What would Abigail Adams say?

By Bishop Robert Banks

	Bishop Robert J. Banks

This is a sad Thanksgiving, at least for me. From the same corner of the country that gave us Thanksgiving comes a 4 to 3 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that puts the land of the Pilgrims and Puritans on its way to gay marriage.

The key sentence in the Court's decision is this: "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex, violates the Massachusetts Constitution."

There seems to be some confusion in Massachusetts as to just what this means. The court apparently gave the legislature 180 days "to take such action as it may deem appropriate in the light of this decision." Some say a civil union would satisfy the Court, but others say it has to be a formal civil marriage.

I wonder what Sam Adams and John Hancock would say about this Revolution. Or would John and Abigail Adams feel glad that their marriage was just the same as the union of two men or two women?

Once again, the Church finds itself defending marriage. Back in the first centuries of its existence, the Church defended the rights of women in their marriages. A modern sociologist has written that the Church's defense of the rights of women in marriage was one reason for the Church's rapid growth.

	Related article ... • Editorial --    Take corrective action

Then, about 1,000 years ago, the Church defended the goodness of marriage against those who saw the flesh and anything that had to do with the flesh - like marriage - as evil.

More recently, the Church has run into opposition in Africa, where the Church has insisted that members could have only one wife. For many African tribes, polygamy is part of their culture and they can see no wrong in it. I remember reading one survey in which wives said that they were happy their husband was taking on another wife. And Islam's acceptance of polygamy gives it an advantage over the Church in reaching out to people in those areas of the world. Still the Church calls people to the kind of marriage that Jesus spoke about.

Not that the Church is the only institution supporting the kind of marriage with which we have been familiar for centuries. On my way back from the recent Bishops' meeting in Washington, I read an article in Commentary, a Jewish journal of opinion, against same-sex marriage. Interestingly, the author, Sam Schulman, does not use the more common arguments against gay marriage. He sees marriage, basically, as a protection for a woman, and he asserts that women will be the victims of marriage's destruction.

As you probably know, we bishops issued a statement about marriage and same-sex unions. (You can find it on the bishops' web site, www.usccb.org.) It begins by noting that "a growing movement today favors making those relationships, commonly called same-sex unions, the legal equivalent of marriage." It goes on to say that this challenges Catholics and others "to think deeply about the meaning of marriage, its purposes, and its value to individuals, families and societies."

The statement uses a question and answer format; the first question being, "What is marriage?" The answer begins: "Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love." It goes on to point out that these truths about the union of a man and a woman are part of human nature and can be recognized both by reason and by faith.

Answering another question - "Why can marriage exist only between a man and a woman?" - the statement refers to the basic complementarity of men and women: "This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage." The statement adds arguments supporting these basic positions. I would mention two.

The first is that when marriage is redefined, so as to make other relations equivalent to it, then the institution of marriage is devalued and weakened. Second, "giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage would grant official public approval to homosexual activity and would treat it as if it were morally neutral."

Since many of us, especially young people, have some homosexuals as friends, and since TV consistently portrays homosexuals as exceptionally likable people, it can seem unfair to discriminate and deny them equal treatment. How do we handle that part of the problem?

First, the statement says that giving marriage a special status is not discriminatory. It simply recognizes that marriage and same-sex relationships are two very different realities. Then it repeats the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that homosexual persons are to "be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity."

Second, the statement says the state has an obligation to promote the family, which is rooted in marriage. Thus the state can justly give married couples rights and benefits it does not extend to others. Besides, some benefits can already be obtained by individuals without their having to be married to someone else.

So, what should Catholics do? Well, married couples, by the witness of their faithful, life-giving love, are the best advocates for marriage. Apart from that, Catholics should express their opinions in support of marriage by voice and vote, together with so many others who support marriage and oppose the legalization of same-sex unions.

Personally, I wonder if we appreciate what a change it would be to admit gay unions as the equivalent of marriage. Out the window would go all the statements of Jesus about marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The comparison of Jesus and Church as bride and groom would become history.

In Massachusetts, some of those who favor the quantum leap to same-sex unions are looking forward to action in the legislature. They feel that legislative approval, given after a thoughtful and conscientious debate, would help the public accept this new society. It is my hope that the public will let legislators know, in a thoughtful and conscientious way, that disapproval of same-sex unions will help everyone appreciate the importance of marriage-based families.

May you have a blessed Thanksgiving celebration with all your family.