Marriage: Not a Right, but an Office
May 15, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia
Speaking as they do to equal access to a sacrament, last Sunday’s verses from Acts 10 might have seemed, to those fixating on the question of same-sex marriage, like something of a rebuke to the Catholic church and her bishops:
Then Peter proceeded to speak and said,
“In truth, I see that God shows no partiality.
Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly
is acceptable to him. . . Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people,
who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?”
Here we see Peter endorsing inclusivity; following the example of the Christ who interacted with all, the church—through the authority of Christ and the workings of the Holy Spirit—offers Life-in-Christ to all. If all proclaiming Christ are accepted to baptism, one might wonder, then why not all to marriage?
I think it comes down to offices, and the equality to be found therein. We talk about vocations and “one’s state in life,” but I wonder if we would not better serve both clarity and charity by considering that beyond baptism we are called to an Office. Since all Offices are callings, then all servants are equal within them and each office is lived within the fundamental calling of all baptized people, which is to chastity, first and foremost.
This brings home the barely-recognized fact that, except for those called to the Office of Marriage—who are themselves meant to be chaste within that Office—the rest of the world, the majority of humanity walking about, gay or straight, are meant to resist sexual concupiscence, whether within the Office of Singleness or Religious Consecration.
From a Western perspective, that sounds severe, but Eastern religions teach similarly, that all are called to sexual continence. Buddhists and Taoists understand that sexual energy has a “right” and “wrong” use. I know a Taoist couple who have sexual relations only for procreative purposes and during rare “seasonal” occasions. As the church calls homosexual activity “disordered”, Taoist understanding of Yin (feminine) and Yang (masculine) energies calls same sex activity “unbalanced.” In his book Beyond Dogma, the current Dalai Lama clarifies the Buddhist view: “A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else . . . homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact.”
Despite differences in origin of understanding, the Dalai Lama’s pronouncements are remarkably similar to Catholic teaching, and next to the Taoist couple, Catholic sexual teaching—particularly Blessed John Paul’s teaching on the Theology of the Body—seems quite free. And yet gay activist Dan Savage is not attacking the Dalai Lama to cackling, appreciative crowds; no one is calling the Taoists “haters” or “homophobes.”
From a religious perspective, therefore, it does seem that in our nation of 300 million people, only a distinct minority of about 120 million (even less, discounting non-sacramental unions) are meant to be gifted with the duty of delight that is the sexual expression of love, within marriage.
Why does this Office get all the fun? Because, while all offices are equal, the Office of Marriage—far from being “for everyone” or a simple expression of a mood subject to change—is one of especial humility and sacrifice. The essentials of procreation residing within us are so powerful that unless one ardently works to prevent it, new life will come (a recent study found that 54% of abortions stem from contraception “failure”). The little bang of sperm and ova are the microcosmic reflection of the macrocosmic big bang of Creation; co-operating with God in the continuance of that creation means humbly accepting—for the rest of one’s life—involvement and responsibility for specific human beings of varied gifts and challenges. There are no days off; if you don’t like your job, you can’t just move away; you can’t re-staff. Parenthood contains moments of surreal bliss countered by a lifetime of work, self-abnegation, stress, and anxiety. Besides procreation, sexual tenderness in marriage brings a depth of consolation meant to balance out the fullness of that burden or—for a childless couple—the pain of longings unfulfilled.
For the rest of the world—the majority who are called to chastity—what are they meant to do within their Offices? Serve God and others by helping the helpless and companioning the lonely; feeding the hungry; comforting the frightened; really listening to another, even when we’d rather not. In other words, precisely the same things the married folks do, but without the extra gifts, responsibilities, and stresses of children, and without the consolation (and life-creating complications) of sexual intimacy.
Can this idea of Office and Calling exist in a secular society that promotes an earth-bound worldview informed less by transcendent dogmatic principles than by transient democratic ones? Perhaps it can. Making a secularist argument against gay marriage, economist Adam Kolasinski writes: “Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally . . . [but if] sexual love becomes the primary purpose [of marriage, as opposed to procreation], the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.”
I once heard a young nun say that being in a monastery was “like being married to 25 people”; by that she meant that her particular Office—as a consecrated religious—called her to pray for the world, but also to put others before herself, in service to the whole monastic organism. It is, once again, precisely what the Married and Single Offices are called to.
In terms of service, then, we are each married to 300 million others.
The Human Offices, then, are Offices of true equality.
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.
RESOURCES
Readings for Sunday May 13, 2012
Theology of the Body
54% of abortions due to contraception failure
Dan Savage attacks Pope Benedict XVI
Kolasinski's Secular Case against Gay Marriage
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
5.15.2012 | 9:42am
Mary says:
"A king, realizing his incompetence, can either delegate or abdicate his duties. A father can do neither. If only sons could see the paradox, they would understand the dilemma." Marlene Dietrich
5.15.2012 | 10:04am
Todd Flowerday says:
Sure, from the sacramental perspective of Catholics, I certainly have no argument with what you've written here. I'd probably root it more in Scripture and the saints, but ...
However, people who push for same-sex unions live in a legal-soaked culture where relationships are defined less by personal responsibilities, and more by rights--what oppressors cannot deny to a free person. The foundation of the US springs from people who self-defined by what they weren't going to allow others to do to them. And as you know from colonial history, it goes back two centuries before the Revolution.
Your line of reasoning, for Americans, is a kind of bait-and-switch. We live in a nation that has Law as one of its major cultural anchor points. What you're suggesting here is that we change the rules of the game to alleviate our personal distaste or disagreement with what goes on not only in the bedroom of a same-sex couple, but in their whole defined life as a citizen.
The irony of it all is that the legal protections sought for same-sex unions are, for the most part, eminently moral and responsible and service-oriented things. Isn't it really only the sex we object to? And, of course the thought that someone is horning in on our zero-sum exchange of privileges.
However, people who push for same-sex unions live in a legal-soaked culture where relationships are defined less by personal responsibilities, and more by rights--what oppressors cannot deny to a free person. The foundation of the US springs from people who self-defined by what they weren't going to allow others to do to them. And as you know from colonial history, it goes back two centuries before the Revolution.
Your line of reasoning, for Americans, is a kind of bait-and-switch. We live in a nation that has Law as one of its major cultural anchor points. What you're suggesting here is that we change the rules of the game to alleviate our personal distaste or disagreement with what goes on not only in the bedroom of a same-sex couple, but in their whole defined life as a citizen.
The irony of it all is that the legal protections sought for same-sex unions are, for the most part, eminently moral and responsible and service-oriented things. Isn't it really only the sex we object to? And, of course the thought that someone is horning in on our zero-sum exchange of privileges.
