Advertise in this spot on CatholicCulture.org. View all ads.

Catholic World News News Feature

Same-Sex Unions and the Meaning of Marriage January 01, 2004

When the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts finally issued its ruling in the case of Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health on November 18, that decision was long overdue in more ways than one. The highest court in Massachusetts had delayed for months, postponing the publication of a ruling that had been heavily anticipated since the spring. And in a larger sense, homosexual activists—having won preliminary legal skirmishes in Hawaii and in Vermont—felt their case in Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state in the US, presented their best chance for outright judicial approval of their bid for legal recognition of same-sex "marriage."

The homosexual activists were not disappointed. By a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Massachusetts engaged in unconstitutional discrimination by refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Court gave the Massachusetts legislature 180 days in which to correct that alleged discrimination.

"Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support. It brings stability to our society," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the ruling. "For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial and social benefits." The 4-member majority of the Supreme Judicial Court simply swept aside all arguments—historical, sociological, religious, or legislative—that defined "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman. In effect they ruled that the legal meaning of the word "marriage" must be changed to accommodate homosexual couples.

THE NEXT STEPS

This brash assertion of judicial power outraged pro-family activists all across America. But although conservatives in Massachusetts hoped somehow to block the legal recognition of same-sex unions, the Court's ruling left them with very few options.

• The decision could not be appealed, since the Supreme Judicial Court is the highest authority on the interpretation of the state's constitution—on which the ruling is allegedly based.

• The Massachusetts constitution could be amended, to include an explicit definition of marriage as a union of man and woman. In fact a proposed amendment was already on the legislative agenda when the Court's ruling was announced. But the process of changing the constitution is a lengthy one; an amendment could not take effect until November 2006 at the earliest. By then, under the terms of the Goodridge decision, many homosexual couples might already have been legally married. At that point, defenders of traditional marriage would be forced to argue in favor of rescinding legal recognition of these "marriages"—an unattractive argument to make in a notoriously liberal state.

• The state legislature could simply ignore the Court's mandate. But after the 180-day period provided by the Goodridge ruling, some adventurous town clerks would no doubt begin issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples, effecting the same result as a statutory change.

As CWR goes to press, leaders of the Massachusetts legislature are testing what may be the only politically viable alternative to the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage." The state senate has proposed a bill to establish "civil unions," giving homosexuals (and other unmarried couples) the opportunity to register their alliances, and receive all the benefits traditionally accorded to married couples. The legislators have asked the Supreme Judicial Court for an advisory opinion on whether this legislation would fulfill the demands of the Goodridge decision.

WEAKENED OPPOSITION

There is another, more radical alternative. The Massachusetts legislature could impeach the justices who formed the majority in the Goodridge case, arguing (quite accurately) that the judges had engaged in a blatant abuse of their power and usurpation of the legislature's proper function. But not a single member of the legislature has raised that possibility. The political leaders of Massachusetts have no desire for a pitched battle on the issue of same-sex marriage. Led by Governor Mitt Romney, the small Republican minority in the legislature has indicated that the "civil union" bill offers the most desirable course of action, and many conservative Democrats have fallen in line with that strategy.

For more than a decade, gay-rights activists had brought legislative proposals to the Massachusetts legislature every year, seeking various forms of legal recognition for same-sex unions. From 1991 through 2002, those proposals were unsuccessful. Although the homosexual lobby was steadily attracting more support for its legislative efforts, pro-family activists still confidently expected to beat back any proposal for civil unions (let alone same-sex "marriage") in the current legislature.

Then, quite suddenly, the opposition to same-sex unions crumbled. The political tides turned on October 23, when Bishop Daniel Reilly of Worcester—representing all the bishops of Massachusetts—testified before a legislative committee. Bishop Reilly told the public hearing that the bishops would continue to oppose any move to grant legal recognition for same-sex "marriage." But he added: "If the goal is to look at individual benefits and determine who should be eligible beyond spouses, then we will join the discussion."

Although he stopped short of an explicit endorsement for proposals that would grant legal and financial benefits to "domestic partners," the bishop lent strong support to the arguments advanced by homosexual activists, by conceding that these benefits should be seen as matters of "distributive justice."

"Whatever rights a citizen has in the United States should not be denied to another citizen," the bishop told reporters after his formal testimony. Asked specifically about the benefits sought by homosexual couples, Bishop Reilly replied: "There should be a way for the state to provide the benefits they have a right to, like other citizens." One reporter pressed still further, asking the bishop about state policies that denied benefits to homosexual couples. "That's wrong, and that's too bad," he said. "We have to find a way to give civil benefits to gay partners."

The political impact of Bishop Reilly's testimony—and his subsequent off-the-cuff statements to the press—was enormous. Mass-media outlets in Boston announced that the Catholic bishops had withdrawn their opposition to legislation that would recognize "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions." Homosexual activists welcomed that development, voicing their delight with the new position of the Catholic hierarchy. Prominent political leaders who had been avoiding any clear statement on the issue announced that they, too, would support the more "moderate" proposals for recognition of same-sex unions.

