In CWR
H. L. Mencken—satirist, progressive,
pseudo-misogynist, provocateur—wrote a book in 1918 called In Defense of
Women. Like an optical illusion, the title, depending on one’s focal point,
can mean defending women or defending oneself from women. The irony is
the initial hook.
If the executive and judicial branches of the US
Government have their way with traditional marriage, the phrase “in defense of
marriage” will likewise have two possible slants: defending the marital union
as designed by God in the beginning or defending oneself from
marital unions as designed by federal authority.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA). The general purpose of DOMA was to cement, at the federal
level, the traditional understanding of marriage. Why was that deemed
necessary?
The seeds for DOMA were sown in 1993. Hawaii’s Supreme
Court had ruled that limiting marriage to one man and one woman was probably
unconstitutional (Baehr v. Miike). Immediately, there were those who
anticipated trouble down the road. Indeed, they reasoned, if the Hawaiian
legislature were to pass a same-sex marriage (SSM) law, the spores of that law could
drift to other states by way of the Full Fair and Credit Clause of the United
States Constitution.
That clause (c. 1789) states that “full faith and
credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial
proceedings of every other state.” In short, what is legally binding in one
state is legally binding in other states. If, therefore, a same-sex married
couple moved from a state that sanctioned SSM to one that did not, the new
state of residence would have to recognize the couple’s bond.
Enter DOMA, which says that (1) no state is required
to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state, and (2) the word
“marriage,” for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United
States, means a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
DOMA does not restrict states from passing legislation
for or against same-sex marriage. DOMA does prevent a same-sex couple
who, married in a non-traditional marriage state, wants the same rights in a
traditional marriage state. For the 31 states with constitutional amendments
banning same-sex marriage and for the 11 additional states that define marriage
as between one man and one woman, DOMA is, in effect, an interstate
anti-bullying law.
Recently, a federal appeals court in New York City
ruled DOMA unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court has agreed to look at that
ruling, which focuses only on whether the present federal definition of
marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If the
Supreme Court upholds the appeals court decision, essentially opening up
federal benefits for legally married same-sex couples, the nose of the camel,
as they say, will be in the tent. When the camel’s body (the full weight of SSM
and its agenda) follows, DOMA will find itself outside the tent. Upshot: a
same-sex marriage performed in one state will have to be recognized by all
other states, regardless of how the other states define marriage.
The Catholic Church in America will then find herself
wedged between the reality of marriage and the federal government’s idea of
marriage. The Church as teacher will continue to proclaim the good news,
namely, that marriage is a unique love-giving and life-giving union between one
man and one woman, and the federal government will begin to proclaim its
“good news,” namely, that it deems all such traditional talk “hate speech.”
Back to the Future—Genesis Revisited
Marriage, in the Catholic view, is neither a social
construct nor an ecclesial invention. It is often described as a natural
institution that was raised to a higher level the day Jesus turned six jars of
water into vintage wine during the wedding at Cana. It is propitious that,
regarding the Church’s vision of marriage, John Paul II has brought us to a new
place and a new depth.
In his theology of the body, John Paul II talks about
the sacrament of creation, the apex of which is when God creates man and woman
in his own image and the two become one. In them and their union, a
measure of the internal and invisible mystery of God’s life and love first
becomes visible (TOB 96:6-7).
Since marriage was in the mind of God from the very
beginning, John Paul II concludes that marriage is a primordial sacrament. But
he goes further. In our earth-bound experience, marriage is the paradigm of the
total self-giving love within the Trinity—“All that is mine is yours and yours
is mine…” (Jn 17:10).
For some reason, the love between the First and Second
Persons—the love that is the Third Person—does not stay put. It brims up
and spills over into Creation. For marriage to reflect Trinitarian life, not
just in terms of self-gift, the love between husband and wife is also meant to
brim up and spill over into (possible) new human life. There is another
important truth to ponder here: the communion of persons formed between husband
and wife reflects God more than does the individual husband or wife (TOB
9.3).
