Recently, proposals have been put forth in our state to recognize so-called “same-sex marriage,” a radical step that would remove from marriage its most basic, fundamental characteristic, thereby altering its very essence.
Our Governor has ordered recognition of such unions from other states as “marriages” in New York. This redefinition defies reason. Additionally, the state Assembly last year approved a measure to permit such “marriages” here, though to date the Senate has not.
Such actions, whether the legal union is called “marriage” or “civil union,” represent a destructive development for our state.
The joining of man and woman in the bond of marriage is a constant and visible reminder of God’s goodness and the beauty of the Divine plan for humankind. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ himself raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament. And, indeed, all of the world’s great religions rightfully recognize marriage as a holy union of a man and a woman.
Numerous theological and religious arguments could be advanced as to why same-sex unions should be rejected. However, this is not simply a matter of theology, and religious values are not the sole source of opposition to this plan.
Marriage always has been, is now and always will be a union of one man and one woman in an enduring bond. This is consistent with biology and natural law, and should be obvious to all, no matter what their religion, or even if they have no religion at all. It is a mutual personal gift between the two that serves the individual couple in many ways, allowing them to grow in love and, through that love, to bring forth children.
Just as importantly, this union also serves the larger society. Marriage provides a stable family structure for the rearing of children and is the ultimate safeguard so that civil society can exist and flourish. That is why civil society through the ages has recognized its duty to foster and respect marriage between a man and a woman.
This is a very helpful statement. What a shame that the Governor of New York will pay no attention. As the Bishops say, there will be harsh judgment by history (by God) on our presumptious sin.
Truth spoken plainly and clearly. No kindergarten morality here. Well done NY Catholic Bishops!
The Junior Senator from Oregon, Gordon Smith, has spoken publically relating the pursuit of same sex marriage by special interest groups to the persecution of his Mormon ancestors by both the public and the government for their adherence to polygamy. This seems to be the first time I’ve heard a public acknowledgment that there could possible be an “unintended consequence” in the endorsement of SSB/Ms; while Smith opposes SSMs, his comments point out the fact that if they are normalized then polygamy likewise could be. I find it interesting that a public politico has brought this concern to the forefront. I believe it’s the first time this has happened at least at this level.
I do commend the bishops. And I commend Senator Smith.
Variations of this sentiment come up fairly frequently in this kind of argument, and it always puzzles me. It is clearly, blatantly, and indisputably false that marriage “always has been … a union of one man and one woman.” Whether one approves of polygamy or not, it has historically been a quite common pattern of marriage. Polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands) is much rarer but not unknown, as well.
The argument against same-sex marriage is not mine to make, of course, and I shouldn’t presume to tell you how to make it. But I can’t help but think that including such an easily disproven point weakens the rest of your argument by association.
[blockquote] It is clearly, blatantly, and indisputably false that marriage “always has been … a union of one man and one woman.†[/blockquote]
Ross,
The claim is that it has always been God’s design that marriage is to be the union of one man and one woman. Mark 10:6-8 reveals the mind of God on the matter: “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let not man put asunder.”
I don’t see anything there that would indicate God’s intention for marriage to be anything other than the union of one man and one woman.
On what do you base your claim?
No one is disputing the fact that marriage has taken various other forms in the past. There has been and still is polygamy, same-sex “marriage” and a host of other things. None of those things has any part of God’s plan and order for creation and humanity.
Just because men and women can dream up other forms of relationships they believe suit them best doesn’t mean that those other forms are recognized or blessed by God. God only recognizes and blesses the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, meaning the life-long union of one man and one woman. Anything other than that is not Christian marriage.
The quote that must addresses the prevailing intellectual climate concerns the legal, health, etc. benefits for same-sex couples:
[i]The question of such benefits should not be allowed to cloud the discussion because, in truth, the movement for “same-sex marriage†is less about such benefits as it is about societal acceptance and approval of homosexual relationships. But it is not the business of the state to attempt to legislate such approval.[/i]
I pray that God will continue to shine in the faces and words of those Bishops. I also give thanks for the Bishops in the TEC and Anglican Communion who are standing with God on this issue.
Ross tells the view of “the world the flesh and the devil†while DaveW tells of God’s plan that has been and still is stretched, twisted, discarded, and ignored by “the world.†Those Bishops speak from a time perspective and how God’s word received has brought a far greater stability to family life than, say, the powers at be in the TEC have with innovations based on new societal standards going back to the sixties with abortion, divorce, free love, common sex outside marriage, unwanted, unloved, ignored children, who pose a huge problem for society today. Adding another dimension with SSM will do additional harm to the Christian and Jewish family unit in God’s plan that consists of a man, a woman, and children.
I’m old and praise my Lord I won’t live to see the destruction of God’s plan for the family unit to be one man, one woman, and their children.
#5 DaveW says:
That is not what they said. Let me expand the context of the part I quoted:
The bishops explicitly set aside for this portion of their statement the “theological and religious arguments” against same-sex marriage. The statement about what marriage “always has been, is now and always will be” is intended to be “obvious to all, no matter what their religion, or even if they have no religion at all.” In this particular paragraph they are making a statement about marriage in a historical sense, or a sociological one, or a biological one, but explicitly not in a religious sense, much less a Christian religious sense. And in those senses their statement about what marriage “has always been” is demonstrably false.
#8 Ross wrote
[blockquote] The bishops explicitly set aside for this portion of their statement the “theological and religious arguments†against same-sex marriage. The statement about what marriage “always has been, is now and always will be†is intended to be “obvious to all, no matter what their religion, or even if they have no religion at all.†In this particular paragraph they are making a statement about marriage in a historical sense, or a sociological one, or a biological one, but explicitly not in a religious sense, much less a Christian religious sense. And in those senses their statement about what marriage “has always been†is demonstrably false. [/blockquote]
It appears to me that you are reading something into the bishops’ statement that actually isn’t there. They state that “this is not simply a matter of theology, and religious values are not the sole source of opposition to this plan.” If religious values are not the sole source of opposition, that doesn’t mean religious values are completely excluded as a source of opposition.
Maybe what the Catholic bishops mean is that [b]given[/b] Mark 10:6-8, the truth of marriage being the union of one man and one woman is consistent with biology and natural law.
Otherwise, you seem to be claiming that for some inexplicable reason, the Catholic bishops are asserting what is demonstrably false, on a level with attempting to claim that two plus two equals five, or that New York City is west of Chicago.
I don’t understand Ross’s objection to the comment that marriage is now and has always been a union of one man and one woman. He cites polygamy and polyandry to prove his objection. But marriage is marriage and polygamy is polygamy, NOT marriage. It is true that polygamy is often reported in the Bible and in history. But it is not marriage which has been by definition the union of one man and one woman.
To be sure, the definition of marriage has changed in the past several years–changed by those who are redefining it. A very post modern position!
I couldn’t agree with the bishops more! BRAVO!
Ross is correct: the bishops did misspeak. However, it’s irrelevant since the topic is same-sex marriage and I’m fairly certain that no successful culture has ever practiced that.
So in effect the bishops are correct.
I repeat myself. Same – sex unions = “marriage”????. There seems to be something missing in all the discussion I have read. Not too many years ago I read an article that indicated in the first year of all these union a very large number of persons fled the coop leaving their partners. Any information as to indicate that this is still going on?