The fight for traditional marriage is not over, but it is rapidly approaching the end of the line. The next step is to take the matter to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Whatever this court decides, it will likely be taken to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court finds the ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, it essentially legalizes same-sex marriage IN EVERY STATE. It doesn't matter if your state or local community have laws upholding traditional marriage. If it is found to be unconstitutional according to the United States Constitution, then any attempt to uphold marriage will be null and void.
The popular opinion encouraged by the media is that anyone who promotes traditional marriage must be hateful and victimizers. So how do we argue for marriage and not sound like bigots? This is the purpose of my Marriage Monday segments- to inform readers as to the nature of marriage and how to defend traditional marriage.
Thanks to Dr. J at the Ruth Institute, here's how I handle Prop 8's overturn:
Judge Walker wrote the following about the purpose of marriage: marriage is “a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and their agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the material needs of life.”
DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS?
Assuming the person agrees, you can point out that ROOMMATES fit this definition.
This definition says nothing of permanence or a sexual relationship- both of which are the foundation of marriage.
If marriage is reduced to the above definition, then it will be nothing but a government registry of friendships.
WHO NEEDS THAT???
In fact, I know a few married couples who do NOT fit this definition. I know military couple that live separately- due to one spouse being deployed or relocated, while another finishes his/her education or continues a job. I've known multiple couples in this category. Would they not be considered married by Judge Walker?
Once again, I highly recommend signing up for email updates at the Ruth Institute, following her on facebook, and subscribing to her podcasts. Dr. J gives excellent, objective arguments for marriage and shows fallacies on the other side.
36 comments:
The reason that you cannot oppose marriage equality for gay citizens without sounding like a bigot is because it is a deeply unfair, bigoted view.
These citizens pay the same taxes and make the same contributions to society that you do. They deserve to have their partnerships given the same legal rights that yours has. There is no justification for bringing religious ideology into civil law, since our great nation was founded on the notion of separation of church and state.
I have two gay male friends who have been together faithfully and monogamously for eighteen years. I would like you to meet them, see the amazing relationship they have, and then tell them to their faces that their relationship is illegitimate.
I notice that you and your husband are an interracial couple. Do you realize you would not have been able to be married until the miscegenation laws started to be overturned in the 60s and 70s? Fortunately for you brave and fair-minded people chose to speak up when they saw a wrong being done.
I hope that you were open your mind and heart to see that people who happen to be gay have as much of a right to legalize their relationship as you have to legalize yours, and that the godly way to behave is to honor and respect those different from you.
Hi Jamie. I appreciate and understand your passion towards this issue, and your devotion to equality for your friends. I, too, want equality for ALL people- but it's people who are equal, not actions.
I spent several Mondays building a secular case for traditional marriage. If you click the tag "Marriage Mondays" and look back to some of the older posts, you'll see. This series is organized to present the secular argument first, then see how the theological expounds upon it, completing it naturally. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the secular argument.
This is such a delicate issue, because we are not bigots or hateful people. I, too, have friends affected by this issue. As a faithful Catholic, I've had to wrestle with the Church's teaching on the issue. God is Love- so how do I apply this difficult teaching to my friends and family? How do you reconcile the two? I don't know if you're Catholic, but if you are, I urge you to read the Church's teaching and find out WHY she teaches what she does. I found that it isn't hateful at all, but beautiful and promotes the dignity of all people.
In previous posts, I've been very clear that homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC 2358) Due to a crisis in my family, I've been away for the last two Marriage Mondays. If I failed to come across as sensitive and compassionate in this post, it is only b/c I felt I had built a solid foundation in past posts.
Again, please check out some past Marriage Monday posts.
Based on Judge Walker's definition, Lauren, I thoroughly enjoyed being married to you for 3 years.
Why does it always come back to "bigotry" if a liberal doesn't agree with something? To equate race with behavior is not logical.
Jamie, are you a bigot, and unfair, if you don't want two brothers, or a father and a daughter, to marry? If not, why not?
I haven't read the past posts yet, Lauren...but I enjoyed this one. When I have some time I will go back and read the others. I grapple with this issue on my own. Lately, I have grown weary of being told that religious views should never be infused with our laws...