The natural law argument for traditional marriage
In What Is Marriage? Man and Woman—A Defense,”
authors Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George argue that
abolishing the traditional view of marriage would (a) weaken the social
institution of marriage, (b) obscure the value of opposite-sex parenting, and
(c) threaten moral and religious freedom. Their explication of those three
points, using common sense and real-life examples, is masterful and most
helpful. All traditional marriage protagonists should have, at the ready, the
debating points in What Is Marriage? That said, my caveats are two:
(1) Common-sense arguments find fertile ground in
persons who are naturally curious, open to most topics, and delight in reasoned
conversation. By contrast, those bent on revising the definition of marriage
are single-minded and hard-charging—they love devising “diversity” gauntlets
for all within reach. The desired end is the person who, regardless of sexual
orientation or religious belief, embraces the homosexual agenda.
Furthermore, whereas natural law proponents understand
the importance of historical development, marriage revisionists seem to see
each day as literally brand new—life’s events come into existence, change
shapes, and evaporate like cumulus clouds. Understanding causes and their
long-term effects are not part of the daily fare. And the notion of paradox
seems downright flummoxing—I have yet to meet the progressive who understands
Luke 17:33, “Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his
life will preserve it.” But marriage is, at its core, paradoxical—therein, a
man and a woman seek to lose their individual lives to gain a new life of
mutual communion and family community.
To reiterate: Those with whom common-sense reasoning
resonates are inclined to join the natural law choir, if they’re not already
members. Those not able to “compute” such common-sense reasoning are the dug-in
opposition. But what about those who could go either way?
According to a 2011 study, “Catholic Attitudes on Gay
and Lesbian Issues” (Public Religion Research Institute), 43 percent of American Catholics see no problem with same-sex marriage;
an additional 31 percent lean toward same-sex civil unions. Allow me to surmise
what nearly three-quarters of the Catholic populace is thinking: If marriage is
essentially a natural institution, why can’t it evolve naturally? Is it
because the Church has put a sacramental stamp on it? Okay, but most of the
world doesn’t believe in that stamp. What about the fact that marriage existed
prior to the Church? Finally, are there not equally good, down-home arguments
for same-sex marriage? Such questions lead to the second caveat.
(2) We need natural law arguments that support
traditional marriage—no question. And we have excellent ones in What Is
Marriage? But, in my opinion, we need more. We need to proclaim marriage in
such a way that it moves the person in the pew to pause, ponder, and possibly
change.
Proclamation—An analogy
How many persons interested in the Christian faith
would become converts if we talked sensibly about the Resurrection? Catechist:
“Well, what’s important is that we know that the disciples believed that Christ
rose from the dead. So, we believe that they believed. We’re carrying on
the tradition of knowing that they believed. Whether Jesus actually did
resurrect is not the important thing here.”
Juxtapose that witness with this: “I believe that
Christ rose from the dead. And that’s the reason I’m standing before you. If
the Resurrection did not actually happen, then, quite frankly, I’m wasting your
time. Plus, I’ve wasted most of my life. But Christ did resurrect; he is
the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That’s what I believe, that’s what Catholics
have always believed, and that’s what the followers of Christ will proclaim to
all future generations.”
From which testimony will we get more converts? I
think the latter.
Proclaiming the mystery of marriage
Over the past four and a half decades, I’ve
given countless classes and talks on marriage and family. I believe we need to
proclaim the good news about marriage, not just anew, but in a new way. To wit:
— Marriage is more than a
natural, social construct with a subsequent, sacramental seal of approval.
— Marriage was in God’s mind
from the get-go.
— The visible sign of marriage
“in the beginning,” inasmuch as it is linked to the visible sign of Christ’s
spousal love for the Church, embodies God’s eternal plan of love, making it the
foundation of the whole sacramental order (cf. TOB 95b.7).
— Marriage, in terms of the nature
of self-gift, reflects the internal life of the Trinity.
— The communion of persons
formed by husband and wife reflects God more than does each spouse
individually.
These are new ways of describing a reality that we can
no longer take for granted or view as a second-tier vocation. They connect
marriage directly to God the Creator and to Christ the Bridegroom. In my
experience, the Catholic on the fence is moved more by testimony and witness
than by logic.
John Paul II, with his
theology of the body, put marriage center-stage. SSM activists have also put
marriage center-stage. The ensuing drama will determine whether we can continue
to carry the good news of God’s plan for marriage and family with verve and in
freedom. Hopefully, “in defense of marriage” will not come to mean
defending ourselves against marriage, government-style.
