“What’s
Wrong with Same-Sex Unions?” -
Editor’s note: In 2004, the Catholic bishops of
What is the problem with calling a same-sex union a
marriage?
A same-sex union cannot be
the uniquely complementary, mutually loving, and procreative relationship that
God intends marriage to be as reflected in the way he created human nature. By
definition a marriage is something other than a same-sex union. Because persons
of the same sex cannot enter into a true conjugal union with each other, it
would be wrong to act as if their relationship were a marriage. Since the
coming together in sexual activity of people of the same sex is essentially
different from the sexual activity of a man and a woman, simply saying they are
the same does not make them the same. When society tries to redefine marriage
so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, marriage itself is
devalued.
Why is it so important that marriage be preserved as
the exclusive union of a man and a woman?
After millennia of human
experience and ethical reflection, history has shown the family to be the
foundation of society. The institution of marriage plays an essential role in
the continuation of the human race, the full and proper development of each person
and the establishment of a society rooted in personal dignity, social stability
and mutual respect. Marriage is the foundation of the family. In turn the
family is the basic unit of society. Thus while marriage is a personal
relationship it also has public significance.
Society needs the presence
and contribution of males and females. Marriage is the primary pattern for
male-female relationships. It has social value insofar as it models the way in
which women and men can live interdependently and commit, for the whole of
life, to seek the good of each other.
"The marital union also
provides conditions for raising children: namely, the stable, loving
relationship of a mother and father present only in marriage. The state rightly
recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws because the
relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good"
Why should marriage even be a part of civil law?
The civil government has
power to enact legislation because there is a human need for order as we live
together with others. The ordering of our society must reflect our deepest and
most abiding values.
Civil laws are intended not
only to provide a structure within which we can live in harmony and peace, but
also to support our most cherished values. In a religiously pluralistic society
we find common ground for legislation in the created order and in the natural
moral law that follows on that reality.
It is within the context of
God's natural created order, human sexuality and marriage, that we can evaluate
some of the current challenges to these values today. To propose a new
definition of marriage is to present a completely different understanding of
human sexuality and its purpose. Thus we see increasingly proposals made for same-sex
"marriage" - the desire to legitimize a union of people of the same
sex as if it were a relationship equal to marriage.
What would be wrong with civil laws defining same-sex
unions as marriage?
Homosexual unions simply do
not conform to the definition of marriage. Whatever such unions might be even
if recognized in civil law, they are not true marriages. In
God's plan, human history and experience, a man and a woman come together to
form a permanent life-giving union and at the same time to become a family, the
first cell of human society. Civil law cannot legitimately redefine this
human reality.
Should we work to see that what we make legal is also
moral?
We have an obligation to see
that civil laws reflect the proper moral order. We have experienced in the
history of our country the imposition of laws that were enacted by the
legislature and confirmed by the Supreme Court which at the same time were
clearly immoral and unjust. Slavery presents the most obvious example of a law
that was simply unjust. It contradicted the truth of right reason about human
dignity and the natural moral order. The same self-evident truth is present in
legalized abortion. While abortion may be legal in the
Just because something is
legal does not make it moral. The moral law has a higher claim on our
conscience than does civil law. This becomes clear when we deal with homosexual
unions. "Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason
because they confer legal guarantees analogous to those granted to marriage to
unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this
question, the state could not grant legal standing to such unions without
failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential
to the common good."
Does denying marriage to homosexual persons
demonstrate unjust discrimination or lack of respect for them as persons?
Because a marriage and a
same-sex union are essentially different realities, it is not unjust to treat
them differently. "In fact, justice requires society to do so."
Respecting the dignity of
homosexual persons does not conflict with upholding God's intent for marriage
in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place. Christians
must give witness to the whole moral truth and also oppose as immoral both
homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.
"The Catechism of the
Catholic Church urges that homosexual persons ‘be treated with respect,
compassion, and sensitivity' (No. 2358). It also encourages chaste
friendships." Such friendships,
whether between homosexual or heterosexual persons, are a great good benefit to
society (See CCC, 2347).
Is legal marriage among homosexuals a right to which
they are entitled?
While some would frame the
definition of marriage solely in terms of civil rights, the reality is far
greater. Human rights are reflective of the natural moral order. We do not
create new human rights. The state can make legal rights but must first
recognize God's created natural moral order. Thus the state has an obligation
to avoid anything that would confuse the proper definition of marriage but also
to foster marriage and support it as an institution. "Because married
couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within
the public interest, civil law grants them institutional
recognition." The State should not
create legal rights that contradict the natural moral order.
Is the recognition of homosexual "marriages"
or same-sex unions the only way in which two people of the same sex can obtain
certain benefits?
Most if not all of the
financial benefits that the State affords those who are married are readily
available to unmarried people. Property can be held in the name of two people
who are not married. State law recognizes the freedom of people to name
whomever they want as beneficiaries of a will or a life insurance policy. A
designee as an agent under a durable power of attorney or as a healthcare agent
can be a person who is unmarried, and in fact, unrelated in any way. Presently,
businesses can, if they choose, voluntarily extend employment benefits to
individuals unrelated to employees. None of these benefits require marriage.
On the other hand because the
State has an obligation to promote the family, which is rooted in marriage, it
can justly give married couples benefits and rights it does not extend to
others. It would be wrong to redefine marriage as a means of providing benefits
to those who cannot rightly claim marriage.
Is much of the argument about same-sex unions
addressing something wider than simple personal benefits?
Much of the argument today
that is presented to support so-called "same-sex unions" essentially
calls for a redefinition of the social order. To accomplish this goal marriage
must be redefined and the entire concept of family must be reordered. It is
precisely because of the extremely far-reaching and radical dimensions of this
type of legislation that we are obliged to speak up for the perennial human
values that are at the core of social and community life.
courtesy of the Catholic bishops of