decreed that only civil marriage was valid."
He describes the actual and practical process of religious marriage today as essentially two marriages, one Catholic and the other Civil with the priest acting as the agent of civil authority, and it is only that second marriage that stands under law.
Fr.Sretenovic further notes that up to Vatican II, the Church adamantly opposed to the notion of Civil Marriage at all. He then points out that after Vatican II:
"The same doctrine continued to be defended in theory, but a different policy was adopted in practice....the Church adopted a modus vivendi [a way to live] with the Modern State. She set aside the fight for a restoration of the Catholic State as well as her rights regarding Catholic marriage. The Church agreed to coexist with the Modern State, closing her eyes to the fact that Catholics had to “marry” again before the civil authority in order to have their civil rights recognized."
It is these same civil rights that have just been recognized, for gay couples, by the State of New York. And this clearly has no impact whatever on the "civil rights" of Catholic [or other Christian] couples. None.
Now if, in fact, the Church's point of view actually remains approximately like this:
"marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman in order to generate and educate offspring to conserve and propagate the human race. If a marriage between non-baptized persons was entered into with this purpose, then Catholic doctrine considers it legitimate. This kind of marriage exists today among Jews, Arabs, and pagan peoples.....When the Church recognizes these marriages as legitimate she is not saying that those religions are true, because they are not. Nor is she affirming that the civil authority by itself has the full right over marriages, because it does not. She is just acknowledging them as an authority that witnesses and ratifies the contract between the two parties."
I am left to wonder just what "right" of recognition the Church does claim toward marriages among the unbaptized. Certainly the unbaptized themselves would be astonished at such a claim. At least I would be. I am also left wondering just what special "temporal rights" the Church still claims [at least in theory] for the marriage Sacrament.
Are some marriages, as George Orwell puts it, "more equal than others" before the law? Should they be?
If so, that is the real problem. It is not about gays. Not really. It is about the unresolved issue of whether or not "all religions are equal before the law". I must say that I have to personally stand by the notions that "civil rights" for one is civil rights for all, that this commitment to providing "equal protection of law" is a commitment that the State has a right to make in all matters [including marriage], and that all religions should remain equal before the law, whatever claims they may make of possessing the Truth.
As one of the "unbaptized" and as the follower of a religion that embraces about 1/300th of the American people, I think my point of view has some practical reason on its side.
6.28.2011 | 8:51pm
PJC says:
Unfortunately, marriage as a secular institution has been gutted of any real meaning in the west for some time. This latest move is the equivalent of kicking a dead dog. Their is a direct corrolation between how much human suffering we find in certain communities and the value placed on marriage.
6.28.2011 | 9:32pm
Mary De Voe says:
God creates in the human being a soul. This soul makes him equal, a human being and a likeness of God Who has a soul. Angels and devils do not have souls. They have no human body to entertain a soul. It is the mission of the Catholic Church to save souls and if one is a Catholic, one must concern himself with saving souls. If one has a homosexual predisposition, one must save souls. To reject the idea of another person's soul is diabolical. Practicing homosexual partners must reject the idea of another person's immortal soul.
6.28.2011 | 9:45pm
Mary De Voe says:
@John Marshal: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal..." by our Creator, not by the state, but by God. These are our founding principles inscribed in The Declaration of Independence. Anyone who repudiates these founding principles, repudiates his citizenship and his legal standing in a court of law because he denies to other human beings unalienable rights. Equality under the law is acknowledging God as endower of rights and the created soul of the human person. The created soul of the human being brought into existence when two become one is endowed with sovereign personhood by the Supreme Sovereign Being. There is only one Supreme Sovereign Being as two would preempt each other. Equality under the law is defined by our, almighty God. Acknowledgement of God and God's law is freedom. The rest is tyranny to a lie and perjury in a court of law.
6.28.2011 | 9:53pm
GABRIEL says:
The word "equality" is a falsehood.
Instead of calling it "equality", call it by it`s true name:
Gender-Communism.
Womens rebellion against their men, equals Lucifers rebellion against his Creator. Lucifer wanted to be "equal" to God.
He is not. And he never will be.
Nor will any woman ever be "equal" to a man.
Feminism is therefor sister to Satanism.
End of debate.
Instead of calling it "equality", call it by it`s true name:
Gender-Communism.
Womens rebellion against their men, equals Lucifers rebellion against his Creator. Lucifer wanted to be "equal" to God.
He is not. And he never will be.
Nor will any woman ever be "equal" to a man.
Feminism is therefor sister to Satanism.
End of debate.
