Dear Justice Ginsburg: Marriage is not Defined by Gender Roles

Dear Ireland: Vote Pro-Marriage

       The term “traditional marriage” is inaccurate both because there is only one type of relationship that can be called marriage,1 and because tradition is not the reason that such a relationship is a marriage. Unlike seeing, hearing, and the other human bodily functions, reproduction requires two people acting as one.2 In this way, consummation literally forms a marriage of persons. Therefore, the definition of marriage is determined by the nature of heterosexual acts, not by secondary issues such as cultural gender roles,3 financial considerations, etc. “Gay marriage” is also an inaccurate term because no marriage takes place between the two:1 though a homosexual couple may view the consummation of their relationship to have symbolic significance, the act is not a consummation (i.e. completion) in the literal sense. Furthermore, because heterosexual acts tend toward procreation, they contain a responsibility to be exclusive for the sake of the children conceived. Conversely, because the act of reproduction is not proper to homosexual acts, the emotional and physical affection shared by a homosexual couple does not literally contain a responsibility to be exclusive, though the two may decide upon exclusivity as a common goal.4

       Children are best served where they belong most deeply. The legal protection of marriage as a consensual, total, exclusive, and fruitful5 bond between one man and one woman not only recognizes marital sexual acts as having intrinsic6 value and societal value, but also enshrines the human right7 of children to be raised by their biological parents and with their biological siblings wherever possible and prudent. This right exists because humans flourish best in communities where they feel they belong. While the feeling of belonging cannot be guaranteed, in reality a child cannot belong more deeply to any community than the family with whom he or she shares flesh and blood. Thus, protecting a child’s right to live in his or her own family is at least protecting the opportunity to flourish in the venue where flourishing is most probable. Lastly, all other things being equal, it is preferable that children learn about man and woman from the complementary influences of their own married parents: success in this important formation is more probable in married family life because it can be accomplished sooner and more completely.8

       Surrogacy is viewed by some as a form of charity; however, this view is inaccurate in a few ways. If the child is conceived by a heterosexual act, that act is needlessly objectifying. Even if the act is done in friendship, it is not for the sake of total mutual self-gift but rather so that the woman can be used as a surrogate. If artificial reproductive technology is involved in surrogacy, other issues arise. In such cases, the child is not (or not only) the biological offspring of the relationship because genetic material must be used from at least one person of the opposite sex who is not in the couple. In other words, when homosexual couples plan to have children through the use of surrogates and donors, they are actually planning to have other people’s children,9 while also disregarding the right of those children10 to live with their biological family.

       When these methods are legalized, the unnecessary separation of a child from at least one biological parent is wrongly designated equally as ideal as the child having two biological parents.11 Such methods are used primarily to serve the desires of adults. Because of this, the rights of children are often overlooked, and children are treated as commodities rather than persons. This is perhaps seen most clearly in the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF), in which unused manufactured human embryos are discarded or given to science.12 The quality of parents, whether biological or adoptive, cannot be guaranteed; nor can it be guaranteed that a child will feel like he belongs in his or her family community even if the family is otherwise ideal. However, for the reasons stated above, in the absence of a biological family in which a child radically belongs and is wanted from the first, a close likeness to that community ought to be offered to the child.

Adapted from Part III of

Renna, James. Abortion, Personhood, and Marriage: a Pro-life Document in Three Parts. Amazon CreateSpace, 2015.

Citations

1 – a. These insights are taken from Cardinal Burke and were pointed out by LM
b. Marriage is also fittingly called “matrimony” because it is through the same act that consummates marriage that a woman becomes a mother (Latin, mater)
2 – This insight is taken from Finnis – p. 8
3 – cf. Justice Ginsburg: “[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago... Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him. There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian.”
4 – This compound insight is from Finnis – p. 20
5 – These four qualities are adapted from West’s phrasing: “free, total, faithful, and fruitful”
6 – “Intrinsic” – inherent; belonging naturally. Definition suggested by PC
7 – “Human rights” – see Renna – Part I, Q. 3, answer
8 – This insight is from PC
9 – This insight is from Lopez and Klein as quoted in Naab’s article. These two along with Barwick and Faust9 are among a group not often mentioned: the homosexual people and children raised by homosexual couples who oppose the legal redefinition of marriage. This comment was recommended by PC.
10 – This insight is derived from Katy Faust’s open letter
11 – This insight is from Barwick and Faust as quoted in Naab’s article.
12 – Also see Renna – Part I, Q. 5, Reply 4

All electronic texts were read on or before 30 April 2015

Burke, Raymond Cardinal. Speech to the “Society for the Protection of Unborn Children” and “Voice of the Family.” Abbey Suite, Doubletree by Hilton Hotel. Chester, England. 6 March 2015.

Faust, Katy. Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent. www.ThePublicDiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/

Finnis, John. “Law, Morality, and ‘Sexual Orientation’” in Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality. ed. John Corvino. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997. p. 31-43. Citations from PDF on www.Princeton.edu

Naab, Kathleen. Those Raised by Same-Sex Couples Try to Show Another Side to Marriage Debate. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/those-raised-by-same-sex-couples-try-to-show-another-side-to-marriage-debat/

U.S. Supreme Court. Obergefell vs. Hodges. Oral arguments on 28 April 2015. www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_11o2.pdf eviscerated

West, Christopher. Sexual Honesty: a Proposal to Engaged Couples About the Truth and Meaning of Sexual Love. CD by Ascension Press, 2006. West’s talk is based upon Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching, which can be read in Man and Woman He Created Them: a Theology of the Body. Trans: Michael Waldstein. Pauline Books & Media, 2006.