Voices of reason stand up for marriage

By Paul Schratz

It seems we’re down to the wire in Canada on the effort to undefine marriage.

The kangaroo Senate is trampling its way over process in an attempt to force this poorly thought out legislation into law, and the closer we get, the more narrowly it seems to come down to one point: the issue of rights versus discrimination.

Again and again we’re lectured that homosexuals are being discriminated against, that changing the definition of marriage is the way to deal with it, and that anyone in opposition is a Neanderthal or a bigot.

In a recent editorial, I observed that there has been no end of court decisions that have rather clear-mindedly been able to cut through this haze of falsehood. Numerous judicial rulings have recognized the central reason for not changing the definition of marriage: because the present definition of marriage is the only reason the state has any interest in marriage in the first place.

The state has absolutely no reason to care one whit about marriage unless it’s marriage between men and women ultimately for the purpose of rearing children.

How can anyone deny that marriage is a stabilizing influence on men and women’s relationships and provides the necessary foundation for the raising of the next generation of citizens? If that’s not what marriage is all about, then why is the government even in the business of licensing and regulating marriage?

Now another judge, this time in New Jersey, acknowledges the reality of the situation. Appellate Court Judge Stephen Skillman wrote that reserving marriage for members of the opposite sex does not violate the state constitution, and like those of many of his judicial colleagues, his arguments were well reasoned.

“The traditional and still prevailing religious and societal view of marriage (is) as a union between one man and one woman that plays a vital role in propagating the species and provides the ideal setting for raising children.”

His co-jurist, Judge Anthony Parillo, concurred, writing that to render marriage into “a close personal relationship” would remove from the institution “any goal or end beyond the intrinsic emotional, psychological, or sexual satisfaction that the relationship brings to the individuals involved.”

As for the fact that some same-sex couples have children, it was pointed out that this no more invalidates the reality of marriage than the fact of adultery paves the way to legalized polygamy.

Last week, as Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Archbishop of Quebec, testified before the Senate committee “studying” the marriage redefinition bill, he pointed out the current debate about the nature and value of marriage is “predominantly social,” which is why he too set forth his arguments based on natural law and common sense.

On the question of rights, he pointed out that there are absolute rights, such as life and human dignity, and there are conditional rights, for which one must qualify. Clearly marriage is in the conditional category, as are the rights to vote and the right to practise medicine. You’re entitled to these rights IF you meet the qualifications.

For us and for a majority of Canadians, said the cardinal, marriage will remain the exclusive life-long covenant of the love of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. It’s a union “possessing the natural capacity to generate new lives, which has as its purposes the couple’s well-being as well as procreation and the education of children: a relationship that satisfies individual needs, but is also for the common good, and consequently deserving the preference and protection of the state.”

The government, Cardinal Ouellet said, “has a responsibility to favour and encourage this type of union, since marriage between a man and a woman ensures the future of society and constitutes the ideal environment for the development of children.”

He quoted prominent political philosopher Pierre Manent, who has observed that “marriage produces children, that is to say, citizens, and this comes under public interest.”

Of what public interest is the sexual relationship between two men or two women?

There are numerous other issues that enter tangentially once marriage is undefined, including the undeniable growing pressures on society, including parents, schools, and churches, to conform to the new situation.

Then there are the so-called new reproductive technologies that will follow as surely as abortion followed contraception. Ethicist Margaret Somerville paints a frightening scenario of a future society where children no longer have the right to a mother and father, or in fact any biological identity, who are conceived artificially at anyone else’s whim, and who are “genetic orphans” with no knowledge of where they came from.

As a synopsis of the natural law underlying marriage, the cardinal’s testimony is excellent. To read it in its entirety, go to http://bcc.rcav.org. After that, contact your senators, who are listed there as well, and ask them some of the questions that judges, cardinals, philosophers, and ethicists are asking.