I wrote a while back wrote about the State’s efforts to redefine the institution of marriage, when the legislature of New York imposed same-sex “marriage” on their citizens. I wanted to follow up on that a little, because as a nation we are almost certainly going to have to prepare for an ongoing battle on this front. This is not first and foremost a religious issue, as those advocating homosexual marriage like to claim: “You are forcing your religious beliefs on me.” There are many reasons that all people, of any faith or no faith, should be opposed to legalizing marriage for anyone but one man and one woman.
The argument for same-sex “marriage” goes that if you don’t care for it, it won’t really affect you: you just do thing, and I’ll do mine. If you want to marry “traditionally,” that’s fine, but I have a “right to be happy” and to “equal access to marriage with my ‘partner.’” Proponents might also add: “Look at Vermont or New York – the world hasn’t come to an end there, so what’s the big deal?”
What is wrong with this argument? Marriage is based in nature. It is a special relationship that the state has an interest in protecting, because it unites spouses and provides the best possible environment for children (and society) to flourish. The world hasn’t come to an end in New York – yet. But the negative effects of social engineering take time to develop.
After divorce laws were liberalized in many states, the negative effects didn’t kick in days after they were passed. But over years, the number of children hurting from no-fault and automatic divorce added up to an absolutely staggering social cost. Similarly, after liberal abortion laws were passed, it took a number of years for the staggering emotional distress of untold numbers of women to become evident.
The Church encourages us to fight to protect marriage because, if we don’t, our whole society will be adversely affected – Catholic and non-Catholic alike.
The biggest concern is that, once the state begins to redefine marriage, un-rooting it from nature, then they have no reason to stop. We have seen this already in countries which are further down the path than us here (such as Canada and many European nations). There, all references to motherhood and fatherhood were stricken from the law, from public records, etc. They call parents simply “A” and “B.” For example, a child needing adoption can be given no preference to be placed with a mother and father, rather than a single parent or a homosexual couple, even though every indication shows that those alternative arrangements are far less beneficial to the child.
Ultimately, once the state begins to regulate what marriage is legal – by their arbitrary definition not based in nature -- that opens the door to every manner of governmental coercion. The worst case occurs in places like China, where severe financial disincentives – or worse – attempt to control how many children parents will have. Think that kind of thing couldn’t happen here? Think again. Once the law forces us to accept an arbitrary definition of “marriage” – disastrous consequences will eventually follow.
<Prev Next>