Oh, Really?
Opponents of same-sex marriage criticize the idea for somehow changing what marriage really is. Oh, really?
Twaddle. Churches (and other religious bodies), as well as governments, have seen fit from time to time to redefine marriage to bring the institution more in line with moral enlightenment and social reality. A society prohibited from redefining itself as necessity dictates, in even the most fundamental ways, could not survive.
If that is so, then the "traditional" definition of marriage need not include a loving relationship in any sense, since opposite-sex couples are still considered married no matter how loveless—or even abusive—their relationship may be.
So what is marriage, "really?" The official statement of the Catholic Bishops of the United States, found on the website of The "American Catholic" has a lot to say about it—another case of the celibate church making broad pronouncements about other people's sexuality. The Catholic definition of marriage seems to center on two points: the procreation issue and what they term "the natural complementarity of male and female." It would be immature to suggest this latter phrase refers to the way the boy parts fit together with the girl parts. So I can only assume it's talking about something else. Except they never get around to saying what that is.
Here's what they do say, though:
Marriage is a basic human and social institution. Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.
Example: Polygamy is a biblical practice of the ancient Israelites, including many of the Patriarchs and, perhaps most famously, the superlatively wise King Solomon. Yet the words of Jesus make polygamy unacceptable to Christians from the earliest days—a noteworthy alteration of acceptable (if not prevalent) Jewish practice. The Jews themselves did away with polygamy in the Middle Ages—yet another alteration of accepted practice. So which form of marriage did God ordain, the monogamous, or the polygamous?
Example: Part of the decline of the church's temporal power in most of Western Europe included the rise of the concept of "civil marriage." Civil marriage wrested from ecclesiastical control all question of who may marry whom. It allowed rich, poor, Jew, Christian, brown and white (not to mention atheist and agnostic) to marry whomever they damn well pleased. It also allowed them to divorce if things didn't work out. Only the church ever saw this as contrary to the good of society.
This "irreplaceable contribution" is stated without any evidence or support beyond the say-so of the bishops. In the words of one of my favorite authors, "What may be stated without evidence may be dismissed without evidence." Example: The view of wives as property is another biblical given (see Sinai—"thou shalt not covet"—that's property!), and while the idea may offend the sensibilities of modern Christians and Jews, it has never been divinely rescinded. Yet no Jew or Christian of my acquaintance would ever concede that the wife is the husband's property, so I think we may safely say that somewhere along the line, something changed.
Marriage, whose nature and purposes are established by God, can only be the union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law. In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children.
Ignoring the question-begging implicit in the notion of marriage being "established by God," we must nevertheless suppose the church's track record on interpreting God's will is no better in this case than in the countless cases before it in which the church promoted some view of its own as the "will of God," only to have God somehow change his mind later. I am reminded of Galileo, who used to be God's enemy. Or the victims of the Inquisition, who were deprived of life, liberty and property on any pretext and literally no evidence, as long as doing so served and glorified God. 
Or the entire Jewish people, countless members of which were vilified, oppressed, tortured and killed for 19 centuries until the Pope finally determined they were no longer to blame for deicide.
In all such cases, an insistence upon hard evidence would have vacated the church's judgement. And in all cases, the failure to make such insistence led to needless suffering and the perpetuation of fear and ignorance on a grand social scale.
In response to the question of whether it is unjust to forbid same-sex marriage, the American Catholic document goes on to say:
It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so.
Incredibly, the writer then completely ignores the question of justice, never mentioning it again or explaining how this statement is anything but arbitrary and without rational foundation. We should not be surprised. The church has a long and glorious history of dictating conduct to its people, a centuries-long monologue with no sanctioned outlet for dissent or rebuttal, a one-way "conversation" to which the people may only reply, "Amen."
The concept of "justice" cannot exist in such an atmosphere. In talking about justice, the Catholic Bishops of the United States are out of their depth. I am no more willing to relinquish the definition of justice to the church than I am to relinquish the definition of—say—marriage.
—————————
*Christopher Hitchens
Nice articke on gay marriage.
It should have been legal long ago.
The pope tried to punish a quebec catholic prime miniser for making it legal. Thank God pope no longer has power he once did.
Reply to this
Thank you, Ricky. You're obviously nicer to me than I deserve.
Reply to this