I dont have much to say about this issue... I have come across your blog. I am in awe. You carry your cross just as Jesus would. I am so struck by your faith example. Thank you for sharing. God Bless.
I like "eavesdropping" on this conversation. I'm glad you're here, Jamie.
I agree completely with Jamie.
Religion CAN NOT be infused with our laws only because there are SO many religions. If we are for freedom of religion, then we can not make laws that may make it be illegal to be those religions. You might as well call us Afghanistan if you do that- Taliban anyone? That is exactly what happens when religion takes over laws and/or government. Some religious extremists take over and there you go.
Not that that was the point of the blog- but more of a response to Michelle's comment.
Sarah
I would also like to add this. If being gay is not a choice, meaning it is in your genetic make-up, then God made you that way. Being gay is not a choice. And if God does not make mistakes in the way he creates each of us, then would it be so hard to believe that God would be accepting of Gay marriage?
-Sarah
Thanks, Annie. Yes, I'm very glad Jamie and Sarah are here, too.
Sarah- an interesting point that I will address later. But in the mean time, I'd ask that you comment on the content of this post, or refer back to previous posts on the secular argument for traditional marriage.
This post is not an isolated attack on homosexuality. This series is a look at the nature of marriage so as to answer the question CAN (as opposed to "should") we change the definition of marriage.
I would love to hear your thoughts on Judge Walker's definition of marriage.
Lauren, this is very well written. Jamie, my uncle and his partner have been in a committed relationship for 15 years, and while I love them both dearly, I do not agree with their actions or life style.
As Lauren said, this is a complex issue, and it is about love and truth. We cannot allow truth to be muddled by our ever shifting emotions. Logic and reason must prevail, and natural law cannot be ignored.
As for the judge you mentioned in your blog- I agree with her, I also agree with you that she left out the sexual part of the relationship, but I think she covered permanence was covered when she said "Committed".
That's how I fell anyway.
I think the blog is very well written. And does bring up something that needs to be discussed.
I just pause at the fact that people think that THEIR religion is the one laws should be made from. That THEIR religion is the one that should define us as a country. I don't think that is right, especially when we live in a Country with freedom of religion.
Also you can give "natural law" as a reason not to allow gay marriage- but who is it to say that this is against natural law? It may be against your or my natural law, but that is the way we are genetically engineered.
Just some thoughts.
Plus- constitutionally, in my opinion, it is against the law of the our Country. If 2 consenting adults wish to marry- legally they should be able to.
I really do like this subject though.
Sarah
Sarah- while there are hundreds of religious reasons to promote traditional marriage, I spent a great deal of time framing the secular argument- such as was presented in today's post. Here is a summary.
http://psalm34-3.blogspot.com/2010/07/secular-summary-and-theological.html
It is a SUMMARY, so if something makes you say, "huh?" click on the Marriage Monday tag and read more about it. It is also the link between the secular argument and the theological argument. I summarized the secular and introduced the theological. So don't freak out on me regarding Church and State! :) But as a fellow Catholic, I encourage you to learn and understand the Church's nonnegotiable teaching on this subject.
Lauren, thank you for your response. No, I am not Catholic and have never been Catholic. My husband was raised Catholic but left the church years ago for a variety of reasons, including attempted molestation by a priest and the church's lack of concern over the issue. My in-laws and his siblings all remain very devout Catholics. We too have struggled through infertility for several years (I am 39) as a result of my husband's sperm being impaired by chemotherapy treatment for Hodgkin's disease. Thanks to the amazing blessings of IVF, we are expecting our first child. I googled Catholic infertility blogs so I could obtain a better understand the objections to ART and found your blog.
Here's the deal--we cannot make civil law based on religious beliefs because that is not how our country is designed to operate. Our forefathers saw the religious oppression that had taken place in their country, and sought to build a great nation in which the concepts of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and "all men (people) are created equal" are paramount. One cannot make certain persons less equal unless there is a good reason to do so, such as they are criminals and harm others.
Sarah is dead on about which religions to use for law and why that is a huge mess as well. My church welcomes homosexuals and treats their partnerships as equal to those of heterosexuals. Why should we use the teachings of your church and not my church? Or maybe we should use Muslim law allowing four wives to one man. You see how complicated and confusing it gets when deviating from the notions of justice, individual freedom and equality.
