The Catholic bishops of England and Wales are correct to say on same-sex marriage that civil same-sex unions are not the same as marriage. To the common mind, though, they are. Bristle as I do, some of my Catholic relatives often refer to our civil partnership ceremony as a “wedding” or “when you got married”. State and church have regularly redefined marriage and its structures over centuries due to changing cultural patterns, religious influences, and insights in social and human development. The structures of marriage are rooted not in biology or gender difference per se, but in relationality. If not so, those with clearly no potential for fertility could not enter a valid marriage. Faith communities have countenanced and rejected polygamous marriage, allowed nullity, divorce and remarriage, and the 20th-century Catholic church developed its earlier teaching that marriage was solely for procreation, declaring its purpose is twofold, including the mutual relationship of the couple.
Yet I am not a supporter of same sex marriage for myself. Marriage essentially depends on the subjection of one person to another, even if it’s a mutual subjection, in the exchange of vows. So I don’t seek such status. Civil partnerships are based on equality, legally expressed in a joint signing of a contractual covenant, rather than through vows.
No. Infertility due to physical defect or disease is a lack of proper function. Proper biological function is what determines the nature of marriage and not some lowest common denominator between the fertile and infertile. Likewise, if some people cannot receive nutrition from food because of an underlying physical condition, this does not mean that the point of meals is social enjoyment rather than nutrition.
Humans are social and rational animals, and meals and marriage have both a biological significance and a social significance. However, the first purpose is primary. Consider a cook who serves badly burned chicken and oversalted potatoes to guests because he thinks the colors and textures are interesting. It may be an experiment, and it may generate pleasant conversation, but it is not a meal.
In the sacraments, meals and marriage take on a further spiritual significance, akin to water being turned into wine. Even in these two cases, grace does not abolish nature, and the form of godliness present in communion and holy matrimony are derived from the order God instills in nature. In this sense, orthodox Christians are not the deniers of the goodness of our bodily nature but those who insist on its goodness.
“Marriage essentially depends on the subjection of one person to another, even if it’s a mutual subjection, in the exchange of vows. So I don’t seek such status.” The truth is simply declared, “I don’t seek such status”. Why then all the fuss to get the “title”? Really.