Dear People Whom God Loves,
SOME THOUGHTS
ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE
Recently, the Catholic bishops of Minnesota sent DVD’s about gay marriage to Catholics throughout our state. This is an issue that will not go away soon. It touches something deep inside of us. This means that we will have strong emotional reactions regardless of which side of the issue we are on.
When deep emotions are involved, it is more difficult for us to be respectful of each other. This makes it difficult to have an honest dialogue. It also means that we will be drawn to think that those who disagree with us are bad, stupid, or of ill will. I believe that it is essential to realize that most of us are thinking and acting out of what we believe is true and good.
With these thoughts in mind, I offer some points for you to ponder. I do not ask you to accept them. I would be grateful if you consider them.
As humans, we have an inborn need for relationships. It is difficult —perhaps impossible—to be grounded in ourselves in isolation. Our survival as infants depends on others. As we grow older, the needs change. What remains the same is our need of interdependence. Our sense of who we are, what it means to be human, and the growth of compassion is formed in our relationships with others. This intimate knowing of ourselves and others takes place together and nourishes both. Love of ourselves and others is two aspects of one and the same thing. Another way of putting it is to say that we have the same of one as of the other. I suspect that Jesus must have had much of the same realization when he said, “Love
your neighbor as you love yourself.” The Jewish scriptures tell us the same thing.
An integral part of our relationships is intimacy. We do not flourish deeply without intimacy. By intimacy, I mean the deep and honest sharing of our feelings, thoughts, dreams, virtues, vices, talents, successes, failures, beautiful stuff, and ugly stuff. It means being nakedly honest. It also means being there for each other.
I know that this is ideal, but it certainly is worth reaching for. This I see as spiritual growth. Fostering this growth is certainly part of the mission of Church. Church has the advantage of bringing the Love we name God into it. I see this also as part of the mission of the State because this will make better citizens and a healthier society. The way Church and State go about this will obviously be different.
Morality and law are not the same in a democracy. They are the same in a theocracy where the religion says what is moral and not moral and also makes it into law. In a democracy there are different views of what is moral and what is not, so what is viewed as moral or not moral by some is not necessarily put into law. People who view something as not moral by their religion have a right to express that and work toward putting that into law. However, in doing that they must give reasons that are not based on their religious beliefs but rather from reasons that are accessible to people of other religious faiths and people of no religion. The same is true for what is viewed as moral.
For example…evidence of the consequences for the family and society… evidence of the effect on human rights…also, evidence that it could reasonably be enforced. Our country has decided that democracy is better than theocracy.
The Catholic understanding of Christian marriage and the civil understanding of marriage are not the same. In a democracy, they are understandably different.
For example, Catholic understanding of divorce is different from the civil understanding. A Catholic, in good conscience, can choose not to try to make the civil understanding of divorce conform to the Catholic understanding. That is a political decision. A Catholic also may try to make the civil conform to the Catholic. That, too, would be a political decision that would need the evidence that I mentioned earlier.
The same logic can be applied to the question of making civil marriage conform to the Catholic understanding of Christian marriage in the matter of the marriage of gay and lesbian people.
I invite all of us—including me—to listen openly and respectfully to those with whom we disagree. And by giving an example of what might be the outcome of such dialogue, I offer the example with less confidence of its value than the value of what I have written above.
Without dialogue, the result is either no solution or a strictly conservative or strictly liberal solution. This means that the valuable insight of the opposing views are lost. My example is an attempt for a political solution that recognizes the value of having stable families and the value of human rights.
Those who oppose gay marriage are concerned about damage to the family. They need to bring arguments from reason supporting their concerns. Those favoring gay marriage need to bring arguments from reason that show that concern to be unfounded.
Those favoring gay marriage need to bring arguments from reason that support this concern about infringement of human rights. Those
opposing gay marriage need to bring arguments from reason that show that concern to be unfounded.
What the outcome of this open dialogue would be is unclear to me. It might be that one side would prevail or that a negotiated solution such as the example that follows would prevail. In any case, such a dialogue would in my opinion shed more light on a divisive issue.
A civil law could be made that might be called something like domestic partners. The law would allow any two people of appropriate age to enter into a relationship that would have all the rights and responsibilities that are enjoyed by people who enter civil marriage. There would be no need to inquire about gender, sexual orientation, blood relationship, or other non-pertinent questions.
Without open and respectful listening to each other, our church and our society will be less than healthy.
Smile, God Loves You,
Father Clay
Leave a Reply