6.28.2011 | 10:02pm
Mary De Voe says:
John Marshall. You like to sound as though you had not been created by God, but let me assure you, even Lucifer, the great devil is created by God as an angel of light. Your condescension towards Elizabeth Scalia is well noted. And as Lord of the Flies, you know a little bit about everything and much about nothing. Chaos is your chief weapon So, I will quote to you what Jesus Christ said about the Sacrament of Matrimony: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's".
6.28.2011 | 10:29pm
Mary De Voe says:
Edward Alleyn says:
Thank you for a fine essay. May God have mercy on New York.
By the way, I've just been reading Paul (Corinthians) on women. If you have a mind to, would you address his advice concerning them one of these days?
If I may: St Paul addresses "wives". "Wives" is being an office of women who freely choose to be in that office. So, St Paul acknowledges the freedom of women to consent to marriage and become wives. St. Paul instructs women in how to behave as wives and also instructs "husbands, love your wives". Any woman who is loved by her husband is blessed by God. Any man who is loved by his wife is blessed by God. In another: Social scientists took a secular survey and discovered that when women wore hats, men became more prosperous, worked harder and especially became more creative. Is it hats or modesty we need to pull our economy out of perdition?
Thank you for a fine essay. May God have mercy on New York.
By the way, I've just been reading Paul (Corinthians) on women. If you have a mind to, would you address his advice concerning them one of these days?
If I may: St Paul addresses "wives". "Wives" is being an office of women who freely choose to be in that office. So, St Paul acknowledges the freedom of women to consent to marriage and become wives. St. Paul instructs women in how to behave as wives and also instructs "husbands, love your wives". Any woman who is loved by her husband is blessed by God. Any man who is loved by his wife is blessed by God. In another: Social scientists took a secular survey and discovered that when women wore hats, men became more prosperous, worked harder and especially became more creative. Is it hats or modesty we need to pull our economy out of perdition?
6.29.2011 | 1:10am
Jan says:
Aaron Rasmussen,
The problems with your statements are legion. Let's just mention a few. First, "true partnerships" and the ability to "fully participate in the life " of a partner, can only be achieved via marriage? This is nonsense on stilts. Tell that to the many homosexual lovers from ancient times till now who shared their entire lives even unto death. Up until five minutes ago marriage was considered (and still is by many) to be the anti-thesis of gay love. Tell that to the legions of never married heterosexual lovers who've haunted the pages of countless poems and songs down the ages. What are you talking about? And as for all the practical matters you mention, those are easily solved in other ways, such as domestic partnerships. The push for gay marriage isn't about solving these practical concerns. And it isn't about sharing lives among lovers. It's a cry for acceptance via government coercion.
You mention "Equal justice under the law" and fairness. How does this apply in this case? The law treats different social arrangements differently. Corporations are not treated the same as families. Townships are treated differently than churches. A non-profit is treated differently than a friendship. Your mistake is to assume that homosexual partnerships are the same as marriages and therefore ought to be treated the same. In what way are they similar such that the state has an interest in promoting and privileging homosexual partnerships in the same way it has marriages? What benefit does the State receive to justify doing so? Being fair has nothing to do with giving people what they want, which in this case is affirmation than anything else.
As Mrs. Scalia said so well in her article, the only affirmation any if us can have comes after we all give up our "illusions of equality".
The problems with your statements are legion. Let's just mention a few. First, "true partnerships" and the ability to "fully participate in the life " of a partner, can only be achieved via marriage? This is nonsense on stilts. Tell that to the many homosexual lovers from ancient times till now who shared their entire lives even unto death. Up until five minutes ago marriage was considered (and still is by many) to be the anti-thesis of gay love. Tell that to the legions of never married heterosexual lovers who've haunted the pages of countless poems and songs down the ages. What are you talking about? And as for all the practical matters you mention, those are easily solved in other ways, such as domestic partnerships. The push for gay marriage isn't about solving these practical concerns. And it isn't about sharing lives among lovers. It's a cry for acceptance via government coercion.
You mention "Equal justice under the law" and fairness. How does this apply in this case? The law treats different social arrangements differently. Corporations are not treated the same as families. Townships are treated differently than churches. A non-profit is treated differently than a friendship. Your mistake is to assume that homosexual partnerships are the same as marriages and therefore ought to be treated the same. In what way are they similar such that the state has an interest in promoting and privileging homosexual partnerships in the same way it has marriages? What benefit does the State receive to justify doing so? Being fair has nothing to do with giving people what they want, which in this case is affirmation than anything else.
As Mrs. Scalia said so well in her article, the only affirmation any if us can have comes after we all give up our "illusions of equality".
6.29.2011 | 1:59am
charles woodbury says:
This issue is not about equal rights, but a requirement that all peoples look at the acts of sodomy as normal, acceptable and wholesome. And the catholic church will be persecuted and greatly so, as she has become the special target of our home-grown culture of death. If the few other religions in agreement with ours were so singled out, hell would be raised.