5.15.2012 | 10:44am
Brian Breukelen says:
Ms. Scalia presents the theory behind the Catholic view of marriage, a view that shares some similarities with other Christian, Western, and Non-Western faiths.
What does this have to do, however, with contemporary civil marriage in the United States?
Ms. Scalia's theory ignores the many families built upon a same-sex relationship. These families--many with children--have the same rights and need the same protections as mixed-sex couples.
We do not enforce Ms. Scalia's definition of chastity upon married couples (pornography, adultery, and contraception are all quite common), divorce and remarriage are available in every state, and the rights and duties of marriage are not limited to those who can and do procreate.
If those against marriage equality were seeking the elimination of divorce laws, changes in the availability of contraception, and a limitation of the rights and duties of marriage to lifelong couples with children, then their arguments would be consistent, if retrograde. Seeking to enforce restrictions and limit the rights of a small minority while refusing to enforce them upon the majority, however, can only be classed as bigoted and hypocritical.
What does this have to do, however, with contemporary civil marriage in the United States?
Ms. Scalia's theory ignores the many families built upon a same-sex relationship. These families--many with children--have the same rights and need the same protections as mixed-sex couples.
We do not enforce Ms. Scalia's definition of chastity upon married couples (pornography, adultery, and contraception are all quite common), divorce and remarriage are available in every state, and the rights and duties of marriage are not limited to those who can and do procreate.
If those against marriage equality were seeking the elimination of divorce laws, changes in the availability of contraception, and a limitation of the rights and duties of marriage to lifelong couples with children, then their arguments would be consistent, if retrograde. Seeking to enforce restrictions and limit the rights of a small minority while refusing to enforce them upon the majority, however, can only be classed as bigoted and hypocritical.
5.15.2012 | 10:45am
Fr. Carl says:
Much as I appreciate the analogy and apology therein, one of the best - if not the best replies to "inclusivity" arguments is to simply read further.
Acts 11:18c "The to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." Repentance is while not explicit is implicitly assumed as an integral part of the experience recounted. And provokes the question: "repentance from what?". Or to continue your analogy - there are qualifications for the Office, one of which must be a recognition of the purposes for which the Office exists.
Blessings
Acts 11:18c "The to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." Repentance is while not explicit is implicitly assumed as an integral part of the experience recounted. And provokes the question: "repentance from what?". Or to continue your analogy - there are qualifications for the Office, one of which must be a recognition of the purposes for which the Office exists.
Blessings
5.15.2012 | 11:06am
TJH says:
"The foundation of the US springs from people who self-defined by what they weren't going to allow others to do to them. "
Our Natural Rights pre-exist the state and man-made law. The state can either secure these rights or abridge them. Our Creator entrusted us with these rights as one is given authority when assuming the responsibilities of an Office. The State can either respect the authority of our individual Offices of liberty endowed to us as free, rational beings, or it can oppress them.
It is rational for a man and a woman to make babies as there is no other combination that can procreate. And as children, and their childrens' children, last a lifetime, it is rational and natural for their union to last a lifetime. These relationships, the marriage and the family, pre-exist the state. We were endowed with the responsibility and Office of raising children as we were endowed with our other natural rights and Offices.
As our natural authorities and responsibilities are inalienable, we cannot redefine them away, even if we pass a law. Nor can we arbitrarily define our own artificial offices by refuting them.
Our Natural Rights pre-exist the state and man-made law. The state can either secure these rights or abridge them. Our Creator entrusted us with these rights as one is given authority when assuming the responsibilities of an Office. The State can either respect the authority of our individual Offices of liberty endowed to us as free, rational beings, or it can oppress them.
It is rational for a man and a woman to make babies as there is no other combination that can procreate. And as children, and their childrens' children, last a lifetime, it is rational and natural for their union to last a lifetime. These relationships, the marriage and the family, pre-exist the state. We were endowed with the responsibility and Office of raising children as we were endowed with our other natural rights and Offices.
As our natural authorities and responsibilities are inalienable, we cannot redefine them away, even if we pass a law. Nor can we arbitrarily define our own artificial offices by refuting them.
5.15.2012 | 11:22am
Samuel says:
My own thoughts and feelings on the matter of gay marriage have followed, more or less, the same path as the President’s. I once opposed it on religious grounds (the purpose of sex is procreative, etc.) and conservative grounds (don’t monkey with a time-tested custom), but as I’ve seen gay couples raise children as well as - and in one case better than - their traditional counterparts, I’ve found it hard to see why they shouldn’t be married in our society.
Too many of the arguments against gay marriage seem to boil down to a merely definitional matter: it violates the purpose of sex and the meaning of marriage. If somehow the violation of these roots (what Kolasinski calls the “logical basis”) inevitably bore wicked fruits (what he calls “chaos”), it would be a whole lot easier for people like me to continue to oppose gay marriage. My children go to school with three kids who were seriously neglected and abused, and eventually sent to separate foster homes; one of them was then adopted by a gay couple, and when the couple found out about the others, they adopted the rest. This couple goes above and beyond the call of duty as parents; and it’s been a joy to see these children steadily flourish under their care. If this couple’s only problem is that they violate a definition of marriage, then I’m inclined to say that marriage was made for man (and man’s children!), not man for “marriage.”
Should I say to this gay couple, “I appreciate all you’ve given to these children, but you should be celibate and stop raising them; it turns out that, despite your stupendous results, you’re just not called to have ‘the extra gifts, responsibilities, and stresses of children,’ nor the compensating consolation of sexual intimacy - don’t worry, what I’m saying is all based on logic and definitions”? First of all, there would be a beam in my eye. Second, I’d be depriving their children of an exemplary upbringing.
If the Church wishes to show forth a better way of being, then I would like to see her expend her energies on getting her flock to live up to her principles (perhaps this is what Scalia is getting at in trying to redevelop a concept of “office”). If indeed there’s a better model for folks like these gay parents, then work on fostering it and offering it up to them as a living option. Why should the Church care if gay marriage or gay sex is legal or illegal? If she opposes it on moral grounds, she should work on maintaining herself as a serious - or at least seriously less hypocritical - alternative.
Myself, I think those gay parents are blessed.
Too many of the arguments against gay marriage seem to boil down to a merely definitional matter: it violates the purpose of sex and the meaning of marriage. If somehow the violation of these roots (what Kolasinski calls the “logical basis”) inevitably bore wicked fruits (what he calls “chaos”), it would be a whole lot easier for people like me to continue to oppose gay marriage. My children go to school with three kids who were seriously neglected and abused, and eventually sent to separate foster homes; one of them was then adopted by a gay couple, and when the couple found out about the others, they adopted the rest. This couple goes above and beyond the call of duty as parents; and it’s been a joy to see these children steadily flourish under their care. If this couple’s only problem is that they violate a definition of marriage, then I’m inclined to say that marriage was made for man (and man’s children!), not man for “marriage.”
