I was sympathetic. Not to the attacks, of course. I have rarely been attacked for my views on the subject, largely because no one knows them. But the idea that an issue so current, and currently relevant, in a culture which itself is evolving would need more than a thumbs up or thumbs down made good sense to me. I admired what I perceived as intellectual honesty: I do not know. I am pondering.
So what happened?
My precious, innocent, beautiful daughter has been obsessed with weddings since last summer when we spent more time attending and planning weddings than in any other practice. She is a girly girl. She likes dressing up and princesses. She wants to wear make-up. (I don't wear make-up! She "borrowed" mine once, and it took me almost a month to realize it was missing.)
"Girls marry boys and boys marry girls."
"Well, actually..."
That was actually the whole conversation. An alert Aunt intervened before my daughter was introduced into the massive cultural gender and sex discussion and confusion.
Like ice water in my face, it woke me up.
How will I address this when it comes up, as it will inevitably, sooner than I would like?
Where will I start? I don't even know where to start here, talking to adults.
I guess I start with my faith. My faith is the foundation of my beliefs, and I claim it as the foundation of myself. The Church does not teach that same-sex marriage is immoral. The Church teaches that sexual relations outside of marriage is immoral. The Church teaches that same-sex marriage is impossible. Marriage is a sacramental union of a man and a woman. That is what it is. When we married, my husband and I went to the Church and in the presence of the community we offered ourselves to each other in a sacrificial love, and we became one. Marriage is often used as a image for understanding the Trinity. There are two, and in their relationship, they become one. The love they share is creative; the love itself is or becomes a third. It is imperfect, as any image of the Trinity must be. Our minds struggle against temporality. What does "becoming" mean outside of time? I will not delve too deeply into the mystery of the Trinity, except to note that that analogy claims an understanding of marriage. The beauty of the sacramental, sacrificial love, the complete offering of self, the new unity, and the creative power of love... that is marriage.
With this understanding of marriage never really wavering, how can I claim my views to be unstable? For a time, I insisted that no marriage, outside of a Christian marriage, was sacramental. Thus, no marriage outside of a Christian marriage was real. Couples with courthouse licences had a fundamentally different definition of marriage, and in my eyes were not married at all.
Then I thought that maybe they were married after all. Marriage is the only sacrament (I am pretty sure) which does not require a priest or deacon. I should be careful in my phrasing. The Church does ask that couples marry in an actual Church, with a presiding priest or deacon, but the sacrament is conferred one spouse upon the other. So, if you do it outside a Church, you broke a rule, but you are still married. (Assuming, of course, proper matter and form.) Yay! Non-Christians can be married, truly. It should have been obvious all along, of course. The Church does not ask married couples to remarry when they enter the Church.
But all this is in the eyes of the Church. Does the state share the Church definition of marriage? Can it? What the heck does "sacramental" mean outside of the Church? I know what the Church is doing when it recognizes or does not recognize a marriage. What is the State doing? Here lies my confusion.
What is the State's interest in marriage? Why is the State recognizing marriage? I do not mean my questions to be challenging, they are genuine. I do not necessarily advocate the State stepping out altogether, but I wonder. Can I, or should I, demand that the state share my admittedly theological definition of marriage?
The State has vested interest in healthy families. Children who have parents who are alert to the educations, do better in school and stay off the street. Children who watch parents work hard to support the family, grow up with a good work ethic. Is there a State interest in marriage that does not involve children?
When the Christian right talks about why homosexual marriage should be illegal, they like to talk about the breakdown of the family. Without delving too deeply into the question of whether that fear is founded, I want to know if the fear is relevant. The divorce rate is unbelievably high, there are areas where there are more children born to single parents than couples, and there are long lists of children who can not find either foster or adoptive homes. You think that sanctioning more commitment is going to cause a breakdown? What would that even look like? The response, of course, is that the fact that all these things are happening, along with the fact that we are even discussing homosexual marriage, is the point. These issues are symptomatic of the same problem: society has stopped clinging to morality as a universal standard and instead claims sex. Our culture is more and more sexualized. Even children's Halloween costumes are frighteningly sexual. In short, yes. This symptom is another step, a big step, away from a culture that prioritizes sexual morality.
In truth, I see these things and I do not know how to address them. I do not know how to think about them. I tremble at the thought that my daughter will have a middle school experience with more emphasis on sex than I saw when I was in middle school.
Have I regressed? Some would say I have stumbled far away from the issue. Some would say this is not just relevant, it is the issue. It is not an argument; we are having different conversations.
I have said too much on one side. You can not hear my internal conflict. There are people, deeply committed to their faith and values, who do not think homosexual relations are sinful. There are churches full of devout who fiercely protect their homosexual brothers and sisters from the abuses which sadly remain inevitable. There are people, loving, wonderful, thoughtful, faithful and intelligent people who are are homosexual. There are people who do not share our Christian faith. There are people of no religion at all. What does marriage law look like to them?