And may God bless those previous commenters who are tempted that way, but carry that cross for the glory of God.
And may God bless those previous commenters who are tempted that way, but carry that cross for the glory of God.
6.29.2011 | 6:45am
Joseph Marshall says:
"And as Lord of the Flies, you know a little bit about everything and much about nothing. Chaos is your chief weapon."
I hardly know whether to be complemented or annoyed by Mary Devoe's characterization of me. I do think, however, that such personal remarks really do not "contribute to the discussion", and the Comment Moderator should exercise more discrimination about them than he appears to have.
In any event, since the matter has been brought up, Elizabeth has been my very friendly adversary since November of 2004, when she first began to blog anonymously as The Anchoress. And it has been my immense pleasure to watch how she has grown in confidence, command of language, and influence over the last six years. Our areas of agreement have been few [though more than you might suspect] but our pleasure in agreeing to disagree has been one of the finest things I have encountered on the Internet.
Since the matter has also been brought up, I happen to be Buddhist, and, as such, stand for tolerance of others and freedom, within the law, for all. We don't give a great deal of thought to who created us or when and how, but we do note very carefully that an angry mind gives the person who possesses it nothing but constant and interminable suffering. I think I can say that the issue of gay marriage has attracted the attention of a great many uncontrolled and angry minds, whose thoughts on the issue are redolent with uncomprehended and unacknowledged suffering that is likely to continue indefinitely.
Elizabeth is not one of these angry minds. This is one reason why I find reading her to be a pleasure, even if I happen to disagree with her.
I hardly know whether to be complemented or annoyed by Mary Devoe's characterization of me. I do think, however, that such personal remarks really do not "contribute to the discussion", and the Comment Moderator should exercise more discrimination about them than he appears to have.
In any event, since the matter has been brought up, Elizabeth has been my very friendly adversary since November of 2004, when she first began to blog anonymously as The Anchoress. And it has been my immense pleasure to watch how she has grown in confidence, command of language, and influence over the last six years. Our areas of agreement have been few [though more than you might suspect] but our pleasure in agreeing to disagree has been one of the finest things I have encountered on the Internet.
Since the matter has also been brought up, I happen to be Buddhist, and, as such, stand for tolerance of others and freedom, within the law, for all. We don't give a great deal of thought to who created us or when and how, but we do note very carefully that an angry mind gives the person who possesses it nothing but constant and interminable suffering. I think I can say that the issue of gay marriage has attracted the attention of a great many uncontrolled and angry minds, whose thoughts on the issue are redolent with uncomprehended and unacknowledged suffering that is likely to continue indefinitely.
Elizabeth is not one of these angry minds. This is one reason why I find reading her to be a pleasure, even if I happen to disagree with her.
6.29.2011 | 7:24am
Thomas R says:
"Love is love"
I posted above, but as I actually have both same and opposite sex attractions I'm going to say that this is at least not really true in my experience.
I would hesitantly say that I have, perhaps in a sense I don't want to upset people, been "in love" with both a man and a woman at different points. Men and women are however different so no it wasn't the same. I'm not entirely sure how to explain the difference, but it is real. At least some of the British people who have had both same and opposite-sex partners say it is different. The guy who sang the 80s hit "You Spin Me Right Round", I can't remember his name, said that "marrying" a guy was different than when he married a woman.
So in a strange way I agree more with radical gays than the mainstream, I suppose. In that many of them I've heard are skeptical of attempts to be re-made/re-branded as "Virtually Normal." I'm not "Virtually Normal." I'm odd in all kinds of ways, not just my attractions. I aspire to be "peculiar" in the way I feel a Christian should, but I'm actually not that interested in demanding of others how they express or define their difference. (Whatever that difference or expression means, even if it means choosing not to express) Still to me this article was in part about the narrowing uniformity people like Russel Kirk feared in Left-wing politics. And I share it and have come to see same-sex marriage as part of it. (I was not always that opposed. My original view was that SSM is a state matter and if they want to try it okay. I didn't feel it a "right", but I felt whether it was bad or good depending on testing it to see the results. A part of me actually still sees it that way, but I think the opponents have or can have more reasonable concerns then people believe)
I posted above, but as I actually have both same and opposite sex attractions I'm going to say that this is at least not really true in my experience.
I would hesitantly say that I have, perhaps in a sense I don't want to upset people, been "in love" with both a man and a woman at different points. Men and women are however different so no it wasn't the same. I'm not entirely sure how to explain the difference, but it is real. At least some of the British people who have had both same and opposite-sex partners say it is different. The guy who sang the 80s hit "You Spin Me Right Round", I can't remember his name, said that "marrying" a guy was different than when he married a woman.