Should I say to this gay couple, “I appreciate all you’ve given to these children, but you should be celibate and stop raising them; it turns out that, despite your stupendous results, you’re just not called to have ‘the extra gifts, responsibilities, and stresses of children,’ nor the compensating consolation of sexual intimacy - don’t worry, what I’m saying is all based on logic and definitions”? First of all, there would be a beam in my eye. Second, I’d be depriving their children of an exemplary upbringing.
If the Church wishes to show forth a better way of being, then I would like to see her expend her energies on getting her flock to live up to her principles (perhaps this is what Scalia is getting at in trying to redevelop a concept of “office”). If indeed there’s a better model for folks like these gay parents, then work on fostering it and offering it up to them as a living option. Why should the Church care if gay marriage or gay sex is legal or illegal? If she opposes it on moral grounds, she should work on maintaining herself as a serious - or at least seriously less hypocritical - alternative.
Myself, I think those gay parents are blessed.
5.15.2012 | 12:40pm
Erin says:
"If she opposes it on moral grounds, she should work on maintaining herself as a serious - or at least seriously less hypocritical - alternative. "
This is such a silly argument. Imagine if we applied such standards to judges, or police, or teachers, or authority figures of any kind: make sure you're beyond reproach before you pronounce judgment on the actions of another. Though come to think of it, it does seem to be the way many parents parent these days . . .
That aside, just because one cannot always live up to objective Truth does not mean one cannot recognize and proclaim objective Truth. After all, Truth exists whether we believe it and follow it, or not. It is certainly not dependent upon our actions or thoughts.
The Church cares about gay marriage and gay sex because the first is a mockery of a sacrament - no matter how noble and good the participants - and the second is a disordered desire that thwarts our fulfillment in the ultimate good, which is God.
This is such a silly argument. Imagine if we applied such standards to judges, or police, or teachers, or authority figures of any kind: make sure you're beyond reproach before you pronounce judgment on the actions of another. Though come to think of it, it does seem to be the way many parents parent these days . . .
That aside, just because one cannot always live up to objective Truth does not mean one cannot recognize and proclaim objective Truth. After all, Truth exists whether we believe it and follow it, or not. It is certainly not dependent upon our actions or thoughts.
The Church cares about gay marriage and gay sex because the first is a mockery of a sacrament - no matter how noble and good the participants - and the second is a disordered desire that thwarts our fulfillment in the ultimate good, which is God.
5.15.2012 | 12:42pm
Bruce says:
I’ve seen gay couples raise children as well as - and in one case better than - their traditional counterparts
This is just not an argument for gay marriage and it totally denigrates the rights of the children. All children, proceed from a mother and a father. As we know from all children but especially adopted ones, these kids have a natural need to know where they came from, ie, their biological parents. Yet in the case of gay parents, some children are specifically 'manufactured' to satisfy the parental needs of the gay couple and this need ignored.
The fact that some biological parents do a poor job of parenting is irrelevant to the moral value of gay marriage.
This is just not an argument for gay marriage and it totally denigrates the rights of the children. All children, proceed from a mother and a father. As we know from all children but especially adopted ones, these kids have a natural need to know where they came from, ie, their biological parents. Yet in the case of gay parents, some children are specifically 'manufactured' to satisfy the parental needs of the gay couple and this need ignored.
The fact that some biological parents do a poor job of parenting is irrelevant to the moral value of gay marriage.
5.15.2012 | 12:58pm
Rick says:
For those of us not quite familiar with all these references to Office(s)... might be good to expound...
5.15.2012 | 1:10pm
Theresa Havers says:
Thank you and bless you! I wonder if those currently trying to compare this to interracial marriage take time to ponder that the Church does not condone a universal "right" to marriage, even for heterosexual people! At least in our diocese, there was a rigorous interview/ discernment process - replete with affidavits from our parents (!) and a requirement of consistent reception of the sacraments before the priest would agree to marry us.
5.15.2012 | 1:35pm
Michael PS says:
Samuel
Any analysis of civil marriage, as a legal institution, must take account of the fact that the state goes out of its way to facilitate marriage "in extremis." What purpose is served by death-bed marriages? Not procreation, certainly. I can think of only one - the legitimation of issue.
If we apply this more generally and conclude that establishing the juridical bond between fathers and their children is the purpose of civil marriage, we can give a clear and consistent account of it that distinguishes marriage from civil unions (for same-sex or opposite-sex couples), domestic partnerships and unregulated cohabitation. It accounts for the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father, it explains the delict of adultery and it makes sense of the husband's undertaking, given during the celebration of marriage, to raise the couple's children, all specific to marriage.
I know of no other principle that does so and I have yet to come across anyone who could suggest one.
Any analysis of civil marriage, as a legal institution, must take account of the fact that the state goes out of its way to facilitate marriage "in extremis." What purpose is served by death-bed marriages? Not procreation, certainly. I can think of only one - the legitimation of issue.
If we apply this more generally and conclude that establishing the juridical bond between fathers and their children is the purpose of civil marriage, we can give a clear and consistent account of it that distinguishes marriage from civil unions (for same-sex or opposite-sex couples), domestic partnerships and unregulated cohabitation. It accounts for the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father, it explains the delict of adultery and it makes sense of the husband's undertaking, given during the celebration of marriage, to raise the couple's children, all specific to marriage.
I know of no other principle that does so and I have yet to come across anyone who could suggest one.
5.15.2012 | 1:52pm
JohnE says:
The legal protections sought after for same-sex unions remind me of laws to ensure abortions are done by someone with medical expertise. It's good in so far as it may prevent even further harm (at least to the mother), but it doesn't address the larger underlying problem. Yes, the unnatural sex is indeed objectional, but that's not the only thing. To me, the larger problem is its harm to children adopted into such a union. Many children are resiliant; they can flourish even under adverse circumstances and in regards to different definitions of "flourishing". However if flourishing includes growing up to have a healthy, ordered, view of sex and marriage, then that is far less likely if your own parents' sexual relationship is neither healthy nor naturally ordered, yet promoted in the family, culture, and law as a good thing.
Todd's statement is also interesting, that "people who push for same-sex unions live in a legal-soaked culture where relationships are defined less by personal responsibilities, and more by rights". Isn't the widening of the rift between rights and responsibilities precisely the problem we face with same-sex unions (and IVF for that matter), regardless of whether some right is actually being denied?
