The latest (January 10, 2007) edition of The Dialog, the weekly newspaper for Catholics in Delaware and on Maryland's Eastern Shore, carries the article, "Md. bishops’ statement affirms traditional marriage." This summarizes the reactions of the three local bishops--including the Diocese of Wilmington's Bishop Michael Saltarelli--to the various proposals either for or against same-sex marriage and/or civil unions up in the Maryland legislature this session.
This is a particularly important issue now, thanks to a Maryland Court of Appeals ruling last year, as the article points out:
To the bishops, therefore, this is perceived as the opportunity to lobby for the official Catholic position to be supported by State law.
First note: the Catholic Church has the right to promulgate any definition and/or theory of marriage that it prefers, for its own followers. I have no problem with that, or with Catholic priests who refuse to perform ceremonies for divorced Catholics or same-sex couples. If you want a religious, sacramental ceremony and acknowledgement of marriage, then my position is that it's your responsibility to insure that the faith you take up is congenial with your ideas long before you go passing out wedding rings.
[However, I also want to note that there is a rather large area of historical amnesia or perhaps even hypocrisy in this stand by the Church. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell (1994) makes a very strong case that the Church actually sanctified--with special sacramental rituals drawn up for the purpose--same-sex unions in Medieval Europe. It is a long read, and still controversial, but I have waded through it and find it at least 85% convincing. The link above will send you to one of the better reviews of the book.]
Where I have a problem is when the Church--any Church (but I'm incensed because in this instance it's my church at issue)--attempts to insert itself into the civil process of defining marriage along specific religious lines that would infringe upon the rights of others.
For example: marriage "comes about when a man and a woman make a mutual, exclusive and lifelong gift of themselves to one another in order to bring about a union that is personally fulfilling, open to the procreation and upbringing of children...."
Let's unpack that. Is the Church saying it will not support a legal definition of marriage when a heterosexual couple that never intends to bear children steps up to the altar? Followed to its logical conclusion, this definition would exclude any man who has had a vasectomy (or has been rendered sterile by testicular cancer) from getting married. Or any couple that is too old to have children. Or any other number of cases you might be able to think up.
The last time I checked, it was not a civil requirement for anyone to sign a contract saying he or she agreed to try to have child in order to acquire a marriage license.
What about a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, who are very open to the prospect of adopting and raising children who have otherwise been cast off by society. I know, I know--it's better to raise a child in an orphanage or a foster home than to place one in a house with a couple of married queers. How stupid of me.
Here's the reality of the bizarre civil/religious battle over marriage. It comes down to two statements:
1. Only a church can provide religious sanctification to a marriage.
2. Only the government can authorize the civil and legal advantages of marriage.
Put these two statements together and you come to the following conclusions: marriage is a religious institution; all "marriages" certified by the government--with or without church sanction--are in fact civil unions. We've just gotten very very sloppy about our use of the terms.
So here's my proposal for either a State or Federal Constitutional Amendment on the subject:
Of course this is a position that appears to place me in direct opposition to my Church. Perhaps, although as one of my parish deacons once said, "Faith is a journey, not a destination." And I should be clear on another issue: I have immense respect for Bishop Saltarelli as a man and as a spiritual leader. He is an amazing individual who has done so much more than most people will ever realize for the people of Delmarva. I just happen to think that he and the bishops are wrong--badly wrong--on this specific issue.
But as a Libertarian as well as a Catholic I cannot compromise my fundamental ethical principles. Either I believe in the right of people to choose their own private relationships or I don't. If the government insists on the power to selectively give specific civil and legal advantages to "married" couples, then both Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit demand that the rules be the same for everyone.
This is a particularly important issue now, thanks to a Maryland Court of Appeals ruling last year, as the article points out:
In the upcoming legislative session, bills that will challenge the definition of marriage are expected in the wake of last fall’s decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals that upheld state law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The Court of Appeals said that the state’s General Assembly could overturn the law and redefine marriage if it chose to do so.
To the bishops, therefore, this is perceived as the opportunity to lobby for the official Catholic position to be supported by State law.
“No legislative debate should prevent us from recognizing profound truths about men and women: They have equal dignity as persons and are mutually complementary as male and female,” said the statement, from Archbishops Edwin F. O’Brien of Baltimore and Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, D.C., and Bishop Michael A. Saltarelli of Wilmington. “Nor should it keep us from grasping the truth about marriage: It comes about when a man and a woman make a mutual, exclusive and lifelong gift of themselves to one another in order to bring about a union that is personally fulfilling, open to the procreation and upbringing of children, and necessary to the formation of a stable and secure foundation for our society.” Mary Ellen Russell, deputy director of the MCC, pointed out that it was the state court – and not the Catholic Church – that upheld the vital role marriage plays in securing a stable society.