So in a strange way I agree more with radical gays than the mainstream, I suppose. In that many of them I've heard are skeptical of attempts to be re-made/re-branded as "Virtually Normal." I'm not "Virtually Normal." I'm odd in all kinds of ways, not just my attractions. I aspire to be "peculiar" in the way I feel a Christian should, but I'm actually not that interested in demanding of others how they express or define their difference. (Whatever that difference or expression means, even if it means choosing not to express) Still to me this article was in part about the narrowing uniformity people like Russel Kirk feared in Left-wing politics. And I share it and have come to see same-sex marriage as part of it. (I was not always that opposed. My original view was that SSM is a state matter and if they want to try it okay. I didn't feel it a "right", but I felt whether it was bad or good depending on testing it to see the results. A part of me actually still sees it that way, but I think the opponents have or can have more reasonable concerns then people believe)
6.29.2011 | 8:18am
Mary De Voe says:
Now that the State of New York has homogenized its constituents, what are the chances that NY will pasteurize us, body and soul?
When, if ever, will the state of New York and every other state give equal standing to the human being, being composed of body and soul? Without acknowledging the human soul, the state arrogates to itself total control of the very persons who in sovereign personhood constitute its government. Without the acknowledgment of the human soul, man becomes property of the state. From Whom does sovereign personhood endowed by our Creator come? The Sacrament of Matrimony is an exchange of souls. God tells man:"For you are men sacred to me." This is God explaining why HE gives us the Commandments. Since only God and human beings have souls, the devil cannot marry. The devil was created with no soul, no body, no reproductive seed, no genitals. The devil is so jealous of man and man's soul, that he spends eternity in hell lying about himself. So, the Sacrament of Matrimony is an occasion for God to create new souls.
When, if ever, will the state of New York and every other state give equal standing to the human being, being composed of body and soul? Without acknowledging the human soul, the state arrogates to itself total control of the very persons who in sovereign personhood constitute its government. Without the acknowledgment of the human soul, man becomes property of the state. From Whom does sovereign personhood endowed by our Creator come? The Sacrament of Matrimony is an exchange of souls. God tells man:"For you are men sacred to me." This is God explaining why HE gives us the Commandments. Since only God and human beings have souls, the devil cannot marry. The devil was created with no soul, no body, no reproductive seed, no genitals. The devil is so jealous of man and man's soul, that he spends eternity in hell lying about himself. So, the Sacrament of Matrimony is an occasion for God to create new souls.
6.29.2011 | 8:47am
Mary De Voe says:
"Gay-marriage" for individuals who will not, do not and cannot explain their existence is the imposition of ignorance on mankind and perjury in a court of law.
6.29.2011 | 9:16am
Donna Parker says:
It's funny in this day and age the argument of same sex marriage still exists. Equally as funny is heterosexuals seem more reluctant to marriage (in some quarters) than the homosexual community who see it as a real opportunity to define their commitment.
6.29.2011 | 10:48am
Jennifer Olson says:
Problem is marriage was erroded long ago by my parents and now my generation when we started looking at marriage as just a legal contract that two people who love each other do. I personally intend to make reparation for my sins against chastity, by learning what the true meaning of my vocation in marriage really is and then teaching it to my child and future grandchildren. And if it lands me in jail in the future for teaching them that marriage means more than just something two people who love each other do, then so be it. It will only provide me more time with God in which to pray the rosary on my fingers and toes. Might be the only way to get retirement when I'm older. :)
6.29.2011 | 11:04am
Bruce Boyd says:
Aaron Rasmussen writes,
""Equal justice under law" is what it says on the outside of the Supreme Court building. That is neither a platitude nor a utopian illusion. It is a statement of basic decency and fairness. And many people see the denial of the right to marry for same-sex couples as a violation of that principle."
My mother was married for several years. In 1995, my father died, and since then, my mother has lived as an unmarried person. I, too, am currently single. My mother and I each have our own health insurance programs. Is it "fair" that my mother and I are denied the "right" to marry? Shouldn't we -- both adults, capable of making adult decisions, and both in love with one another, be allowed to "marry" in order to enjoy "Equal justice under the law"?
If "fairness" is the measure for "equal justice", then could you explain to me the fairness behind denying me the "right" to "marry" my own mother, so that we can enjoy the legal benefits that marriage confers?
""Equal justice under law" is what it says on the outside of the Supreme Court building. That is neither a platitude nor a utopian illusion. It is a statement of basic decency and fairness. And many people see the denial of the right to marry for same-sex couples as a violation of that principle."