And I agree somewhat with Brian -- heterosexuals are not without their own problems in regards to chastity within and without marriage. And he also calls to mind the question as to what degree laws should enforce morality. That's a good question that I'm not sure how to answer, but the fact is laws do enforce morality. Some things are pretty much impossible to enforce, such as chastity. But just because we can't enforce a virtue and must tolerate vice, it doesn't mean our laws have to promote and protect vice.
Todd's statement is also interesting, that "people who push for same-sex unions live in a legal-soaked culture where relationships are defined less by personal responsibilities, and more by rights". Isn't the widening of the rift between rights and responsibilities precisely the problem we face with same-sex unions (and IVF for that matter), regardless of whether some right is actually being denied?
And I agree somewhat with Brian -- heterosexuals are not without their own problems in regards to chastity within and without marriage. And he also calls to mind the question as to what degree laws should enforce morality. That's a good question that I'm not sure how to answer, but the fact is laws do enforce morality. Some things are pretty much impossible to enforce, such as chastity. But just because we can't enforce a virtue and must tolerate vice, it doesn't mean our laws have to promote and protect vice.
5.15.2012 | 2:12pm
MacGabhann says:
Mr. Breukelen,
I must say it is the further diffusion and debasement of cultural meaning that I most object to in "redefining" marriage; the sort of debasement already apparent in your use of the expression "mixed sex" to refer to what should properly be understood as "complementary sex.”
I must say it is the further diffusion and debasement of cultural meaning that I most object to in "redefining" marriage; the sort of debasement already apparent in your use of the expression "mixed sex" to refer to what should properly be understood as "complementary sex.”
5.15.2012 | 2:49pm
The Moz says:
"If all proclaiming Christ are accepted to baptism, one might wonder, then why not all to marriage?"...BUT, all are already accepted in marriage, aren't they? Seriously, can anyone point to even one man or women, gay or straight, never before married, who has been denied marriage in a RC Church to a person of the opposite sex if they intended on consummating the union? I can't.
The simple truth is that everyone is already guaranteed access to marriage, even in the RC. The question is should the definition be changed and imposed on everyone, not should people who are only attracted physically to members of the same sex be allowed to marry members of the opposite sex.
I can understand why this doesn't cut it emotionally but strictley speaking let's be clear Christian marriage is already open to all.
The simple truth is that everyone is already guaranteed access to marriage, even in the RC. The question is should the definition be changed and imposed on everyone, not should people who are only attracted physically to members of the same sex be allowed to marry members of the opposite sex.
I can understand why this doesn't cut it emotionally but strictley speaking let's be clear Christian marriage is already open to all.
5.15.2012 | 3:28pm
John H. says:
While Catholic Canon Law does not use the term "right" it does make it clear that marriage is indeed a right of the Faithful:
All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriageCan. 1058
Of course, as is the case with all rights, marriage has responsibilities and it requires certain dispositions. So just as I have a "right" to exercise freedom of speech, I must have the "ability" to speak in order to exercise it (the right disposition). And I must speak in a responsible manner, or I lose my right to do so. (E.g. We can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and claim "freedom of speech.") So too, marriage requires that the consenting parties have the "ability" to marry (must be a man and a woman, free from impediments), and it requires that the two exercise their right to marry responsibly (agree to accept children lovingly, and raise them in the faith). The point is though, marriage is indeed a true right. The Church will not, and legally cannot deny the Faithful the right to marry. This of course does not mean that the Church must recognize illicit and invalid expressions of marriage. But it does mean that marriage is not simply a vocation or office. It is, but unlike Holy Orders or Religious Life, Marriage is an office that we have a right to possess. No one has a right to be a monk, a priest, or a nun. However; "All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage."
All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriageCan. 1058
Of course, as is the case with all rights, marriage has responsibilities and it requires certain dispositions. So just as I have a "right" to exercise freedom of speech, I must have the "ability" to speak in order to exercise it (the right disposition). And I must speak in a responsible manner, or I lose my right to do so. (E.g. We can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and claim "freedom of speech.") So too, marriage requires that the consenting parties have the "ability" to marry (must be a man and a woman, free from impediments), and it requires that the two exercise their right to marry responsibly (agree to accept children lovingly, and raise them in the faith). The point is though, marriage is indeed a true right. The Church will not, and legally cannot deny the Faithful the right to marry. This of course does not mean that the Church must recognize illicit and invalid expressions of marriage. But it does mean that marriage is not simply a vocation or office. It is, but unlike Holy Orders or Religious Life, Marriage is an office that we have a right to possess. No one has a right to be a monk, a priest, or a nun. However; "All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage."
5.15.2012 | 3:46pm
jfm says:
THJ -
There are several ways to think about where rights come from (at the time of the American Revolution)
1) rights were granted by a King -- the US soundly rejected this idea
2) rights were granted by God -- noted in the Declaration of Independence, but not the constitution
3) rights were inherent to those who were white men, predominantly, and to a lesser degree rights were granted by these men to women, slaves, and Indians -- noted in the Constitution
In our largerly secular society now, I think a 4th view of rights has emerged and largely superceded (at least from a legal perspective) #2.
4) rights are inherent to all men/women by virtue of one's having been born
JFM
THJ: ...The state can either secure these rights or abridge them. Our Creator entrusted us with these rights as one is given authority when assuming the responsibilities of an Office. The State can either respect the authority of our individual Offices of liberty endowed to us as free, rational beings, or it can oppress them.
There are several ways to think about where rights come from (at the time of the American Revolution)
1) rights were granted by a King -- the US soundly rejected this idea
2) rights were granted by God -- noted in the Declaration of Independence, but not the constitution
3) rights were inherent to those who were white men, predominantly, and to a lesser degree rights were granted by these men to women, slaves, and Indians -- noted in the Constitution
In our largerly secular society now, I think a 4th view of rights has emerged and largely superceded (at least from a legal perspective) #2.
4) rights are inherent to all men/women by virtue of one's having been born
JFM
THJ: ...The state can either secure these rights or abridge them. Our Creator entrusted us with these rights as one is given authority when assuming the responsibilities of an Office. The State can either respect the authority of our individual Offices of liberty endowed to us as free, rational beings, or it can oppress them.
5.15.2012 | 4:28pm
Samuel says:
Erin says that it’s a “silly argument” to believe that if the Church opposes gay sex and gay marriage on moral grounds, she should work on maintaining herself as a serious - or at least seriously less hypocritical - alternative: “Imagine if we applied such standards to judges, or police, or teachers, or authority figures of any kind: make sure you’re beyond reproach before you pronounce judgment on the actions of another.” Let’s leave aside the famous pronouncements of Jesus. It seems worse than silly to me to imagine that one should judge others without first judging oneself. Kant gives pretty sound moral advice on this score: Care about your own virtue and others’ happiness, and you improve both; care about others’ virtue and your own happiness, and you diminish both. Judges, police, and teachers are never going to be spotless, but they should try their best to practice what they preach; and when they model to the best of their abilities the virtues of their mission, they tend to be more effective at their mission, and their judgments don’t ring hollow.