More ominously, the legislators who had previously been at the forefront of the opposition to the proposals of the homosexual lobby grew quiet. No politician wanted to be seen as "more conservative than the Catholic bishops." John Rogers, a state representative who had been honored by conservative groups for his steadfast commitment to the pro-family cause, announced that he was preparing a legislative proposal for the recognition of "civil unions." On October 30—a full week after Bishop Reilly's fateful testimony—the Massachusetts Catholic Conference (which represents all the bishops of the state) issued a public statement denying that the bishops had changed their position regarding same-sex unions. The Conference insisted that Bishop Reilly's testimony had been misinterpreted, and that he had only intended to indicate his support for the provision of medical benefits to the adopted children of same-sex couples.

But that strained disclaimer came too late to alter the new political realities that had emerged in the aftermath of the bishop's testimony. In the week after Bishop Reilly's appearance on Beacon Hill, one legislator after another shifted his stance on same-sex unions. By the end of October, the opposition to same-sex unions had virtually disappeared, and astute political analysts predicted that the legislature would approve a "civil-union" bill—even before the Supreme Judicial Court weighed in with the Goodridge decision.

FACING THE NATION

Sometime in 2004, homosexual couples in Massachusetts will gain legal recognition for their unions; that much is now politically inevitable. All that remains in doubt is whether Massachusetts will recognize same-sex alliances under the category of "marriage" or the new category of "civil union"—which would provide all the benefits of marriage, but not the name.

That distinction may be crucial for two reasons. First, a law that recognizes civil unions could be reversed, without nearly the same complications that would be entailed in rescinding legal recognition for marriage. Second, the provision of legal benefits in Massachusetts would not force an immediate response from the other 49 American states. If Massachusetts recognizes same-sex "marriage," on the other hand, the other states must decide how they shall regard the legal status of homosexual couples who are "married" in Massachusetts.

The debate over legal recognition of same-sex unions looms as the most divisive political issue of the coming decade in America, displacing even the question of abortion. (It is telling that in each case, the debate was precipitated by the decision of a handful of unelected judges.) Already, pro-family activists are discussing the appropriate form and content for an amendment to the US Constitution that would define marriage as an alliance between a man and a woman, and ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a homosexual "marriage" approved by another state.

Interestingly enough, the hottest debate among national conservative leaders is whether the proposed amendment should merely bar same-sex marriages, or whether it should block "civil union" proposals as well. In December, President George W. Bush indicated that he would support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. But the wording of his statement was not enough to satisfy Tony Perkins, the former Congressman who now heads the Family Research Council, an influential Washington think-tank. In Perkins' view, the President's statement left open the possibility that he might accede to a "civil unions" proposal. Perkins protested, in words that could equally apply to the situation in Massachusetts: This administration has spent millions of dollars to prevent the counterfeiting of our currency, which threatens the health of our economy. Counterfeit marriages called "civil unions" pose a serious threat to the health of our culture, and while the President may believe this is an issue to be resolved at the state level, he should use his moral leadership to steer states away from such culture-threatening unions—not encourage them by showing indifference or political tolerance.

[SIDEBAR 1]

IN HIS OWN WORDS

The October testimony by Bishop Daniel Reilly, before the joint judiciary committee of the Massachusetts legislature, quickly became the focus of a heated debate. Had the bishop indicated that the Catholic hierarchy would drop its opposition to civil-union proposals?

Bishop Reilly first commented about pending legislation on abortion. Then turning to the proposals on marriage, he said:

Second, I ask the committee not to pass the various bills proposing to change the public institution of marriage. Marriage precedes the state and even precedes the Church. We elevate the relationship between a man and a woman not because we judge any human being to be unequal to another, but because we recognize the special public value of this particular relationship. Only this relationship brings together both halves of humanity and requires them to get along. Only this relationship affords children the gift of both a father and a mother. To redefine marriage itself, or to change the meaning of spouse, as the civil union bill would do, is to deny the unique public value of the spousal bond between a man and a woman.

Some argue that it is unfair to offer only married couples certain socioeconomic benefits. That is a different question from the meaning of marriage itself. The civil-union bill before this committee confuses the two issues, changing the meaning of 'spouse' in order to give global access to all marital benefits to same-sex partners in a civil union. This alters the institution of marriage by expanding whom the law considers to be spouses. Let's not mix the two issues. We should consider the question of distributive justice on its own terms. If a bill alters marriage's definition or changes the meaning of spouse, we cannot support it. If the goal is to look at individual benefits and determine who should be eligible beyond spouses, then we will join the discussion.

That is Bishop Reilly's formal testimony, in its entirety. Readers may decide for themselves whether his argument against same-sex "marriage" is compelling. But the key issue in dispute was whether or not Bishop Reilly had softened the Church opposition to other forms of legal recognition for same-sex unions.

The bishop's argument clearly opposes any legislation "changing the meaning of 'spouse.'" But if a law could be crafted to provide recognition for same-sex couples without changing the definition of 'spouse' or of marriage, Bishop Reilly's testimony strongly suggests that the Massachusetts bishops would take a very different attitude. They would, he promises, "join the discussion."

[SIDEBAR 2]

THE VATICAN STAND

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.

Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, June 3, 2003

[SIDEBAR 3]

[HEAD] In Great Britain, Meanwhile…

[SUBHEAD] In her annual speech to Parliament, outlining the main legislative priorities of the British government, Queen Elizabeth introduced legislation to provide legal recognition of same-sex unions.

[BYLINE] By Tara Holmes

[PULLQUOTE] Under the new plans, the word "marriage" would be erased from government records and documents.

[TEXT]

The institution of marriage as it has stood for centuries in the United Kingdom is being shaken to the core by new legislation to put homosexual partnerships on a par with married relationships.

The proposals unveiled in the Queen’s Speech to both Houses of Parliament in November would grant the privileges of marriage to couples in same-sex unions. They would also allow homosexuals to form legally registered "civil partnerships" Under the new plans, the word "marriage" would be erased from government records and documents, in changes that will be a further blow to the traditional family unit.

The move has been hailed as a long awaited step by homosexual activists who claim that English law on unmarried partners lags behind many European and Commonwealth countries, including France, Germany, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

At the other end of the political spectrum, the proposals have provoked an outcry from the Catholic bishops of England and Wales. Lay activists and secular groups have also joined the protest, arguing that the scheme will undermine the special status traditionally afforded to marriage in civil society.

Of particular concern are government plans to set up a civil-partnership registration scheme closely modeled on marriage. The formalities for registration would be the same as for a civil wedding, and involve nearly identical legal requirements. Similarly, the provisions for dissolving the relationships would be very similar to civil divorce; one partner would be required to petition the court for a decree of dissolution on the grounds that the relationship had irretrievably broken down. The proposals also would allow homosexuals in registered partnerships to make claims on their partners’ property or pension rights at the point of death, illness, or separation. Although there are a number of minor differences, including the absence of a legal requirement for a civil ceremony of commitment like a wedding, the scheme would give virtually all the benefits of marriage to partners in same-sex unions. It would also mean that the legal consequences for registering a civil partnership would be nearly indistinguishable from those of a civil marriage.

THE BISHOPS' REPLY

The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales condemned the proposals by the Labor government, in a statement issued in early December. Bishop John Hine, an auxiliary of the Southwark diocese and chairman of the bishops’ committee for marriage and family life, observed:

It is regrettable that the government is not producing any proposals to strengthen and support marriage. Either the government believes marriage, the exclusive union of man and a woman for life, has a special role in our society or it believes it has not such a role. On behalf of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, my response to the consultation on proposed legislation concerning the civil registration of same-sex partnerships argues such legislation is not necessary and will inevitably be another step in the direction of diluting the special status of marriage.

Bishop Hine's comments echoed the Vatican’s warning in July that any moves to grant legal recognition to same-sex couples should be strongly resisted. Catholic politicians were also reminded by Rome that they had a “moral duty” to vote against such proposals.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The proposed change in UK law follows prototype legislation introduced in the House of Lords in a Private Member’s Bill to benefit all unmarried cohabiting couples, regardless of gender. Those who oppose the proposed changes argue that the government has been playing a political waiting game since 2001, when a Private Member’s Bill was first introduced to Parliament. That Civil Partnership Bill, sponsored by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, a Liberal Democrat peer, sought to formalize relationships between unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples. The initial proposals were drafted by the militant homosexual group, Stonewall, and by the Odysseus Trust, an organization supporting Lord Herne. Behind the scenes, the bill was driven by the government’s Cabinet Office, which used the proposal to test public opinion.

The proposals met with stiff opposition, and in early 2002 the legislation was taken off the government's active agenda. The government also announced that it wanted to take time to formulate its own position. A new raft of proposals followed a public consultation period, during which the English and Welsh bishops submitted a 24-page document that argued against the legislation and warned that it would undermine marriage.

If the government now presses ahead with its current plans, a new bill is expected to be introduced to Parliament during 2004. Such a step would make a change in the law a real possibility for the first time.

HOW MANY COUPLES?

Colin Hart, director of the Christian Institute, an ecumenical think-tank, accused the government of trashing marriage. He stated:

Under the government’s proposals the law will enshrine a lie. Holy matrimony will be equated with homosexual liaison. Whilst in the sight of God those who are actually married will still be married, in the sight of the law true marriage will be repealed from the statute book. It will be replaced by the bogus concept of "new marriage." It would be a clear rejection of Christian values. What is immoral is equated with the holy and honorable estate of marriage.

Hart also pointed to the government’s own statistics, which show that there are nearly 3 million households in Britain with house-sharing arrangements. Only 0.2 percent of households comprise a same-sex couple—a mere 50,000 couples in all. In Denmark, only 3.5 percent of homosexual couples have taken out a civil partnership. In the United Kingdom, the government is hoping that 1.5 percent of homosexuals will register partnerships in the next 10 years.

Hart concluded:

This begs the question, why, for those tiny number of people, is the government proposing a wholesale re-writing of family law? Marriage is defined in the order of nature. It is based on biology not ideology. It is not a social construct which can be changed at will. If it was, then there would no logical reason why three people could not marry. Parliament is no more able to change the true definition of marriage, than it is to pass a law declaring that henceforth the moon is made of cheese.