My mother was married for several years. In 1995, my father died, and since then, my mother has lived as an unmarried person. I, too, am currently single. My mother and I each have our own health insurance programs. Is it "fair" that my mother and I are denied the "right" to marry? Shouldn't we -- both adults, capable of making adult decisions, and both in love with one another, be allowed to "marry" in order to enjoy "Equal justice under the law"?
If "fairness" is the measure for "equal justice", then could you explain to me the fairness behind denying me the "right" to "marry" my own mother, so that we can enjoy the legal benefits that marriage confers?
6.29.2011 | 11:15am
Brian English says:
"It's funny in this day and age the argument of same sex marriage still exists. Equally as funny is heterosexuals seem more reluctant to marriage (in some quarters) than the homosexual community who see it as a real opportunity to define their commitment. "
This is simply not true. In both foreign countries and states in this country that have adopted SSM or civil partnership laws, a very low percentage of gay couples have seen it "as a real opportunity to define their commitment."
This is simply not true. In both foreign countries and states in this country that have adopted SSM or civil partnership laws, a very low percentage of gay couples have seen it "as a real opportunity to define their commitment."
6.29.2011 | 1:21pm
Peg says:
I still don't see why the state has any interest in supporting gay marriage. What good will it provide the state? Why does the state want gays to marry? What difference does it make to the state if a gay couple is married or just "living in sin"?
Some people quote Andrew Sullivan to the effect that gay marriage will encourage monogamy between the often/usually promiscuous gay couples (as if we all understand that to be a good thing). Who cares if gay couples are promiscuous? What difference will gay monogamy make to our civilization? Is the state approving gay marriage just to spare hurt feelings ("it's not fair")?
Some people quote Andrew Sullivan to the effect that gay marriage will encourage monogamy between the often/usually promiscuous gay couples (as if we all understand that to be a good thing). Who cares if gay couples are promiscuous? What difference will gay monogamy make to our civilization? Is the state approving gay marriage just to spare hurt feelings ("it's not fair")?
6.29.2011 | 1:40pm
Joseph Marshall says:
I haven't had time to track it down and confirm it, but I have heard that a recent Census report has discerned that, for the first time, the number of cohabiting couples is now greater than the number of married couples. If this is true, then it is plausible that the greatest threat to marriage has nothing whatever to do with gays, whether they take advantage of the opportunity to marry or not.
It would be interesting to think about why these demographic changes are occurring. My guess is that the "benefits" of marriage are diminishing, the problems of getting or being married are increasing, and that most who might marry are far more interested in how it will actually impact their real lives than how any institution "defines" marriage.
The whole thing might be largely gone before we know it.
It would be interesting to think about why these demographic changes are occurring. My guess is that the "benefits" of marriage are diminishing, the problems of getting or being married are increasing, and that most who might marry are far more interested in how it will actually impact their real lives than how any institution "defines" marriage.
The whole thing might be largely gone before we know it.
6.29.2011 | 2:45pm
K Gray says:
Equality is a human notion that shrinks and pales before the love of God.
Well, that's my working hypothesis right now. I'm glad to see Ms. Scalia touch on it. We do want to assent to equality.
But equal is not same. Equal = same is a gender fallacy that set the stage for SSM. If you don't believe that, read Judge Walker's opinion in the Prop. 8 case. He worked "equal = same" well, concluding that there is nothing different about genders for purposes of marriage and parenting(!), so there could be no rational basis on which treat genders differently for purposes of civil marriage; the only possible bases for 'restricting' marriage to heterosexuals are religious tradition, prejudice and bigotry. This is all according to sociology. (It's odd to me that human biology -- science -- didn't get a set at that legal table. It gets a seat in the rest room!).
Further, strict equality is morally neutral. Anything traditional, gender-related or most particularly, of religious origin, must fall before the steamroller of equality. In this sense, equality is the sibling of relativism.
Equality needs examination. It is a fine philosophical and rational doctrine but it can't cover everything. It's no substitute for love.
Well, that's my working hypothesis right now. I'm glad to see Ms. Scalia touch on it. We do want to assent to equality.
But equal is not same. Equal = same is a gender fallacy that set the stage for SSM. If you don't believe that, read Judge Walker's opinion in the Prop. 8 case. He worked "equal = same" well, concluding that there is nothing different about genders for purposes of marriage and parenting(!), so there could be no rational basis on which treat genders differently for purposes of civil marriage; the only possible bases for 'restricting' marriage to heterosexuals are religious tradition, prejudice and bigotry. This is all according to sociology. (It's odd to me that human biology -- science -- didn't get a set at that legal table. It gets a seat in the rest room!).