Though I believe that gays should be married, I believe, in the spirit of pluralism, that the Catholic Church, among other institutions, should maintain their opposition to it, for she has a powerful, longstanding, consistent position on sexuality. (Along similar lines, I disagree with, but respect, the Catholic Church’s position on women in the priesthood.) But I think that the Church should work to model a powerful alternative with regard to sexuality, not a selective one. I have personally known nuns who did just that. But I don’t feel that the Catholic Church in America particularly models that alternative. Thus, the opposition to gay marriage often seems more like identity politics than religious truth. Moreover, I think that the Catholic Church will benefit, as she always has at her best, from considering serious objections to the position.
Though I believe that gays should be married, I believe, in the spirit of pluralism, that the Catholic Church, among other institutions, should maintain their opposition to it, for she has a powerful, longstanding, consistent position on sexuality. (Along similar lines, I disagree with, but respect, the Catholic Church’s position on women in the priesthood.) But I think that the Church should work to model a powerful alternative with regard to sexuality, not a selective one. I have personally known nuns who did just that. But I don’t feel that the Catholic Church in America particularly models that alternative. Thus, the opposition to gay marriage often seems more like identity politics than religious truth. Moreover, I think that the Catholic Church will benefit, as she always has at her best, from considering serious objections to the position.
5.15.2012 | 5:37pm
Brian Westley says:
Well, fine if you want to live in a Catholic theocracy, but I happen to live in the US, where marriage IS a civil right, as spelled out in Loving v. Virginia:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
If you'd like to radically redefine what "civil rights" mean in this country by removing marriage as a civil right, I think you have a long row to hoe.
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
If you'd like to radically redefine what "civil rights" mean in this country by removing marriage as a civil right, I think you have a long row to hoe.
5.15.2012 | 5:49pm
Nancy D. says:
Christ made it clear that Marriage, by it's very nature, is restrictive to begin with, for not every couple can live in relationship as husband and wife.
5.15.2012 | 6:07pm
A.M. says:
Marriage as a covenant between a man and woman that calls on God as witness , blessed and celebrated by family and friends - seems this is the time honored understanding about marriage across cultures .
If those who argue for gay marriage wants to have something parallel , what type of god are they calling as witness - seems it would be blasphemy , to the God of revealed truth of almost all cultures and thus possibly reflecting more of St.Paul's words of pagan sacrifices to the demons !
Homosexuality as it is , is known to have origin in fear / hatred , often related to paternal neglect or abuse ; while The Church is compassionate towards those who have not found freedom from such, asking the community to bless and approve those who jubilantly proclaim the total intent to negate the power of The Holy Spirit to heal and make into new, to be conformed into holy children of The Father - that is worse than the pork feeding of Jews or Muslims !
Resisting what is evil include deep groanigs of the spirit ..approval by the culture is to negate same, thus , to let this leaven do its job at even more widepread level !
May be allowing all single men and women, to be eligibel to name someone as a benefits partner would diminish the lure of money as the reason for the militant activism !
If those who argue for gay marriage wants to have something parallel , what type of god are they calling as witness - seems it would be blasphemy , to the God of revealed truth of almost all cultures and thus possibly reflecting more of St.Paul's words of pagan sacrifices to the demons !
Homosexuality as it is , is known to have origin in fear / hatred , often related to paternal neglect or abuse ; while The Church is compassionate towards those who have not found freedom from such, asking the community to bless and approve those who jubilantly proclaim the total intent to negate the power of The Holy Spirit to heal and make into new, to be conformed into holy children of The Father - that is worse than the pork feeding of Jews or Muslims !
Resisting what is evil include deep groanigs of the spirit ..approval by the culture is to negate same, thus , to let this leaven do its job at even more widepread level !
May be allowing all single men and women, to be eligibel to name someone as a benefits partner would diminish the lure of money as the reason for the militant activism !
5.15.2012 | 6:27pm
MacGabhann says:
@Nancy D.
Yes, but define husband, define wife. Just because husbands traditionally have been men and wives traditionally women doesn't mean that that always has to be the case. Surely it is the right of any married couple to define who plays what role in their marriage? And surely that's the only thing that establishes what a wife is, what a husband is? These terms delimit one's role, not one's sex.
And of course this is why there is no difference between "same-sex (non-complementary-sex) marriage" and "mixed-sex (complementary-sex) marriage", because in fact marriage has nothing to do with sex any more; it's all about roles: husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. So get progressive will you. You don't want to be casually dismissed as a bigot do you?
Yes, but define husband, define wife. Just because husbands traditionally have been men and wives traditionally women doesn't mean that that always has to be the case. Surely it is the right of any married couple to define who plays what role in their marriage? And surely that's the only thing that establishes what a wife is, what a husband is? These terms delimit one's role, not one's sex.
And of course this is why there is no difference between "same-sex (non-complementary-sex) marriage" and "mixed-sex (complementary-sex) marriage", because in fact marriage has nothing to do with sex any more; it's all about roles: husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. So get progressive will you. You don't want to be casually dismissed as a bigot do you?
5.15.2012 | 6:28pm
Margaret says:
The Moz, you are wrong. Everyone is not "guaranteed access" to marriage in a Christian church, even the "RC" variety. I know of four couples off the bat, and could probably remember others given a little time. One couple did not want to bother with the required pre-Cana sessions. Another was an atheist marrying a lapsed Protestant, but she wanted to be married in a specific Catholic church because her parents had been married there and it was so pretty---just imagine the photographs she could have had. the third couple was deemed by the priest to be too immature, unserious and probably incompatible (correct, they were married in a civil ceremony and divorced within five years, after causing havoc to many lives including their children's). I do not know the reason the fourth couple was denied marriage in a church, although that marriage (civil) failed spectacularly also.
I have yet to be in a Catholic parish that does not have a policy---usually printed prominently in the bulletin---that only allows the sacrament for registered parishioners who undergo six months or more of preparation.
I am currently a parishioner at a beautiful, historic church which is apparently---based on frequent comments in the bulletin and occasionally from the pulpit---the desired venue for many a prospective bride and groom. if they are not registered parishioners, they are out of luck.
I think Church policy is reasonable in these cases, an opinion not shared by my disappointed acquaintances who thought they had a "right" to get married in the church and noisily and obnoxiously let us all know. None of them really understood the Catholic understanding of the sacrament at all.
