Defending Marriage

I want to share this recent article from the Catholic News Agency (CNA) regarding the fight to protect marriage. Please read and support.

_________________________________

Sacramento, Aug 13, 2008 / 01:10 am (CNA).- ProtectMarriage.com, the campaign favoring Proposition 8, the California initiative that would ban same-sex marriage, on Tuesday announced the launch of the official grassroots effort dedicated to supporting the campaign. The organization Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com is led by the Knights of Columbus, the California Catholic Conference and Catholics for the Common Good.

Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com is chaired by Bill May, who is also chairman of Catholics for the Common Good.

“Our strong Catholic faith teaches us the importance of treating all of God's children with love and respect, it also teaches us that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of the family - the first school of love, peace and justice," May said in a statement. "The ruling by the California Supreme Court nullifying the legal definition of marriage in state law was a shock to Catholics and other citizens who are concerned about how this will affect their own children's understanding of marriage.”

California Catholics reportedly played a large role in the passage of Proposition 22 in 2000, which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. The proposition was approved by more than 60 percent of California voters.

Proposition 22 was overturned on May 15, 2008 by the California Supreme Court. The court’s majority found that domestic partnerships are not an adequate substitute for marriage.
Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, welcomed Catholics to the effort aimed at amending California’s Constitution. “The fight to protect marriage is an all-encompassing effort that affects everyone in California," he said. "We're honored to have Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com offer us their assistance and to add them to our diverse list of supporters. We expect they will help us motivate a groundswell of support for Proposition and we're confident that with that support we will restore the definition of marriage in California, come November.”

Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com reportedly supports volunteer activities such as literature distribution and phoning in parishes and surrounding communities. Its website is located at http://catholicsforprotectmarriage.com/.

[1] Full Article

[2] Protect Marriage.com

Should We Be Surprised? (Updated)

Art suggested that we submit "Should We Be Surprised?" as a letter to the editor in our local paper. After much deliberation, I have decided to do so. My good friend AJ Fredette looked it over and offered some suggestions, which I will gladly take. I would also like any readers of our blog to offer comments and/or suggestions before I send it off to the paper. So...the semi final draft is as follows:

As we all know, the California Supreme Court recently decided to make same sex marriage a fundamental right. Needless to say, this has created quite a stir. Chief Justice, Ronald M. George wrote the majority opinion and was quoted as saying, "I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe." I completely agree. Doing the right thing does mean not playing it safe; especially when one is defending the rights of others, which is what the Court believes it has done. Others, however, disagree that this is what was accomplished.The central problem in the debate over same sex marriage revolves around the definition of marriage. There are those who argue, as the California Supreme Court does, that marriage is simply an agreement between parties to share certain assets as a result of the experience of a certain degree of affection. Dissenters, however, recognize that marriage has a deeper meaning, basis, and function.

Marriage, in this view, has two components: contractual and covenantal. The Court has the legal right to do what they please with the contractual part of marriage, as contracts are strictly legal instruments. However, they have no say over the covenantal, or sacramental, aspect of marriage, as this part is subsumed in spiritual considerations. While a contract is an exchange of goods and services, a covenant is a union of persons.

The sacrament of matrimony is more than just two people who love each other agreeing on terms and conditions under which they will share a life. It is more than being able to file a joint tax return or reap legal benefits granted by the government. These are the contractual aspects of marriage that should be the Court’s purview. But the covenantal, spiritual dimension of matrimony transcends and supersedes the contractual and is beyond the scope of the Court’s authority.

Matrimony, in its fullest sense, is about the communion of persons as God intended from the beginning. Look no further than Matthew 19 to see Jesus' teaching on marriage:

"And the Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

Notice that Jesus refers to the "beginning,” harkening to the Creation. Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Together, male and female make up "man." And "man" is created in the image of God. The way we reflect the image of God is in the one flesh union of the marital act. This is not possible in a same sex union as the marital act requires a male and a female. Why?If God is a communion of persons, then we, as images of God, are to be a communion of persons. But God is the communion of Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity and a married couple is just a communion of two persons. Where is the third person of the human trinity? Well, my wife and I have four of them. The love between a husband and wife is so real that in nine months you give it a name. That is how we image God. This is what makes marriage a covenant rather than merely a contract. Covenants create families.