Further, strict equality is morally neutral. Anything traditional, gender-related or most particularly, of religious origin, must fall before the steamroller of equality. In this sense, equality is the sibling of relativism.
Equality needs examination. It is a fine philosophical and rational doctrine but it can't cover everything. It's no substitute for love.
6.29.2011 | 5:51pm
RW says:
Jan wrote that she remembered Caligula marrying his horse. Caligula is reported not to have married Incitatus but to have made him a Roman citizen and member of the Senate. If not interrupted by Caligula's death, Incitatus was to have been promoted to Consul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitatus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitatus
6.29.2011 | 8:50pm
Mary De Voe says:
@Joseph Marshall:
Very, very nice Joseph. You're really picking up some speed. I'm beginning to look forward to Tuesdays.
Very, very nice Joseph. You're really picking up some speed. I'm beginning to look forward to Tuesdays.
6.29.2011 | 9:18pm
Mary De Voe says:
K Gray: Judge Walker in the Porp 8 case never told the court that he was a practicing homosexual with a vested interest in the outcome. As a practicing homosexual. Judge Walker ought to have recused himself. Every human being since Adam and Eve has come into the world with a father and a mother. In this, Judge Walker has dishonored his father and mother. "Honor thy father and thy mother, that thou might be long lived upon the face of the earth. The Fourth Commandment is the only commandment with a promise of longevity and prosperity. The Ten Commandments are engraved in stone in the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices are the personification of God's perfect Justice. Miscarriage of Justice is brought about by selfish interests as in Judge Walker's case. We are all God's children. Equality may not absent God, for God is a Person and to deny one Person all Persons are denied.
6.29.2011 | 9:37pm
Mary De Voe says:
RW: Whether Caligula abused his subordinates is unknown. Homosexual acts are assault and battery using the sacredness of marriage to hide the unholy acts of abuse with or without (a person cannot consent to abuse) consent. Homosexual behavior is not sexual behavior. Homosexual behavior is not the marital act, sexual intercourse, or coitus. These are the equalities the practicing homosexual participants seek. Every evil separates us from God, Who is Love. The marital act, sexual intercourse and coitus bring us closer to God in his Creative power in Love and to procreation. A new human being with body and soul is the only eqivalent to the surrender of virginty. One virgin for another virgin, perhaps even for two virgins. A newly begotten human being is Justice to the man and woman who become his father and mother.
6.29.2011 | 9:53pm
Mary De Voe says:
Joseph Marshall: "...most who might marry are far more interested in how it will actually impact their real lives than how any institution "defines" marriage."God created marriage and God defines marriage. Some people created homosexual behavior and some people define homosexual behavior. All people ought to have been given the freedom to express their will for the common good on the ballot. It has been shown that in the thirty states where gay-marriage has been put on the ballot, gay-marriage has been defeated in every case. Nullification and obliteration of our language must occur before "equality" can be given to homosexual behavior.
6.29.2011 | 10:04pm
holyterror says:
@Thomas R, just wanted to say that I totally understand what you are saying, and you are not alone in feeling that way. You are not alone, period, but I bet you know that!
Peace.
Peace.
6.29.2011 | 10:16pm
Sister Zelda says:
In the description provided in the original article I think the question is more than the language individuals use to describe God. While each of us journeying to the Holy One will speak of our experience differently, we must give each other equal rights to speak of their experience uniquely. Each of us created by God has feelings and needs that deserve equal respect. My prayer is that we will learn to hear the heart behind each others words. While the Catholic Church is free to administer matrimony according to it's insights, I do believe that all couples ought to have equal protection under the law. These are separate issues which ought to be kept separate.
6.29.2011 | 11:23pm
Joseph Marshall says:
@ Mary De Voe
One of the hardest things about agreeing to disagree is that there is a constant temptation to merely be disagreeable. This is particularly so when you believe that being disagreeable and disagreeing are essentially the same thing. As far as my own experience goes, the conquest of this temptation takes a lifetime, and may never be wholly complete. But you can't conquer any temptation unless you first reject it.
I can't say that I've conquered the temptation to be disagreeable, but I have rejected it and I actually do try not to give in to it, with what success I'll let others judge. But I think I can say that people who try not to be disagreeable when disagreeing are not all that common.
One of the hardest things about agreeing to disagree is that there is a constant temptation to merely be disagreeable. This is particularly so when you believe that being disagreeable and disagreeing are essentially the same thing. As far as my own experience goes, the conquest of this temptation takes a lifetime, and may never be wholly complete. But you can't conquer any temptation unless you first reject it.
I can't say that I've conquered the temptation to be disagreeable, but I have rejected it and I actually do try not to give in to it, with what success I'll let others judge. But I think I can say that people who try not to be disagreeable when disagreeing are not all that common.