I have yet to be in a Catholic parish that does not have a policy---usually printed prominently in the bulletin---that only allows the sacrament for registered parishioners who undergo six months or more of preparation.
I am currently a parishioner at a beautiful, historic church which is apparently---based on frequent comments in the bulletin and occasionally from the pulpit---the desired venue for many a prospective bride and groom. if they are not registered parishioners, they are out of luck.
I think Church policy is reasonable in these cases, an opinion not shared by my disappointed acquaintances who thought they had a "right" to get married in the church and noisily and obnoxiously let us all know. None of them really understood the Catholic understanding of the sacrament at all.
5.15.2012 | 6:39pm
Colin Gormley says:
"Seriously, can anyone point to even one man or women, gay or straight, never before married, who has been denied marriage in a RC Church to a person of the opposite sex if they intended on consummating the union? I can't. "
The principle though is that the Church CAN bar a couple from marriage if it deems the grounds are not sufficient. The bar is higher these days but there are provisions for such.
The principle though is that the Church CAN bar a couple from marriage if it deems the grounds are not sufficient. The bar is higher these days but there are provisions for such.
5.15.2012 | 6:46pm
Joshua Gonnerman says:
Are you sayimg that the concept of office is more useful in thinking about marriage than the concept of vocation? If so, I'm afraid I'm not entirely clear about the how. Could you help me understand?
5.15.2012 | 6:54pm
What Will Follow? says:
If the government decides same sex couples have a right to marriage, will the Church be forced to grant a Christian ceremony to them? After all, the right to contraceptives as part of healthcare is already problematic for the Church. We are already getting closer to those nations that deem it a hate crime to even read Romans chapter 1, let alone teach that homosexuality is a sin. If Christian organizations on our campuses are already facing problems with moral requirements and affirmations of faith for leadership positions, what can we expect for the Church at large? Politics is downstream from culture, and it seems we have lost the culture. TV and public school propaganda have prepared the next generation to view homosexuality, like abortion, as just another choice. And the great sin of our age is for anyone to say that some choices are better than others, let alone that some are sinful. The orthodox Church is about to become politically heretical.
5.15.2012 | 8:03pm
Therese Z says:
Brian W: If you'd like to radically redefine what "civil rights" mean in this country by removing marriage as a civil right, I think you have a long row to hoe.
Marriage is not a civil right, since you insist on using that word to mean a right extended to everyone. In that case, I could marry my son, or the comatose man down the street, or the mentally retarded dude with the HUGE trust fund. We restrict marriage to protect the children from the marriage (denying marriage between blood relatives), to protect one of the parties of the marriage, because they are (1) underage or (2) unable to form the proper intent to marry.
"But we LOVE each other!" they will say. On your basis, they should be able to marry, because it's a "right." But it's not, never has been.
A man in his right mind, of legal age, not already married, can marry a woman, in her right mind, of legal age, not already married. That carries a lot of restrictions that protect them, and the children that can and probably will come from the unique physical intimacy their two bodies can achieve.
(Just how do two men legally, LEGALLY consummate a marriage? Law from the beginning of time recognizes the marital act as the consummation, the point at which the contract is joined, or the convenant is sealed, depending on your way of thinking.)
Marriage is not a civil right, since you insist on using that word to mean a right extended to everyone. In that case, I could marry my son, or the comatose man down the street, or the mentally retarded dude with the HUGE trust fund. We restrict marriage to protect the children from the marriage (denying marriage between blood relatives), to protect one of the parties of the marriage, because they are (1) underage or (2) unable to form the proper intent to marry.
"But we LOVE each other!" they will say. On your basis, they should be able to marry, because it's a "right." But it's not, never has been.
A man in his right mind, of legal age, not already married, can marry a woman, in her right mind, of legal age, not already married. That carries a lot of restrictions that protect them, and the children that can and probably will come from the unique physical intimacy their two bodies can achieve.
(Just how do two men legally, LEGALLY consummate a marriage? Law from the beginning of time recognizes the marital act as the consummation, the point at which the contract is joined, or the convenant is sealed, depending on your way of thinking.)
5.15.2012 | 8:39pm
Michael S. says:
Brian, could you kindly explain how the union of two men or two women - a union which is biologically incapable of producing children - is "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?
5.15.2012 | 11:09pm
Richard M says:
Hello Todd,
"Isn't it really only the sex we object to?"
Actually, above all it's allowing them to have custody of children.
But I do agree with you: it's not just a legal-soaked culture but a rights-soaked culture. And rights language and rights claims are powerful trumps now in the public square.
"Isn't it really only the sex we object to?"
Actually, above all it's allowing them to have custody of children.
But I do agree with you: it's not just a legal-soaked culture but a rights-soaked culture. And rights language and rights claims are powerful trumps now in the public square.
5.16.2012 | 12:14am
Joseph Marshall says:
Since you mention the Dalai Lama, I think some clarification of the actual Buddhist view is required. Buddhism does not regard marriage as "sacred", an "office", or a "sacrament." Marriage is essentially a civil social relationship which, de facto, serves two social purposes: first the protection of children until they are able to protect themselves and, hopefully, the protection of parents when they can no longer protect themselves; second, the reasonable restraint of socially divisive sexual promiscuity. In practical fact, this works about as well in Buddhist culture as it does in any other--not all that well much of the time. And, though this is diminishing, in many places on either side of the Buddhist Himalayas the predominant form of marriage is Polyandry, particularly among the herding nomads, where close male relatives share the same wife. And there is some evidence that this sort of Polyandry actually serves the social functions of marriage much more effectively.
Christians constantly take for granted that the "why" of Buddhist moral views is the same as their own. It isn't. Buddhists generally think that human suffering is the result of our incorrect but strongly habitual view that there is some essence inside us, a "me", a "self", or a "soul", which is permanent, unchanging, and eternal. Buddhism not only denies this, it straightforwardly asks anyone who believes in such a "soul" What color is it? What shape is it? Where does it reside in the body? When you actually look at your direct experience what you find is merely a running stream of constantly changing perceptions and thoughts. All the rest is mere hearsay.
The habitual illusion of any kind of a permanent "self" leads inevitably to what the Buddhist teachings call "conflicting emotions"--dullness, anger, craving, jealousy, and pride; and these emotions result in "unskillful" actions such as killing (killing anything and not just anyone), stealing, lying, and oppression and harm to others and to yourself. Eventually, over time, the effect of all this on anybody's thoughts and perception degenerates into sheer pain and utter terror.