To some, it looks discriminatory. To some, with its foundation in religion, it looks theocratic. It looks meaningless to some and violent to others.
Is it just to enforce my faith in law?
It probably is not, but to sort out whether or not that is happening, we need to have a discussion about what marriage means. So, back to questions already posed. What, in the eyes of the state, is marriage?
People like to talk about feelings when they talk about marriage. "Love is all you need!" Thank you, fab four, but in this case we will have to disagree. Love is not all you need. I honestly believe that that myth, alongside deep miscomprehensions about the nature of love, are a considerable reason for the high divorce rate.
Can we talk about marriage without talking about love? Should we? I do not want to try to legally define love, thus I do not want to try to legally define marriage by love.
Leading up to the election, there was a lot of discussion about marriage. And by discussion, I mean something other than discussion which involved lots of words. Religious preached that a vote for homosexual marriage was a vote against traditional marriage. Advocates preached that only the loony religious would claim so intolerant a position as to oppose homosexual marriage. As far as I am concerned, neither made a point. If the religious want their religious definition of marriage upheld in law, they have to make a case other than theology. On the other hand, attacking someone for having religious beliefs is pretty much the definition of bigotry. I was startled by the number of times I saw people who advocated for homosexual marriage simply blow off other opinions as "intolerant."
We don't have to look far to find examples of intolerance, bigotry and even hatred aimed at homosexuals. Everyone has heard stories of bullying and violence. We cannot pretend it is not happening, or that it is acceptable.
From the Catechism:
It is not intolerance to disagree with the newly mainstreamed idea that homosexual marriage is not only possible but a right. It is not discrimination to reject a definition which defies history and theology. Both history and theology evolve. Citing change does not win the argument. Neither, however, does pointing out that fact. Change is not good for its own sake, it is good when it is good and bad when it is bad. The notion that all old ideas are bad is just as illogical as the notion that all new ideas are good.
We can talk about rights without too much difficulty. I am persuaded by arguments that are rooted in things like hospital visitation rights or inheritance law. (I am less persuaded by arguments about tax breaks, but to sort that one out, we need to revisit and answer why they are being awarded in the first place.) These are the emotional arguments, and this emotional being is persuaded. These are questions which are in fact rooted in love. Who do you want holding your hand at the end of your life? Making decisions that you cannot make for yourself? Undeniably, the answer must be whomever you choose. Marriage does not follow necessarily.
Let us assume that there are rights which some people have access to, and others are categorically denied. Let us allow that this is unjust. Let us respond by giving the second category access to the rights in law. Everyone is happy, right? No. Liberals tried that some years ago. Civil unions were rejected. As it turns out, part of the demand is not access to rights denied, it is acceptance. They want to say that the relationships are the same kind, that the second category should not be distinguished from the second category. They want me to deny that I comprehend a difference in kind. They want me to declare sameness, where I see difference because at root they want me to stop saying that certain behaviors are immoral.
And now we have arrived on the painful point of my unwilling entry into the discussion. Must I raise my daughter in a world where the theology I intend to teach is not just ignored in her education, it is opposed?
It has been suggested that we have already lost the word marriage. The word has already evolved into something unrecognizable. Something having vaguely to do with love, sexuality and commitment, but something undefined and undefinable. If so, the whole debate on definition is moot, as some have claimed all along. Words change, and that is OK, as long as we understand and respond when they change. Do we let the word go and pivot to a different way of explaining this sacrament? In the above definition, the word is not used, so it is certainly possible- though it does not solve the problem since a pivot on language will not end the fight any more this time than it did on a proposal of civil unions.
Separating what the state is doing from what the Church is doing would end some of the confusion. It would also force those who want to reeducate my daughter to admit that it is not just rights they want. It could even (she suggests hopefully) end the debate. It won't sooth the feelings of those who want me to teach my daughter that all relationships are just the same. It won't sooth the feelings of those who want a Christian nation with Christian laws. But it would force everyone to be honest, and that has to be a positive step.
When the Christian right talks about why homosexual marriage should be illegal, they like to talk about the breakdown of the family. Without delving too deeply into the question of whether that fear is founded, I want to know if the fear is relevant. The divorce rate is unbelievably high, there are areas where there are more children born to single parents than couples, and there are long lists of children who can not find either foster or adoptive homes. You think that sanctioning more commitment is going to cause a breakdown? What would that even look like? The response, of course, is that the fact that all these things are happening, along with the fact that we are even discussing homosexual marriage, is the point. These issues are symptomatic of the same problem: society has stopped clinging to morality as a universal standard and instead claims sex. Our culture is more and more sexualized. Even children's Halloween costumes are frighteningly sexual. In short, yes. This symptom is another step, a big step, away from a culture that prioritizes sexual morality.