What about this: all civil marriages now become civil unions. So you and I don't marry our husbands in the eyes of the government--we instead obtain civil unions. Then you can have marriage as whatever religious construct you and your church choose it to be. I realize the Catholic church will not be marrying homosexuals but that's fine since other churches will do so gladly and we can all choose whatever church fits our own sense of morality and ethical behavior. That way no one is being discriminated against civilly but you can cling to whatever view of marriage you choose in your church.
Finally, to those who refer to me as a bigot, please realize that those arguing for equal rights and freedoms for oppressed groups are not the bigots but the liberators and crusaders. The bigots are those who say "I get certain privileges but I am going to deny them to you because I don't like who you are, even though you've done nothing to harm anyone". Bigots have shown up throughout history as those who have oppressed people of other races, genders, nationalities, religions, etc. Without bigots we would not have slavery, women's oppression, and the Holocaust. This is just the latest step in a fight against bigotry, and our society is shifting in such a way that this equality will be here before much longer. I for one will rejoice in love conquering hate.
I will pray for everyone here who wishes to deny civil rights to their fellow citizens, people who have lived in committed partnerships for decades but yet have no legal rights, that you may open your heart to love and acceptance of others. To me that is the Christian way to ilve.
P.S. Sorry for the repeated posts--don't know what happened.
I liked your post and am enjoying reading the back and forth comments from both sides...
Preach it girl! ;)
lauren, thanks for this post. this is a multifaceted issue that necessitates multiple blog posts (like you have done) so I think its very important that everyone participating in this discussion go back and read those, so the sake of avoiding redundancy. i've been trying to gain the strength to start writing on this for a while now so please come visit me when I do, ok? Thanks!
Oh Jamie! I'm so glad you came back! And CONGRATULATIONS on your exciting news!!!! Expecting your first after years of heart-ache? That's a HUGE reason to celebrate- one that we can all understand! Many blessings on your family and this eternal soul created within you!
I'm going to agree with you quite a bit in this comment! (Were you expecting that?!)
I agree that civil laws cannot be based on religious beliefs. I am not suggesting that in the least. This post did not do this. As I explained to Sarah, this series began with the SECULAR argument for traditional marriage, and I am completing it with our Catholic understanding. I would love to hear your thoughts on the content of THIS post and/or past posts. I included a link for Sarah in an earlier comment- or you can click MARRIAGE MONDAYS which is listed under "Series" on the main blog page.
In regards to civil unions- I'm not against it. I understand and appreciate the argument for civil unions- or at least for the State getting out of marriage. It's my second choice. (If we lose the Supreme Court battle!) It remains my 2nd choice because the marriage alone gives society the one thing it needs most to survive- more members, raised to maturity. Marriage alone is capable of generating and bringing to maturity productive new members. Therefore, the state has an obligation to promote marriage.
Bigots- no one is calling anyone a bigot. I THINK you're commenting on Leila's post. "Jamie, are you a bigot, and unfair, if you don't want two brothers, or a father and a daughter, to marry? If not, why not?" Knowing Leila- I think I can rephrase her question as: 'Is ONE a bigot if they don't want two brothers...'
We are 100% united on conquering hate and living more as Christ. We're just ironing out what Christ taught here. I hope we can continue this conversation with LOVE and TRUTH as a guide. This is not a place for hate, name-calling, or rudeness.
Please check out my secular arguments for marriage. I hope to hear back from you.
And again- Congratulations!
Lauren, thanks for clarifying what I meant. You are right. Is it bigoted to not agree with polygamy? Or man-boy love? Or two brothers marrying? That's all I was saying. I don't like this trend that those on the left use so much these days, which is calling people bigots just because we don't agree.
As for gays not having the same right to marry as the rest of us.... not true in a strictly legal, "rights" sense. A gay man can marry the same group of people that a straight man can. A lesbian can marry the same group of people that a straight woman can. In other words, all people are able to marry anyone of the opposite sex who is of age and not already legally married. There is no "different set of rules" for gays and straights, so no one is being "oppressed" by marriage. It's just that gays don't want to marry the opposite sex. But there is no "discrimination" since the law is the same for all.