There is one serious moral question only for any Buddhist: does an action, thought, or belief sustain the illusion of a permanent self. ALL sexual activity, in or out of the missionary position, married or not, sustains such an illusion through the conflicting emotion of craving. Put the Buddhist context back into the Dalai Lama's remark and what he is essentially saying is that sex outside the missionary position makes you crave more than sex inside it. Perhaps this is so. But for most of the lamas I personally have heard teach this is a distinction of difference in degree and not kind, if it even exists at all.
Now I am not trying to make anybody here Buddhist. But I make no apologies for writing in such detail. When Christians quote what prominent Buddhists say, it would be nice if they investigated in more detail what Buddhists mean by what they say, particularly when Christians use such quotations in support of agendas that are at best tangential and at worst irrelevant to what Buddhists mean by what they say.
Christians constantly take for granted that the "why" of Buddhist moral views is the same as their own. It isn't. Buddhists generally think that human suffering is the result of our incorrect but strongly habitual view that there is some essence inside us, a "me", a "self", or a "soul", which is permanent, unchanging, and eternal. Buddhism not only denies this, it straightforwardly asks anyone who believes in such a "soul" What color is it? What shape is it? Where does it reside in the body? When you actually look at your direct experience what you find is merely a running stream of constantly changing perceptions and thoughts. All the rest is mere hearsay.
The habitual illusion of any kind of a permanent "self" leads inevitably to what the Buddhist teachings call "conflicting emotions"--dullness, anger, craving, jealousy, and pride; and these emotions result in "unskillful" actions such as killing (killing anything and not just anyone), stealing, lying, and oppression and harm to others and to yourself. Eventually, over time, the effect of all this on anybody's thoughts and perception degenerates into sheer pain and utter terror.
There is one serious moral question only for any Buddhist: does an action, thought, or belief sustain the illusion of a permanent self. ALL sexual activity, in or out of the missionary position, married or not, sustains such an illusion through the conflicting emotion of craving. Put the Buddhist context back into the Dalai Lama's remark and what he is essentially saying is that sex outside the missionary position makes you crave more than sex inside it. Perhaps this is so. But for most of the lamas I personally have heard teach this is a distinction of difference in degree and not kind, if it even exists at all.
Now I am not trying to make anybody here Buddhist. But I make no apologies for writing in such detail. When Christians quote what prominent Buddhists say, it would be nice if they investigated in more detail what Buddhists mean by what they say, particularly when Christians use such quotations in support of agendas that are at best tangential and at worst irrelevant to what Buddhists mean by what they say.
5.16.2012 | 7:48am
Wade St. Onge says:
"The little bang of sperm and ova are the microcosmic reflection of the macrocosmic big bang of Creation"
I see someone has read Popcak's book, "Holy Sex".
...
"The Human Offices, then, are Offices of true equality."
That is heresy. Council of Trent, Session XXIV, Canon 10: "If anyone saith that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony, let him be anathema". Can't believe how many orthodox Catholics today have embraced this heresy without realizing that is what it is.
I see someone has read Popcak's book, "Holy Sex".
...
"The Human Offices, then, are Offices of true equality."
That is heresy. Council of Trent, Session XXIV, Canon 10: "If anyone saith that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony, let him be anathema". Can't believe how many orthodox Catholics today have embraced this heresy without realizing that is what it is.
5.16.2012 | 9:13am
Scott Talkington says:
Well, I'm protestant and I don't get it. It sounds like you're saying that only a small elite are called to the office of marriage. If that were really God's Plan then He neglected to create a third gender and made far too many of the other two. My take on the Eden story is that Adam needed another person in order to inspire him to self-donation, which is the fundamental state of hominization (i.e. a non-instinctual act of self sacrifice). But a second gender was created so that man would at least get *something* out of the arrangement, and thus it was a model for all as a reflection of the Trinitarian Love Life. There are some small number of exceptions who have the capacity to self-donate without a help-mate, but they're an infinitesimal minority.
I can see you're making an argument that marriage is not a "right," by making it an "office" but I don't think that argument's going to get us very far. I think we need to tackle and understand the nature of desire better before we try living as if we don't have desires. My argument against same sex marriage would be simply that there's no possibility of a "lovely third" emerging from the union, so it can't very well imitate the Trinity in any fashion.
I can see you're making an argument that marriage is not a "right," by making it an "office" but I don't think that argument's going to get us very far. I think we need to tackle and understand the nature of desire better before we try living as if we don't have desires. My argument against same sex marriage would be simply that there's no possibility of a "lovely third" emerging from the union, so it can't very well imitate the Trinity in any fashion.
5.16.2012 | 11:43am
Brian Westley says:
Therese Z writes:
"Marriage is not a civil right, since you insist on using that word to mean a right extended to everyone."
No, I insist on using that word in the legal sense, the way the US supreme court uses the term. The US supreme court ruled that marriage is a civil right.
"Just how do two men legally, LEGALLY consummate a marriage?"
There is no legal requirement to consummate a marriage; it doesn't matter if your religion requires it, that's irrelevant to a legal, civil marriage.
Michael S writes:
"Brian, could you kindly explain how the union of two men or two women - a union which is biologically incapable of producing children - is "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?"
You'll have to ask the supreme court to explain, as their ruling also covered e.g. post-menopausal women and other sterile people who can't have children but still hold a right to marry.
"Marriage is not a civil right, since you insist on using that word to mean a right extended to everyone."
No, I insist on using that word in the legal sense, the way the US supreme court uses the term. The US supreme court ruled that marriage is a civil right.
"Just how do two men legally, LEGALLY consummate a marriage?"
There is no legal requirement to consummate a marriage; it doesn't matter if your religion requires it, that's irrelevant to a legal, civil marriage.
Michael S writes:
"Brian, could you kindly explain how the union of two men or two women - a union which is biologically incapable of producing children - is "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?"
You'll have to ask the supreme court to explain, as their ruling also covered e.g. post-menopausal women and other sterile people who can't have children but still hold a right to marry.
7.19.2012 | 5:23pm
Tom J says:
Brian Westley wrote:
You'll have to ask the supreme court to explain, as their ruling also covered e.g. post-menopausal women and other sterile people who can't have children but still hold a right to marry.
True, the Supreme Court ruling covered the people you mention... but it operates under an assumption for what the word "Marriage" means. Whatever that definition may be, it is clearly qualified as "fundamental to our very existence and survival".
The operating definition of marriage strictly as a contractual relationship between "a man and a woman" has been intrinsic to marriage law within the US of A. With the exception of anti-polygamy and contraception laws, a majority of legislation acts to enfranchise a woman who would otherwise have rights removed and given to her husband when married. Such legislation obviously assumes something about the genders of such contractual partners.