6.30.2011 | 12:28am
Fr. Bryan says:
Wonderful article. It echoes many of my own feelings on the subject, and I often wonder what will happen to the men and women seeking "Marriage Equality" after they find out that winning this battle doesn't yield the happiness they are seeking.
Of course, I've always found more at stake in this debate than marriage itself. In the United States it is not the job of government to grant rights. Rights can't be created by elected officials or a majority of voters. Rather, the government must protect rights that are inherent in our nature (inalienable).
Thus, the government does have an interest in protecting the right of people to unite themselves in matrimony, which is a natural institution. This duty to protect the right to matrimony ends at "straight" couples who possess the ability to give consent, because they are the only ones who can truly unite as persons. It cannot extend to straight couples who are unable to give consent or... homosexual couples, even if they can give consent. This is because they are unable to unite themselves in a bodily way (of course anal and oral sex are not unitive acts where the participants are equal, but rather unequal acts in which one dominates the other).
Thus, this debate is not only about the nature of human beings joined in marriage, but the nature of individual human beings as well, ignores the human body, which should hold a very high place in the discussion.
Of course, I've always found more at stake in this debate than marriage itself. In the United States it is not the job of government to grant rights. Rights can't be created by elected officials or a majority of voters. Rather, the government must protect rights that are inherent in our nature (inalienable).
Thus, the government does have an interest in protecting the right of people to unite themselves in matrimony, which is a natural institution. This duty to protect the right to matrimony ends at "straight" couples who possess the ability to give consent, because they are the only ones who can truly unite as persons. It cannot extend to straight couples who are unable to give consent or... homosexual couples, even if they can give consent. This is because they are unable to unite themselves in a bodily way (of course anal and oral sex are not unitive acts where the participants are equal, but rather unequal acts in which one dominates the other).
Thus, this debate is not only about the nature of human beings joined in marriage, but the nature of individual human beings as well, ignores the human body, which should hold a very high place in the discussion.
6.30.2011 | 1:19am
Jan says:
RW writes:
"Jan wrote that she remembered Caligula marrying his horse. Caligula is reported not to have married Incitatus but to have made him a Roman citizen and member of the Senate. "
You are correct. He made his horse a senator and married his sister.
"Jan wrote that she remembered Caligula marrying his horse. Caligula is reported not to have married Incitatus but to have made him a Roman citizen and member of the Senate. "
You are correct. He made his horse a senator and married his sister.
6.30.2011 | 11:11am
ice9 says:
they are the only ones who can truly unite as persons
Father--you are certainly aware that evidence is required for such arguments?
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Is it an assertion, or a question-begging analogy? I know many straight couples who fail the rather sketchy test you offer. I know gay couples who pass it. If gay couples were shown to be able to 'unite as persons' and not in 'unequal acts', as you say, would you discover other bars to gay marriage, or would you be persuaded?
ice9
Father--you are certainly aware that evidence is required for such arguments?
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Is it an assertion, or a question-begging analogy? I know many straight couples who fail the rather sketchy test you offer. I know gay couples who pass it. If gay couples were shown to be able to 'unite as persons' and not in 'unequal acts', as you say, would you discover other bars to gay marriage, or would you be persuaded?
ice9
6.30.2011 | 11:34am
Brian English says:
"While the Catholic Church is free to administer matrimony according to it's insights, I do believe that all couples ought to have equal protection under the law. These are separate issues which ought to be kept separate."
What rights are couple who are not married deprived of? And if these rights have such great significance, why do you think it is it that Cuomo and his girlfriend, and Bloomberg and his girlfriend, willingly deprive themselves of those rights?
What rights are couple who are not married deprived of? And if these rights have such great significance, why do you think it is it that Cuomo and his girlfriend, and Bloomberg and his girlfriend, willingly deprive themselves of those rights?
6.30.2011 | 12:52pm
Father Ted says:
Nuns should wear pink more often.
And you shouldn't use booze as a crutch.
And you shouldn't use booze as a crutch.
6.30.2011 | 1:05pm
Fr. Bryan says:
ice9-
Its an observation based on the definition of marriage, "The Union of two or more persons or things." It is really that simple.
"I know many straight couples who fail the rather sketchy test you offer."
Go on...
"If gay couples were shown to be able to 'unite as persons' and not in 'unequal acts', as you say, would you discover other bars to gay marriage, or would you be persuaded?"
I won't know the answer to that until somebody thinks of a way in which two men or two women can unite. Feel free to try.
Its an observation based on the definition of marriage, "The Union of two or more persons or things." It is really that simple.
"I know many straight couples who fail the rather sketchy test you offer."
Go on...