“This is a civil discussion involving state laws, and it resonates across religions, cultures and societies,” she said, adding that the existing law “is protecting the one relationship that’s protecting the next generation of society."...
The bishop’s statement said: “Society appropriately assigns the right to marry to heterosexual couples because of the uniqueness of the sexual relationship between a man and a woman. As the Maryland court stated in its recent decision, ‘In light of the fundamental nature of procreation … safeguarding an environment most conducive to the stable propagation and continuance of the human race is a legitimate government interest.’ Civil law considers other appropriate requirements for those couples who wish to marry, including their age, mental competence and blood relationship.”...
The church does not oppose efforts to allow unmarried couples access to certain rights automatically granted to married couples, such as the right to make to medical decisions, as long as those efforts are not a back-door attempt to redefine marriage....
Marriage as a union of men and women “is a natural limitation, not a social limitation,” Russell said.
First note: the Catholic Church has the right to promulgate any definition and/or theory of marriage that it prefers, for its own followers. I have no problem with that, or with Catholic priests who refuse to perform ceremonies for divorced Catholics or same-sex couples. If you want a religious, sacramental ceremony and acknowledgement of marriage, then my position is that it's your responsibility to insure that the faith you take up is congenial with your ideas long before you go passing out wedding rings.
[However, I also want to note that there is a rather large area of historical amnesia or perhaps even hypocrisy in this stand by the Church. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell (1994) makes a very strong case that the Church actually sanctified--with special sacramental rituals drawn up for the purpose--same-sex unions in Medieval Europe. It is a long read, and still controversial, but I have waded through it and find it at least 85% convincing. The link above will send you to one of the better reviews of the book.]
Where I have a problem is when the Church--any Church (but I'm incensed because in this instance it's my church at issue)--attempts to insert itself into the civil process of defining marriage along specific religious lines that would infringe upon the rights of others.
For example: marriage "comes about when a man and a woman make a mutual, exclusive and lifelong gift of themselves to one another in order to bring about a union that is personally fulfilling, open to the procreation and upbringing of children...."
Let's unpack that. Is the Church saying it will not support a legal definition of marriage when a heterosexual couple that never intends to bear children steps up to the altar? Followed to its logical conclusion, this definition would exclude any man who has had a vasectomy (or has been rendered sterile by testicular cancer) from getting married. Or any couple that is too old to have children. Or any other number of cases you might be able to think up.
The last time I checked, it was not a civil requirement for anyone to sign a contract saying he or she agreed to try to have child in order to acquire a marriage license.
What about a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, who are very open to the prospect of adopting and raising children who have otherwise been cast off by society. I know, I know--it's better to raise a child in an orphanage or a foster home than to place one in a house with a couple of married queers. How stupid of me.
Here's the reality of the bizarre civil/religious battle over marriage. It comes down to two statements:
1. Only a church can provide religious sanctification to a marriage.
2. Only the government can authorize the civil and legal advantages of marriage.
Put these two statements together and you come to the following conclusions: marriage is a religious institution; all "marriages" certified by the government--with or without church sanction--are in fact civil unions. We've just gotten very very sloppy about our use of the terms.
So here's my proposal for either a State or Federal Constitutional Amendment on the subject:
“The right of two consenting adults to a civil union shall not be infringed. All ceremonies of civil marriage performed prior to the adoption of this amendment shall be considered civil unions under the law, and all rights and privileges previously pertaining to marriage shall henceforth pertain to civil unions.”
Of course this is a position that appears to place me in direct opposition to my Church. Perhaps, although as one of my parish deacons once said, "Faith is a journey, not a destination." And I should be clear on another issue: I have immense respect for Bishop Saltarelli as a man and as a spiritual leader. He is an amazing individual who has done so much more than most people will ever realize for the people of Delmarva. I just happen to think that he and the bishops are wrong--badly wrong--on this specific issue.
But as a Libertarian as well as a Catholic I cannot compromise my fundamental ethical principles. Either I believe in the right of people to choose their own private relationships or I don't. If the government insists on the power to selectively give specific civil and legal advantages to "married" couples, then both Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit demand that the rules be the same for everyone.
Comments
Sorry, back to pre-cana for you. "Open to" means simply, no artificial birth control. No condoms, no pills, no gels, no surgery etc. Sterility due to medical conditions like cancer are not included. Likewise post-menopausal women. So long as two married people do not queer the dice (if you'll pardon the pun) with regards to the possibility of conception.