MN Marriage Amendment Bill in Senate Judiciary Committee

Editor’s Note: In December 2005, the Minnesota Catholic bishops urged Catholics and all men and women of good will to join them “in protecting and promoting the authentic meaning of marriage in our society, by supporting the proposed amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, defining marriage as only a union between one man and one woman with no legal equivalent.” H.F. No. 6 passed the House in March of 2005 and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it is expected to be heard this session.

For further information visit the MN Catholic Conference online at www.mncc.org.

by Robert G Kennedy, PhD

This year the Minnesota legislature will consider a proposal to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a "union of one man and one woman." The amendment would also require that no other relationship "be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent." Opponents of this proposal have called it unnecessary and claimed that its supporters are, among other things, meanspirited, dictatorial, and hypocritical.

Given the experience of Massachusetts, it seems foolish to argue that a constitutional amendment is not necessary to preserve before the law the traditional definition of marriage. Most knowledgeable people will agree that, sooner or later, in the absence of such an amendment marriage is likely to be redefined by the courts. The principal point of disagreement between them is whether this would be a good thing or a bad thing.

I happen to think it would be a very bad thing indeed to redefine marriage. I also know that many people share this view, including the Catholic bishops of Minnesota. The bishops have recently urged pastors throughout the state to encourage their parishioners to send a postcard to senators and representatives expressing support for the proposal. For this effort, the bishops have been, and will no doubt continue to be, severely criticized.

This criticism is unjustified. It is perfectly appropriate for Catholics to support this proposal and for the bishops to lead them in doing so.

Catholics have always been persuaded of the importance of marriage for a healthy community. Furthermore, on our view, marriage may be protected (or threatened) by law but it is not a creature of the law. It is a unique and natural relationship, defined in part by the complementarity of male and female. Other relationships may involve friendship or love or commitment. They may be deserving of respect and perhaps even legal recognition. But if they are not an exclusive union between one man and one woman, they are not marriages.

America has certainly had its share of discriminatory laws and practices. Catholics, who have been the targets of many of these (such as the Blame Amendments), are not ignorant of this. Unjust discrimination is always rooted in a focus on some factor that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. In the case of marriage, however, gender is not irrelevant; it is at the heart of the matter.

To call same-sex relationships marriages is mistaken and to treat them in every respect as if they were marriages will open a Pandora's Box of mischievous consequences. For example, in jurisdictions where same-sex unions are treated as marriages constraints on free speech have been imposed, aggressive efforts have begun to repeal laws against polygamous or polyamorous marriages, and marriage comes increasingly to be regarded as merely a means of distributing property and allocating public benefits. It is prudent, not unjustly discriminatory, to resist this move.

Advocates of redefining marriage often claim that non-traditional households are unjustly deprived of rights and benefits, such as the right to make health care decisions or to own property jointly. However, these are often also challenges to households whose members do not aspire to marry or to share sexual intimacy, such as adult children living with elderly parents, siblings living together, or even friends.

Many of these issues can be resolved through private contractual arrangements. Some legitimate concerns cannot be resolved this way and perhaps we should explore new solutions to insure that people are treated fairly. We should not assume, however, that a radical and arbitrary redefinition of marriage is the only way to achieve this.

Nor should we assume that persons of faith and religious leaders are somehow disqualified from speaking to this question, which in any event is not fundamentally a religious matter. (Has any civilized society in history, regardless of its religious practices, ever defined marriage as other than a union between a man and a woman?) People may be inspired by their faith to defend marriage but what they defend is not the exclusive possession of any religious tradition. Religious leaders, bishops and pastors, who try to rally their people in support of legislation are not subverting the democratic process, they are participating in it.

Robert G Kennedy, PhD is Professor and Chair of the Dpt. of Catholic Studies,University of St Thomas; rgkennedy@stthomas.edu (651) 962-5140.