Marriage–Civil and Religious

Some have said, “Who really cares about gay marriage?” Straights have their own, well-established norms. People are not suddenly going to change their practices just because gays can get married and follow their traditionally more sexually loose practices.

I’d respond in two ways. First, the unraveling of sexual morality that has led to the current push for gay marriage began in the Sixties, with the heterosexual “sexual revolution.” Who would have thought a bunch of dirty hippies cavorting in upstate New York would lead to legally sanctioned gay marraige from the highest court in Massachusetts?

Secondly, I’d make an analogy involving my Catholic faith. I would argue that Catholic marriage has been weakened in the U.S. by easily available civil divorces. In the Catholic Church–and other Christian religions–marriage is truly “til death do you part.” Annulments were infrequent until recent times. But now many Catholics get civilly divorced, civilly remarried, and act like nothing happened, even though they’re still married in the eyes of the Catholic Church and their subsequent marriage is technically an act of adultery. In their eyes and in the eyes of the public, though, the civil marriage has equal dignity as the religious marriage. This view persists among many Catholic even though marriage is supposed to be a Sacrament defined by Church rules and procedures, and only available and only “annulable” under those procedures.

The widespread availability of civil divorces have created pressure on the American Church in particular to grant annulments that are probably not theologically sound and that are based on fraudulent testimony by the couple seeking the annulment. Because both religious and civl marriages are called “marriage” and have the same attendant civil rights, I think it’s plain that the easy standards of civil marraiges are corrupting the practices of individual Catholics and of American Catholic Church leaders. These two institutions existing side by side and having the same name and same legal benefits tend to resemble one another more over time. This is highly predictable. One can only imagine how the widespread description of legally recognized gay couples as “marriages” would affect heterosexual practices.

That many want gay “marriage” to change and liberalize heterosexual paractices is pretty much undeniable. Gay advocates have said as much:

Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, “…fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely … To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. … The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of ‘family’ altogether.” (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.” He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,” Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: “Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? … marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: “Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit…” [Emphasis added.]