What gays are asking for is for something new and something more. And once they ask for it and receive it (if marriage is redefined), then why can't pedophiles push for their ideas of marriage, too? Or polygamists? Do you see where it gets sticky? Then, everything can become "marriage" and suddenly, marriage is meaningless.
As far as biologically being predisposed to be homosexual, yes, it may be true, but it's irrelevant. An alcoholic may be predisposed genetically to drink, too. We all have to fight our fallen natures on some level or another.
No one is saying that gays should not be treated with dignity and love. The Church is clear on that. They are children of God like the rest of us. We all have our crosses to bear, and all of us are in need of compassion, forgiveness and mercy.
I am sure I have gone off the scope of this post, sorry. I should probably take it up on my own blog if I want to keep going.... Otherwise I won't stop. :)
I wanted to come back and clarify. Just because I've "grown weary" does not mean that I think our laws need to be infused by our religious views. It's just that my understanding of everything is formed through my faith, so I get frustrated when the way I understand things ought to be, is not the same as what they are. I get it...my value system is different from others.
The reaction to my comment is one of similar reasons I generally don't jump in on these discussions.
Hi, Lauren! I’ll be another voice of respectful disagreement.
The roommate parallel is funny, but… do you remember, during our facebook discussion, all of the public and private benefits I mentioned that come from people getting married? Increased responsibility, better health, decreased drinking, better financial decisions, etc? Well, all of that happened to me when I met my wife, but NOT when I met my college roommates. In fact, with my roommates it was kind of the opposite. :)
Maybe your experience with Lisa was different. But the point is, most of us inherently know the difference between a roommate and a spouse. We don’t need the law to tell us. By the way, it’s a GOOD thing the law doesn’t: if the law specified marriage as a sexual relationship, it would preclude from marriage anyone physically incapable of having sex (due to illness, age, or disability). Or do you think those people should be barred from marrying?
Now, if you don’t mind, I have a couple of semi-related questions for you, just because I’m curious about the scope of your position. You oppose gay marriage because of negative effects you think it might have on children, but what about the children of gays and lesbians? Wouldn’t they benefit if their parents were able to marry?
Also, have you considered other positive, pro-marriage results that might come from gay marriage? Here’s a scenario from a blog on theatlantic.com:
"An 8-year-old goes to play at the house of his friend, who is raised by two lesbian women. The environment is a loving one. So this playmate, whose straight parents are married, is going to absorb one of two possible norms.
1) My friend lives in a happy home. His parents are married. When people grow up and love each other, and want to have kids and a happy home, they get married. (I hope I get married one day.)
Or
2) My friend lives in a happy home. His parents aren't married. When people grow up and love each other, and want to have kids and a happy home, sometimes they get married like my parents. Other times they don't get married, like my friend's parents. (One day I may get married and have kids, but maybe I'll just have kids and live with the person I love.)"
Which is the better, pro-marriage message? 1 or 2? After all, gay people exist. They fall in love and enter committed relationships, and they sometimes raise children. Why is it better for those couples to be unmarried? What signal does that send?
Michelle- don't you worry one bit about that! I'd love for you to come over and voice your weariness any time!
Frank! Thanks for the comment on the adoption post and glad you're here. I wanted to continue our conversation as it was the best I've had on the subject.
I honestly LOL'ed at your roommate analogy. Indeed, Lisa WAS a good roommate for me- a true "practice spouse" in the Judge Walker definition, anyway! :) Sorry your college roommates were not the same! :)
My point is that the DEFINITION of marriage is so watered down that the purpose and nature of the union seems no longer necessary. You noted most of us know the difference between a roommate and a spouse- and yet people DO marry for the benefits and not the relationship. There are motivating factors such as owning property jointly, designating a "spouse" as a beneficiary, appointing someone to make health care decisions on your behalf, citizenship... Some, if not all, of these benefits can be obtained without the marital status.
My initial thought to your question about whether people should be banned from marriage was NO! But when I started thinking about it, actually...yes. At least initially, the marriage must be consummated. Should an accident, illness, or age change the nature of the sexual relationship, the marriage is still valid. But that bodily unity is KEY to marriage. The body is not just some extra part of the human person, but truly part of the reality of the person.