Covenants, then, result in procreative, self-perpetuating unions. Contracts specify terms, conditions, limits, and duration of agreement. In contracts, the parties remain separate. In covenants, the parties become one. Further, now that the courts have officially taken marriage out of the context of a covenant and made it purely a contract between consenting adults, what is to keep them from allowing multiple marriage partners? After all, contracts often involve more than two parties. This and a variety of other marital contractual arrangements become permissible by denying or ignoring the covenantal aspect of matrimony.

A difficulty, perhaps by now insuperable, is that many of the folks who are so upset about this decision, claiming that it isn’t the way God intended or it isn’t “natural,” have become part of the problem without realizing it. Marriage was actually taken out of its covenantal context long ago. The 1970’s saw the legalization of “no fault” divorce as well as abortion. And the door to all of this was opened in the first part of the 20th century with the legalization of artificial contraceptives. With the extensive use of contraceptives, most married couples have negated the third person of the family and reduced the marital act to a pleasurable, strictly physical experience. Husbands and wives are simply using each other for pleasure. How is that different from that which a same sex couple can accomplish? The thing that sets the covenant of marriage apart is life-giving love. If the possibility of life is taken out of the marriage by way of contraception, then it is no different than any other act between two people who "love" each other, thereby reducing the marriage to a contract. The irony is striking. While proponents of contraception, “no fault” divorce, and abortion claim to work for happy, healthy families, what they have accomplished is a diminution of the importance of the covenantal, procreative, life-giving aspect of the institution, thus degrading it. Many of these people are the loudest voices protesting the statutory recognition of same-sex marriages.

If we truly want to protect the sanctity of marriage, then we need to reclaim the covenant of marriage. If we want to reclaim the covenant of marriage, we had better take a hard look at how we can protect the sanctity of life. When it comes to life and marriage, God has brought them together, let no man put them asunder. So really, we shouldn’t be surprised by the court’s decision-- our society has been working to destroy the underpinnings of marriage for years.

I would appreciate any feedback I can get...thanks.

Should We Be Surprised?

As we all know, the California Supreme Court recently decided to make same sex marriage a fundamental right. Needless to say, this has created quite a stir. Michael Uhlmann states in his article A New Sexual Constitution?:

On May 15, a 4-3 majority of the California Supreme Court rewrote the state constitution and decreed that same-sex marriage was now a “fundamental” right. In a stunning display of disingenuous humility, the court had the brass to assert that it was not stating a policy preference, but only interpreting the people’s will as expressed in the state’s highest law. But California’s constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage, and the people of California made their will abundantly clear as recently as 2000, when they overwhelmingly passed a legislative initiative defining marriage as a union between man and woman.

The thing that strikes me about this is that four people made this decision for the entire state. Four People! I have no idea how they find same sex marriage addressed in the constitution. But, then again, I am not a lawyer. Chief Justice, Ronald M. George wrote the majority opinion and was quoted as saying, "I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe." I agree with that quote. Doing the right thing does mean not playing it safe; especially when one is defending the rights of others, which is what the Court believes it has done.

The problem is that they are dealing with marriage. The sacrament of matrimony is more than just two people who love each other getting together to share a life. It is more than being able to file a joint tax return or reap legal benefits granted by the government. Matrimony is about the communion of persons as God intended from the beginning. Look no further than Matthew 19 to see Jesus' teaching on marriage:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" [4] He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? [6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

Notice that Jesus is referring to the "beginning." Genesis 1:27 states: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Male and female make up "man." And "man" is created in the image of God. Male and Female image God in the one flesh union of the marriage act. That can't take place in a same sex union. It requires a male and a female. Why?

If God is a communion of persons, then we are to be a communion of persons. But wait, God is the communion of Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity and Man is just a communion of two persons. Where is the third person of the human communion of persons? Well my wife and I have four of them. They are named Dawson, Nevan, Aidan and Jabin. The love between a husband and wife is so real that a third person is created. That is how we image God.

The problem is that many of the folks who are screaming about the sanctity of marriage don't see it that way. With rampant use of contraceptives most married couples have negated the third person of the family by reducing the marital act to a pleasurable experience. Husbands and wives are simply using each other for pleasure. How is that different from that which a same sex couple can accomplish? The thing that sets a marriage apart is life giving love. If the life is taken out of the equation by way of contraception, then it is no different than any other act between two people who "love" each other.

If we want to protect the sanctity of marriage, then we better take a hard look at how we can protect the sanctity of life. When it comes to life and marriage, God has brought them together, let no man put them asunder. So really, should we be surprised?