Fr. Roger J. Landry
The Landing
Editorial
The Anchor
July 7, 2006
Acting on last week’s editorial on the Protection of Marriage Amendment, one subscriber emailed his state representative. In a succinct and straightforward manner, he stated: “I hope that you will be supportive of the fact that marriage is between a man and woman. Secondly, it is my hope that you will not only permit the Protection of Marriage Amendment to go to a vote, but will be supportive of placing this on the ballot. I would be greatly disappointed if the General Court used deceptive tactics to take action to deny the placement of this on the ballot.”
His state representative responded electronically a few hours later.
“In my religious beliefs, I agree that it’s true that marriage is between a man and a women. But this is not about our religious beliefs. It’s about the Constitution of the Commonwealth which I have sworn to uphold. The Constitution protects minorities from the majority by enumerating our basic rights that cannot be voted away by the majority. The majority would and could take rights away from many people it doesn’t like. It has been deemed by the [Supreme Judicial Court] that the right to marry is a constitutional right that is common to all of our citizens regardless of gender. I don’t believe we have the right to vote on the constitutional rights of our fellow citizens. I also wonder what Jesus would make of this movement among my fellow Catholics in his church to take rights away from people. I think it would make him sad and he would not want to have anything to do with it. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but this is what I believe.”
Unlike elected officials who send out vacuous form letters to keep all interested constituents guessing where they stand on an issue, this legislator certainly deserves credit for candor. He also merits praise for taking his individual constituents’ questions seriously and responding quickly and directly. But his reply betrays several fundamental misunderstandings about marriage, about rights, about his constitutional duties, and about Jesus’ expectations and Catholic moral behavior. Moreover, those who have contacted their local legislators about this issue know that this particular representative’s misconceptions are not unique; many of his Beacon Hill colleagues share these confusions and cite versions of them as reasons for their present opposition or ambivalence toward the marriage amendment.
This is the reason why our reader forwarded to us a copy of this correspondence, hoping that — as he and other subscribers continue to contact their own legislators in preparation for the July 12 vote — this paper might provide adequate rejoinders to help citizens to disabuse their senators and representatives of these specific misinterpretations, and to persuade them why they should vote to allow the marriage petition amendment to progress toward the 2008 ballot. We’ll take the legislator’s assertions one-by-one.
First, he is mistaken about the foundational reason for marriage as a heterosexual institution. Marriage is not a question about religious belief, but biology. It’s not merely the book of Genesis that tells us that man is created male and female, but our eyes and brains. For a benefit of society as a whole, every culture since the beginning — even those who antedate both Jews and Christians — has given special status to the committed union between a man and a woman and to the family that flows from that committed heterosexual union. To make marriage husband-less or wife-less is like making a woman female-less or a family person-less. Not only is it senseless, but it will confuse and harm individuals and societies.
Second, Massachusetts citizens, gay or straight, have always all had the right to marry. What they have never had is the right to marry anyone they want. Citizens have been restricted, for example, from marrying one who is still wedded to another, or a minor, or their own son or daughter. Until the SJC by a one-vote majority invented it in 2003, no court, legislature or governor — all sworn to uphold the state constitution— ever recognized a “right” or even a “permission” to marry someone of the same sex. Although the Massachusetts Constitution does not explicitly restrict marriage to a man and a woman, neither does it circumscribe it to two members of the human race. The reason is because when the Constitution was being penned and debated, everyone knew what marriage was; it would have been silly and superfluous to declare that you couldn’t marry your horse, or your infant child or someone of the same-sex.
Third, the only rights that cannot and should not be taken away are those that are “inalienable.” Rights created by states and governments — for example, the right to drive — can and are taken away by those same authorities when deemed necessary. Same-sex marriage is not an “inalienable” right: if it were, then why would no other state in our nation, nor 99% of the countries in the world, nor the entirety of human history, recognize it as such? If, however, the “right” for people of the same sex to marry each other comes from positive law, then it can be changed by positive law, like a citizen initiative petition, or an overturned court ruling, or other means. The constitution legislators swear to uphold provides these means.
Lastly, if a legislator is going to ask, “What would Jesus do?” relative to this issue, he should recall that Jesus spoke clearly about what marriage is (cf. Mt 19). He taught that in the beginning God made human persons male and female, not male and male or female and female. For this reason, he added, a man leaves his father and mother — not two fathers or two mothers — to cling, not to whomever he wants, but to his wife. He stated furthermore that in marriage the two become one flesh, not just in the physical contact of sexual intercourse, but in the fusion of their flesh in a child, of which a homosexual union is naturally and obviously incapable. Finally, he said that what God has joined must never be rent asunder — and God has joined man and woman in marriage from the beginning. To believe in Jesus means to take seriously what he said and did.
Jesus would not be “saddened” or “want nothing to do with” his disciples’ “fighting to take away rights from people.” If that were the case, then he would likewise be against his Church’s fight to remove the judicially-invented “right” to abortion, or the founding fathers’ invented “right” to own slaves, or the putative “right” of those in Oregon to kill themselves. Jesus obviously wants those who are truly his followers to fight against all of these pseudo-rights — including the “right” of same-sex marriage in our commonwealth — for through them, people harm themselves and others, and not just in this world.