The challenge is not--as you proposed--to the Supreme Court to explain why "post-menopausal women and other sterile people" still have the right to marry. To ask this question assumes something about marriage (the necessity for childbearing) which is historically unsupported as a definitional requirement.
Rather--similar to what Michael S. initially proposed--the question is "why should a union between two people of the same gender be considered 'fundamental to our very existence and survival'?". Any other question assumes a definition of marriage which is unsupported by American legal history. Lack of such historical support is evidenced by the need for this very debate. Considering that no such institution was recognized in the US until very recently in its history, the argument that same-gender marriage contracts are "fundamental to our very existence and survival" is a difficult one to support.
Before you begin to bash on me for being "anti-gay" or discriminatory, you should first know that I agree with you on the major point: heterosexuals should be no more entitled to benefits from the government than homosexuals. Should I rephrase? Heterosexuals and Homosexuals should be treated equally under the law and by society.
In fact, I think that it would be more constitutionally sound for all marriage "benefits" to be removed. Such benefits by their very definition and implementation are discriminatory against unmarried individuals. The only defense for their discriminatory implementation is to say that "should a single person decide to marry, he/she would receive the same benefits." This validation assumes nothing about that individual's sexual preference or even a need for romantic interest in the contractual partner in the marriage. Therefore, the current system equally discriminates against all people unmarried to the opposite sex, and I reiterate: this discrimination is independent of sexual orientation.
To redefine marriage as any contractual relationship between two people while maintaining the benefits of such a union would in fact create more discrimination against a large percentage of Americans (~50% of adults I believe, but admittedly too lazy to get the exact number) who--by either preference or circumstance--are unmarried. These individuals currently get paid less, pay more for car insurance, get looked over by land lords and real estate agents, have more financial hardship when raising children, and perhaps worst of all their social security benefits go back into the system if they don't have surviving parents or children (why not let these benefits go to a chosen co-worker, a best friend, a brother/sister, etc?).
On the flip side, singles volunteer more and are otherwise more likely to be involved in the community. In spite of this clearly positive role in society, unmarried individuals are currently and would continue to be treated as second class citizens.
You'll have to ask the supreme court to explain, as their ruling also covered e.g. post-menopausal women and other sterile people who can't have children but still hold a right to marry.
True, the Supreme Court ruling covered the people you mention... but it operates under an assumption for what the word "Marriage" means. Whatever that definition may be, it is clearly qualified as "fundamental to our very existence and survival".
The operating definition of marriage strictly as a contractual relationship between "a man and a woman" has been intrinsic to marriage law within the US of A. With the exception of anti-polygamy and contraception laws, a majority of legislation acts to enfranchise a woman who would otherwise have rights removed and given to her husband when married. Such legislation obviously assumes something about the genders of such contractual partners.
The challenge is not--as you proposed--to the Supreme Court to explain why "post-menopausal women and other sterile people" still have the right to marry. To ask this question assumes something about marriage (the necessity for childbearing) which is historically unsupported as a definitional requirement.
Rather--similar to what Michael S. initially proposed--the question is "why should a union between two people of the same gender be considered 'fundamental to our very existence and survival'?". Any other question assumes a definition of marriage which is unsupported by American legal history. Lack of such historical support is evidenced by the need for this very debate. Considering that no such institution was recognized in the US until very recently in its history, the argument that same-gender marriage contracts are "fundamental to our very existence and survival" is a difficult one to support.
Before you begin to bash on me for being "anti-gay" or discriminatory, you should first know that I agree with you on the major point: heterosexuals should be no more entitled to benefits from the government than homosexuals. Should I rephrase? Heterosexuals and Homosexuals should be treated equally under the law and by society.
In fact, I think that it would be more constitutionally sound for all marriage "benefits" to be removed. Such benefits by their very definition and implementation are discriminatory against unmarried individuals. The only defense for their discriminatory implementation is to say that "should a single person decide to marry, he/she would receive the same benefits." This validation assumes nothing about that individual's sexual preference or even a need for romantic interest in the contractual partner in the marriage. Therefore, the current system equally discriminates against all people unmarried to the opposite sex, and I reiterate: this discrimination is independent of sexual orientation.
To redefine marriage as any contractual relationship between two people while maintaining the benefits of such a union would in fact create more discrimination against a large percentage of Americans (~50% of adults I believe, but admittedly too lazy to get the exact number) who--by either preference or circumstance--are unmarried. These individuals currently get paid less, pay more for car insurance, get looked over by land lords and real estate agents, have more financial hardship when raising children, and perhaps worst of all their social security benefits go back into the system if they don't have surviving parents or children (why not let these benefits go to a chosen co-worker, a best friend, a brother/sister, etc?).
On the flip side, singles volunteer more and are otherwise more likely to be involved in the community. In spite of this clearly positive role in society, unmarried individuals are currently and would continue to be treated as second class citizens.
10.6.2012 | 5:46pm
Brian Westley says:
"The operating definition of marriage strictly as a contractual relationship between "a man and a woman" has been intrinsic to marriage law within the US of A."
Not for the last few years it hasn't. Six states now recognize same-sex marriage, plus DC.
"The challenge is not--as you proposed--to the Supreme Court to explain why "post-menopausal women and other sterile people" still have the right to marry. To ask this question assumes something about marriage (the necessity for childbearing) which is historically unsupported as a definitional requirement.
Rather--similar to what Michael S. initially proposed--the question is "why should a union between two people of the same gender be considered 'fundamental to our very existence and survival'?""
How is that any different? A post-menopausal woman could marry a male or a female, and why should the state care one way or the other?
Not for the last few years it hasn't. Six states now recognize same-sex marriage, plus DC.
"The challenge is not--as you proposed--to the Supreme Court to explain why "post-menopausal women and other sterile people" still have the right to marry. To ask this question assumes something about marriage (the necessity for childbearing) which is historically unsupported as a definitional requirement.
Rather--similar to what Michael S. initially proposed--the question is "why should a union between two people of the same gender be considered 'fundamental to our very existence and survival'?""
How is that any different? A post-menopausal woman could marry a male or a female, and why should the state care one way or the other?
Beyond the duties and privileges, if you will, of the Office as described in the article, the Office of Marriage, in the Catholic understanding, is ordained toward the salvation of others (as is Holy Orders). Described in the Catechism, secs 1534-5, this startling statement is made: if these sacraments also contribute to the salvation of those on whom they are conferred, then it is through service to others that they achieve it. (paraphrased) The common assumption that each marriage is the sole "possession" of the couple, to do with as they will, is turned on its head!
How to communicate a sacramental understanding of a state in life to a secular Culture of Death is a difficult challenge. I applaud the author for proposing a means of doing so, but am not optimistic that this attempt will persuade anyone bought into our Culture of Unchastity.