"The emerging elite consensus in favor of same-sex marriage has an element of self-delusion about it. ..."

... It denies that same-sex marriage would work a radical change in American law or society, insisting to the contrary that within a few years of its triumph everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about. But its simultaneous insistence that opponents are the moral equivalent of the white supremacists of yesteryear belies these bland assurances. Our tolerance for racism is quite limited: The government, while it generally respects the relevant constitutional limits, is active in the cause of marginalizing racists and eradicating racist beliefs and behaviors. Moreover, social sanctions against racism, both overt and implied, are robust. If our society is truly to regard opposition to same-sex marriage as equivalent to racism, it will have to undergo change both dramatic and extensive. Churches that object, for example, will have to be put in the same cultural position as Bob Jones University was in the days when it banned interracial dating, until they too join the consensus.

If proponents of same-sex marriage thought through these implications, their confidence might evaporate, for it seems highly unlikely that this project will succeed at all, and impossible that it will do so without decades of arduous and divisive social “reform.” That is no reason to shrink from the task, if it is truly a just one. But we should first consider whether the historic and cross-cultural understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman really has so little to be said for it.

We think that there is quite a bit to be said for it: that it is true, vitally true. But it is a truth so long accepted that it is no longer well understood. Both the fact that we are debating same-sex marriage and the way that debate has progressed suggest that many of us have lost sight of why marriage exists in the first place as a social institution and a matter of public policy. One prominent supporter of same-sex marriage says that the purpose of marriage is to express and safeguard an emotional union of adults; another says that its purpose is to make it more likely that people will have others to give them care in sickness and old age.

So at the risk of awkwardness, we must talk about the facts of life. It is true that marriage is, in part, an emotional union, and it is also true that spouses often take care of each other and thereby reduce the caregiving burden on other people. But neither of these truths is the fundamental reason for marriage. The reason marriage exists is that the sexual intercourse of men and women regularly produces children. If it did not produce children, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people’s emotional unions. (The government does not regulate non-marital friendships, no matter how intense they are.) If mutual caregiving were the purpose of marriage, there would be no reason to exclude adult incestuous unions from marriage. What the institution and policy of marriage aims to regulate is sex, not love or commitment. These days, marriage regulates sex (to the extent it does regulate it) in a wholly non-coercive manner, sex outside of marriage no longer being a crime.

That from a National Review editorial, "The Case for Marriage", that appears in the September 20, 2010, edition of the magazine. It's quite good, the sort of short piece to pass along to those who are uncertain about "same sex marriage", or who support because they think its "fair" or "right" or "openminded" to do so.

The opening paragraph is especially interesting to me because I am fairly convinced that if "same sex marriage" becomes the law of the land, and thus the norm for social and legal battles, it won't be long before the same openminded, über-tolerant elitists who are pushing it will used it as a weapon against groups and churches that refuse to recognize it, especially the Catholic Church. A good friend, a priest, disagrees with me, and believes that such is not the case. I wish I could agree with him, but I think the NR editors are right on the money regarding this point. What do you think?

Related Ignatius Insight Articles and Book Excerpts:

• Who Is Married? | Edward Peters
• Marriage and the Family in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae | Reverend Michael Hull, S.T.D.
• Male and Female He Created Them | Cardinal Estevez
• The Challenge of Marriage Preparation | Dr. Janet E. Smith
• Focus Groups and Marriage: A Match Made for Heartache | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Entering Marriage with Eyes Wide Open | Edward Peters
• Human Sexuality and the Catholic Church | Donald P. Asci | Introduction to The Conjugal Act as a Personal Act
• The Meaning and Necessity of Spiritual Fatherhood | Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers, MTS
• Practicing Chastity in an Unchaste Age | Bishop Joseph F. Martino
• The Truth About Conscience | John F. Kippley | An excerpt from Sex and the Marriage Covenant

Comments

[Dan]

"But it is a truth so long accepted that it is no longer well understood."

This is not why our society no longer understands what marriage is. The reason for it derives from the long term disintegration of our understanding of what sex is. The wide spread acceptance of contraception is a crucial part of this disintegration. It is also rooted in erroneous enlightenment era philosophies.

[Laura]

If a pastor in Canada is arrested for preaching that homosexual actions are sinful and Catholic adoption agencies in the US and in the UK are forced to close or sever ties to the Church because homosexual couples sue them for discrimination on the grounds of the agencies' refusal to place children with homosexual couples, then of course the legalization of same sex "marriage" will be used against religious institutions and anyone else who disagrees with it. The pattern is already established.