In truth, I see these things and I do not know how to address them. I do not know how to think about them. I tremble at the thought that my daughter will have a middle school experience with more emphasis on sex than I saw when I was in middle school.
Have I regressed? Some would say I have stumbled far away from the issue. Some would say this is not just relevant, it is the issue. It is not an argument; we are having different conversations.
I have said too much on one side. You can not hear my internal conflict. There are people, deeply committed to their faith and values, who do not think homosexual relations are sinful. There are churches full of devout who fiercely protect their homosexual brothers and sisters from the abuses which sadly remain inevitable. There are people, loving, wonderful, thoughtful, faithful and intelligent people who are are homosexual. There are people who do not share our Christian faith. There are people of no religion at all. What does marriage law look like to them?
To some, it looks discriminatory. To some, with its foundation in religion, it looks theocratic. It looks meaningless to some and violent to others.
Is it just to enforce my faith in law?
It probably is not, but to sort out whether or not that is happening, we need to have a discussion about what marriage means. So, back to questions already posed. What, in the eyes of the state, is marriage?
People like to talk about feelings when they talk about marriage. "Love is all you need!" Thank you, fab four, but in this case we will have to disagree. Love is not all you need. I honestly believe that that myth, alongside deep miscomprehensions about the nature of love, are a considerable reason for the high divorce rate.
Can we talk about marriage without talking about love? Should we? I do not want to try to legally define love, thus I do not want to try to legally define marriage by love.
Leading up to the election, there was a lot of discussion about marriage. And by discussion, I mean something other than discussion which involved lots of words. Religious preached that a vote for homosexual marriage was a vote against traditional marriage. Advocates preached that only the loony religious would claim so intolerant a position as to oppose homosexual marriage. As far as I am concerned, neither made a point. If the religious want their religious definition of marriage upheld in law, they have to make a case other than theology. On the other hand, attacking someone for having religious beliefs is pretty much the definition of bigotry. I was startled by the number of times I saw people who advocated for homosexual marriage simply blow off other opinions as "intolerant."
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
We don't have to look far to find examples of intolerance, bigotry and even hatred aimed at homosexuals. Everyone has heard stories of bullying and violence. We cannot pretend it is not happening, or that it is acceptable.
From the Catechism:
"2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
It is not intolerance to disagree with the newly mainstreamed idea that homosexual marriage is not only possible but a right. It is not discrimination to reject a definition which defies history and theology. Both history and theology evolve. Citing change does not win the argument. Neither, however, does pointing out that fact. Change is not good for its own sake, it is good when it is good and bad when it is bad. The notion that all old ideas are bad is just as illogical as the notion that all new ideas are good.
We can talk about rights without too much difficulty. I am persuaded by arguments that are rooted in things like hospital visitation rights or inheritance law. (I am less persuaded by arguments about tax breaks, but to sort that one out, we need to revisit and answer why they are being awarded in the first place.) These are the emotional arguments, and this emotional being is persuaded. These are questions which are in fact rooted in love. Who do you want holding your hand at the end of your life? Making decisions that you cannot make for yourself? Undeniably, the answer must be whomever you choose. Marriage does not follow necessarily.
Let us assume that there are rights which some people have access to, and others are categorically denied. Let us allow that this is unjust. Let us respond by giving the second category access to the rights in law. Everyone is happy, right? No. Liberals tried that some years ago. Civil unions were rejected. As it turns out, part of the demand is not access to rights denied, it is acceptance. They want to say that the relationships are the same kind, that the second category should not be distinguished from the second category. They want me to deny that I comprehend a difference in kind. They want me to declare sameness, where I see difference because at root they want me to stop saying that certain behaviors are immoral.
And now we have arrived on the painful point of my unwilling entry into the discussion. Must I raise my daughter in a world where the theology I intend to teach is not just ignored in her education, it is opposed?
"1601 The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament." Catechism of the Catholic Church
It has been suggested that we have already lost the word marriage. The word has already evolved into something unrecognizable. Something having vaguely to do with love, sexuality and commitment, but something undefined and undefinable. If so, the whole debate on definition is moot, as some have claimed all along. Words change, and that is OK, as long as we understand and respond when they change. Do we let the word go and pivot to a different way of explaining this sacrament? In the above definition, the word is not used, so it is certainly possible- though it does not solve the problem since a pivot on language will not end the fight any more this time than it did on a proposal of civil unions.
Separating what the state is doing from what the Church is doing would end some of the confusion. It would also force those who want to reeducate my daughter to admit that it is not just rights they want. It could even (she suggests hopefully) end the debate. It won't sooth the feelings of those who want me to teach my daughter that all relationships are just the same. It won't sooth the feelings of those who want a Christian nation with Christian laws. But it would force everyone to be honest, and that has to be a positive step.
No comments:
Post a Comment