(Don't anyone freak out on me for bringing up religion during a secular conversation. This is just a side note. In the Catholic Church there is always a physical sign of the Sacrament. Water for Baptism, Oil for Confirmation... In the Sacrament of Marriage, the physical sign is not the rings, but the consummation. [Summa- meaning the highest or most significant point] One of the most beautiful parts of this is that every time two spouses make love, they are renewing their wedding vows and pledging that total, faithful, fruitful love. We are made in the image and likeness of God. This doesn’t mean He looks like us, but that our body- particularly the differences between a man and a woman- communicate something about WHO God is and what His relationship to us is. He loves us so much that if we open ourselves up to receive His love, we are “impregnated” with His divine life so that we can bare God’s love to the world. Ephesians 5:21-25 refers to this as a “profound mystery”. Society reduces sex to biology- you get an urge and relieve it- but our Church sees sex as a “profound mystery”! I could go on and on about this- and will…soon!)
You asked “What about the children of gays and lesbians? Wouldn’t they benefit if their parents were able to marry?”
YES! They would certainly benefit if their PARENTS were to marry. One of my major concerns about changing the definition of parenthood is that it changes the definition of PARENTS! I talk about that HERE. (I’m not going to get into homosexual adoption in this thread.)
In regards to your two scenarios, I believe this is a false dilemma. There is a third house. It has a happily married heterosexual couple!
I’m interested in your response to Leila’s question. It is particularly relevant if/when you read my post mentioned previously regarding children. In Pennsylvania and Canada there are documented cases of THREE legal adults as official PARENTS. Why should they not get married?
Oh, carousing with my roommates is what led me to Hannah. So it all worked out. :)
A couple of quick points and then some deeper discussion.
1. "You asked “What about the children of gays and lesbians? Wouldn’t they benefit if their parents were able to marry?” YES! They would certainly benefit if their PARENTS were to marry."
Adoptive parents ARE parents, right? And gay couples can legally adopt in many states, including California. So, under Prop 8, children's parents were prevented from marrying. It's simply a fact.
2. "You noted most of us know the difference between a roommate and a spouse- and yet people DO marry for the benefits and not the relationship."
True, but I don't think it's very common or a very big problem--at least, it hasn't affected the sanctity or meaning of my marriage. Besides, you mean that it happens now, among straight couples, right? How would gay marriage change that?
3. "My point is that the DEFINITION of marriage is so watered down that the purpose and nature of the union seems no longer necessary."
My point is that the legal definition of marriage doesn't have to match the Catholic definition of marriage in order to achieve its public purposes.
4. "In regards to your two scenarios, I believe this is a false dilemma. There is a third house. It has a happily married heterosexual couple!"
I'm confused about your point here. Are you saying you won't allow your kid to play with the gay couple's kid? Or are you saying that the gay couple should break up and find someone of the opposite sex to happily marry?
Now for some deeper conversation:
5. "My initial thought to your question about whether people should be banned from marriage was NO! But when I started thinking about it, actually...yes.
Maybe this is just a point where we fundamentally disagree. I mean, bodily unity is key to my perception of marriage, but I don't think the law can or should enforce that. In the first place, it raises a number of problems: if sex is fundamental in marriage, for example, does a husband have a right to demand it from his wife? And it raises questions of what constitutes "bodily unity" that, frankly, I don't think the state has the right to answer. But most of all, you're shooting down the marriage of the sweet couple in this article:
"After 60 Years, Sweethearts Find Each Other Again and Wed." (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view/20070827-84995/After_60_years%2C_sweethearts_find_each_other_again_and_wed).
Probably wasn't a whole lot of consummating going on during their honeymoon. But, c'mon! They're sweet!
6. "In the Catholic Church there is always a physical sign of the Sacrament. Water for Baptism, Oil for Confirmation... In the Sacrament of Marriage, the physical sign is not the rings, but the consummation. [Summa- meaning the highest or most significant point] One of the most beautiful parts of this is that every time two spouses make love, they are renewing their wedding vows and pledging that total, faithful, fruitful love."
This is a wonderful perspective. So is this: "The body is not just some extra part of the human person, but truly part of the reality of the person."
Even more!
7. "He loves us so much that if we open ourselves up to receive His love, we are “impregnated” with His divine life so that we can bare God’s love to the world."