[Francis Beckwith]

I made that argument 2 years ago in First Things:

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/12/same-sex-marriage-and-the-fail

[Nancy]

The element of self-delusion is that Love can be possessive.

[Todd Newbold]

I agree with Dan. I recalI reading somewhere that a Catholic Pope or Philosopher said 100 years ago that all the various forms of population control would turn society upside down for a certain amount of time. Sure, it can be changed, but only by young adults that want to procreate. That would be an interesting Novel for someone to write.

[joe]

1. Even at National Review I believe their religion guy Mike Potemra, who gave your Study Bible a strong mention, is for some sort of legalization of gay marriage, so the opposition is not monolithic.

2. I doubt churches will be actively targeted as much as gradually marginalized.

3. All the arguments still obsess over whether gay marriage will be 'good' for society or families, and ignore the idea of gay sex being, quite simply, immoral. Without that objective distinction, in our sex- and fairness-fixated culture, we will look homophobic.

[Fernando Umberto Garcia de Nicaragua, Prefectus Maximus: The Jacksonian Institute]

Aristotle, in the Politics, called it long ago. When any idea of natural hierarchy is erased, then radical egalitarianism will lead to the destruction of the family.

[Maria]

Of course, it will affect churches!! I just read in Lifesite News, about a supposed Catholic group called Catholics for Equality that is forming and building a website where any priest that proclaims Catholic teaching on homosexuality (like that happens a lot haha) in their homilies would be accused. Anyone who does not believe that, has their head stuck in the sand. I have more respect for a person who has thought something through and disagrees with me than for someone who just doesn't seem to care how anything will affect them or others.

Apparently, anything can be turned into a law, but it will never erase that inner voice that tells them and me that it is wrong. It is ultimately about getting phony approvals and claps on the back about a counterfeit lifestyle that seeks to emulate all that is good in a true marriage. Like a counterfeit dollar bill, it may look the same, but will never be the same. Who is really delusional? The ones that defend a phony relationship or the ones who live it. I guess I'm a homophobe. Yet, I am not afraid of who they are, just disgusted by what they do. I am afraid of offending my GOD by accepting something totally contrary to his plans. I am heartbroken that some who claim to belong to him, think that he suffered a most painful death on a cross so that they could celebrate their sinfulness. What a sad, sad, immature, selfish, whiny people we have become. The country of --"You'd better tell me that I am right and celebrate me or else!"

[Nancy]

Our Dignity as Human Beings Has been endowed to us by God Who created us in His Image as male and female. Any sexual act or sexual relationship that defiles our Dignity as Human Beings is demeaning and can never be Good for society or families.

[Fernando Umberto Garcia de Nicaragua, Prefectus Maximus: The Jacksonian Institute]

But Nancy, Vatican II's excessive emphasis on the dignity of human beings is very much part of the problem. (By the way, notice that you write Dignity, not dignity, and Human Beings rather than human beings. To compensate for this, you should write GOD & WHO rather than God & Who.)

[Todd Newbold]

With young adults all over the world choosing not to have ANY kids- zero notta, will we all still bicker when we are in our 80's and 90's, its about understanding........

[Janny]

Todd...

This isn't "bickering." It's justifiable cautionary advice and looking at the liberal/homosexual/intolerant agenda with our eyes wide open. There's nothing of "bickering" involved in simply standing up for what's right...which, despite our culture's shrill screams to the contrary, human beings know as part of their imprinting by God.

You can't erase a conscience. You can deaden it, you can argue against it, and you can ignore it, but the strongest arguments our culture can make against it dissolve in the light of simple HUMAN reason--not even so-called "religious" reasoning. The trick is in getting people to be quiet long enough to listen to what's already there, rather than the shrill voices around them insisting they ignore it.

[Todd Newbold]

Janny, today in Omaha, NE - Fr. Corapi told me to think higher than politics, so Im going to try. What culture are you referring to? If your answer is American culture, that may be difficult to corral - we are a melting pot of 400 million, countless ethnicities/nationalities/races/churches/experiences. If Christ would of been a mute you would only have his compassionate Works to convince all types.

[Jeannine]

Sooner or later the churches will be affected by "gay marriage," if it becomes the law of the land. I've noticed that in Boston, Catholic Charities no longer facilitates adoptions, for example. I think the impact would come sooner rather than later.

[Thomas Mellon]

The sacramentality of marriage has to be emphasised more, and also the invalidity of any legislature or court's attempts to redefine the sacrament.There is a definite danger that this redefinition will become,or has already become the new totalitarianism.