"If gay couples were shown to be able to 'unite as persons' and not in 'unequal acts', as you say, would you discover other bars to gay marriage, or would you be persuaded?"
I won't know the answer to that until somebody thinks of a way in which two men or two women can unite. Feel free to try.
6.30.2011 | 2:20pm
Joseph Marshall says:
@Brian English
Maybe you should read Aaron Rasmussen above a little more carefully:
"Marriage carries with it certain practical benefits. For example, spouses can generally make end-of-life care decisions for each other without the existence of a living will. Property can be transferred between spouses, or inherited, easily and usually with great tax benefits. Most health insurance benefits earned through employment will cover a spouse, but not a "life partner". The legal rights, responsibilities and obligations that come with marriage are substantial.
"The effects of these rights go well-beyond the material, tangible benefits they impart. Imagine if the person you loved was dying in a hospital and you were not allowed to visit or stay with them the way a spouse would, or to make decisions on their behalf when they are no longer able. You may have been together for 30 years, but to the hospital you have no more rights than a stranger off the street. To be married is to be able to participate fully in the life of the other person."
By the way, has it ever occurred to you that Mr. Cuomo probably, and Mr. Bloomberg certainly, are very wealthy men? Much that is essential for folks of lesser income is optional for the wealthy.
Maybe you should read Aaron Rasmussen above a little more carefully:
"Marriage carries with it certain practical benefits. For example, spouses can generally make end-of-life care decisions for each other without the existence of a living will. Property can be transferred between spouses, or inherited, easily and usually with great tax benefits. Most health insurance benefits earned through employment will cover a spouse, but not a "life partner". The legal rights, responsibilities and obligations that come with marriage are substantial.
"The effects of these rights go well-beyond the material, tangible benefits they impart. Imagine if the person you loved was dying in a hospital and you were not allowed to visit or stay with them the way a spouse would, or to make decisions on their behalf when they are no longer able. You may have been together for 30 years, but to the hospital you have no more rights than a stranger off the street. To be married is to be able to participate fully in the life of the other person."
By the way, has it ever occurred to you that Mr. Cuomo probably, and Mr. Bloomberg certainly, are very wealthy men? Much that is essential for folks of lesser income is optional for the wealthy.
6.30.2011 | 3:41pm
Brian English says:
"Maybe you should read Aaron Rasmussen above a little more carefully:"
I have seen Mr. Rasmussen's type of argument many times. It is nonsense. Powers-of-attorney, wills and insurance beneficiary forms could resolve all those issues.
Even in jurisdictions like California, where the Supreme Court held that the civil partnership law provided all the rights that a married couple had, gay rights groups insisted that SSM still had to be instituted. Why? Because it would give them more legal leverage and would give the societal seal of approval to homosexual acts, which are the things they are really seeking. The same thing is now happening in New Jersey.
"By the way, has it ever occurred to you that Mr. Cuomo probably, and Mr. Bloomberg certainly, are very wealthy men? Much that is essential for folks of lesser income is optional for the wealthy."
Right, only really wealthy heterosexual couples live together without getting married. But you still haven't answered my question -- if these rights were of such great importance, had such powerful meaning, why would these rich and powerful people deprive themselves of those rights?
I have seen Mr. Rasmussen's type of argument many times. It is nonsense. Powers-of-attorney, wills and insurance beneficiary forms could resolve all those issues.
Even in jurisdictions like California, where the Supreme Court held that the civil partnership law provided all the rights that a married couple had, gay rights groups insisted that SSM still had to be instituted. Why? Because it would give them more legal leverage and would give the societal seal of approval to homosexual acts, which are the things they are really seeking. The same thing is now happening in New Jersey.
"By the way, has it ever occurred to you that Mr. Cuomo probably, and Mr. Bloomberg certainly, are very wealthy men? Much that is essential for folks of lesser income is optional for the wealthy."
Right, only really wealthy heterosexual couples live together without getting married. But you still haven't answered my question -- if these rights were of such great importance, had such powerful meaning, why would these rich and powerful people deprive themselves of those rights?
6.30.2011 | 7:42pm
Joseph Marshall says:
"if these rights were of such great importance, had such powerful meaning, why would these rich and powerful people deprive themselves of those rights?"
Because they can afford the alternatives, and therefore have realistic choices. Not everybody can.
Because they can afford the alternatives, and therefore have realistic choices. Not everybody can.
7.1.2011 | 7:31am
Brian English says:
"Because they can afford the alternatives, and therefore have realistic choices. Not everybody can."
So which alternatives do you believe are beyond the economic means of the middle-class homosexual couple?
So which alternatives do you believe are beyond the economic means of the middle-class homosexual couple?