I'm kind of shaky on theology, but that's a metaphorical impregnation and procreation, isn't it? And a reflection of the many different ways a loving couple can be fruitful? Couldn't a loving gay couple likewise bare/bear love to the world?
8. "I’m interested in your response to Leila’s question. It is particularly relevant if/when you read my post mentioned previously regarding children. In Pennsylvania and Canada there are documented cases of THREE legal adults as official PARENTS. Why should they not get married?"
I don't know much about those cases. Are the three adults trying to get married? If not, it seems to be an issue of the complex nature of parenthood--which is nothing new. Society has always made a distinction between making a child and raising a child (if you want, I can point to several cases in the Bible) and that distinction has always complicated the definition of parenthood. This is nothing new that gay marriage has wrought.
If you're making a slippery slope argument, suggesting (as Leila seems to be doing) that gay marriage could lead to legalized polygamy, I'd point out that while men and women are equal before the law (or are supposed to be), the numbers two and three aren't. Marriage between two people clarifies a number of legal issues--who inherits property, who gets power of attorney and custody of children if something happens to one spouse, for example--while marriage between three (or more) people makes all of that LESS clear. In other words, the state has an interest in promoting marriage between two people that doesn't exist with three people.
I'm also interested in Leila's assertion that gays aren't discriminated against because they're allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. To me, that's a little like saying that a ban on yarmulkes isn't discriminatory against Jews--after all, no one's allowed to wear them, right?
I'll risk taking this back to theology, because a) I think it's related and b) I'm curious about your opinion. Genesis 2: 18-24 says that we get married because "it is not good that man should be alone". What does that mean to you? How would you apply it to a gay person? Do you think a gay person can/should pair off with someone of the opposite sex? Or should they remain alone, even though that seems to directly contradict Genesis?
Sorry for the delay. We went out of town for a couple of days. Who knew Alabama was so gorgeous!
1. Regarding parents- I forgot to include the link last time. Here it is: http://psalm34-3.blogspot.com/2010/07/marriage-as-necessary-for-children.html One of my gravest concerns in changing the definition of marriage is that we're changing the definition of parenthood as a result. This shifts such power to the government.
2. Yes, many people (heterosexuals) DO marry for benefits. My point is that we should not change the definition of marriage for the benefits. Changing the definition of marriage attempts to change the very nature of the union itself, so as to water it down to a handful of benefits.
This is contrary to what marriage is. You do not (or should not) marry someone for what you can get out of it, but for what you can give. Marriage is about serving- not taking. In this environment of no-fault divorce, contraceptive mentality, co-habitation, and extra-marital sex, there is this idea that marriage is intrinsically about romance. But throughout history, marriage has been about creating and protecting life.
Judge Walker's definition of marriage leaves one to believe marriage is all about feelings. But feelings come and go and cannot be depended upon. Feelings are not a stable foundation for marriage. A marriage built on feelings would not provide a stable union for children or society. This is not justice.
3. I believe I have made a logical and historical secular argument for maintaining the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Just because the Catholic Church happens to agree with what makes logical and historical sense, does not mean that we are succumbing to a theocracy!
4. My point is those two houses are not the only to options. You created a false dilemma by asking which is better, A or B? My answer? Neither. The gay or unmarried couple’s child would be welcome at our house. People have the freedom (thank God!) to live as they chose in America, and if two people want to live together outside of marriage- whether homo or hetero-sexual, they have that right. People have the right to live as they chose. They don’t have the right to redefine the institution on which society is based.
5. Frank, you’re so funny. Of course they’re sweet! Where did you even find that article?
6. I’m so glad you liked it! I’ll dive more into the theology of the body soon.
7. Yes, it is absolutely a metaphorical and Sacramental image of marriage. We see it reflected in the Eucharist at Mass. Jesus Christ, as the groom, loves His bride, the Church, so much and so completely, that He gives up His body for her. We literally receive the body of Jesus at Mass- consummating that union- and receiving the grace to spread His love to the world.
But there again, it is the BODY. To be clear- we are discussing Catholic theology now- not the secular argument of marriage. This is the exact reason why our Churches teaches against contraception. To mirror the love of Christ and His Church, every union of man and wife must be total, faithful and fruitful. Not every act will conceive a child, but every act must be open to conception. Artificial birth control, sterilization, or same-sex unions cannot be open to life.
8. Leila’s been very busy the last couple of days. I’m hoping she’ll jump in regarding this comment/question. I would point out that laws do not exist to make life easier, but to ensure justice. If three persons are the legal parent of a child, than isn’t it just that they marry to guarantee the stability of their union? Again, I refer you to the post I linked in #1, pointing out that marriage proactively protects the right of a child to their biological parents and ensuring justice.
And Biblically? Genesis 1:28 gives the first command, “Be fertile and multiply.” There is no sin in “being alone”. Jesus was a celibate man! (Regardless of what the Da Vinci Code says!) Matthew 19:12 states that some “have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.’ Saint Paul was celibate according to 1 Corinthians 7:8 and he recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in 7:32-35. The answer in short? They should remain alone. This does not contradict Scripture in the least.
Upon further thought- I have an opportunity to bring it full circle for Jamie.
Jamie, you mentioned your intent in seeking Catholic IF blogs was to discover the reason Catholic teaching is opposed to IVF. I won't get into the details in this comment- you can email me for more if desired. But the crux of the issue is that sex is for procreation AND unity- and the two cannot be separated- for unity or for procreation. The Church warns against contraception and IVF for the same reasons.
This is a very, very basic answer- that I wouldn't have even addressed except that I had already introduced the theology of the body.
Regardless of the method, your baby conceived in your womb is a precious gift and beautiful soul- NOONE would argue that. You are blessed beyond measure to have conceived life. IVF is a complicated issue- particularly when emotions are involved. Instead of starting with the question of why not IVF, I'd suggest starting with why not contraception? I highly, highly recommend Christopher West's books on Theology of the Body. He is gifted to describe the Church’s teaching as a gift- not a hindrance. One of my favorite of his talks is called, “Woman, God’s Masterpiece”. (I wrote about it on this blog- if you click BOOKS or ADOPTION STRUGGLES and scroll down, I’m sure you’ll stumble upon it.) His passion and enthusiasm for the subject are contagious, and you might even walk away EXCITED about the answers you find. Blessings on your journey- and of course for your pregnancy!
Hold up, hold up! I've got a lot to respond to and not much time right now, but I’ve got to stop you here:
“Feelings are not a stable foundation for marriage. A marriage built on feelings would not provide a stable union for children or society.”
My marriage is *definitely* built on feelings.
Hey Frank! Glad you’re back. And might I say…
WHAAAAAAAT? So if you FEEL in love and you FEEL like marriage is worth it and you FEEL happy, then you stay married? But if you don't FEEL in love or happy or like it's worth it- then you don't?
Don't get me wrong. Feelings tend to spark and intensify that interest while you're getting to the married part- but feelings come and go. You should never get married BASED on feelings?
I may FEEL good and FEEL in love with an abuser? My head's got to overrule my heart in such moments. I may FEEL like my husband is driving me crazy and like I can't take it anymore (not really, J!!! :)) but I DECIDE that the conflict is worth it for our sake and the sake of our children.
Marriage is NOT based on feelings.
Rebuttal? :)
“So if you FEEL in love and you FEEL like marriage is worth it and you FEEL happy, then you stay married? “
Pretty much. Lauren, not ALL feelings are fleeting. Some come and go. But some don’t. My love for and pride in my mother ain’t going anywhere, even if sometimes during her life they were clouded by anger or frustration.
Similarly, I married Hannah because I love her and want to be with her always. Those are feelings. In our case, very, very solid feelings. There was no objective fact that led me to propose to her—just my faith in my own feelings.
(Honestly, I’m glad Hannah didn’t use her head too much, since when we decided to get married I was a twenty-year-old literature major with no job prospects.)
Yes, it can be difficult to sort the lasting feelings from the fleeting ones and, yes, people do make mistakes sometimes. And yes, you have to use your head to know if your feelings are lasting, if they’re healthy and honest.
“You should never get married BASED on feelings”
Your advice is duly noted, but I think it’s too late in my case. I’ll go ahead and stay married, if it’s all the same to you. :)
Post a Comment