Fr. Roger J. Landry
Editorial
The Anchor
November 3, 2006
The talking point interrogatives have begun to reappear as we near the November 9th Constitutional Convention and our legislators prepare to vote on whether to give first approval to sending the Marriage Protection Amendment before voters in 2008.
“Has the sky fallen down since gay marriage began in Massachusetts?,” we’re asked, implying that if society has not completely fallen apart since 2004, then that must prove that the redefinition of marriage is innocuous.
“How has my gay marriage harmed you?,” we’re cross-examined, suggesting that unless our own adult life has been turned upside down as a direct result of same-sex weddings, gay marriage must be harmless.
These questions are a savvy attempt to frame most of the harms of gay marriage out of consideration. If same-sex marriage is truly noxious, the questions insinuate, then either society will instantly be catastrophically impacted or we will suffer immediate personal harm. If we have experienced neither, then there must be no harm. Argument over. Case closed.
So many in the secular media have uncritically bought and repeated that line of argumentation that some opponents of same-sex marriage have been made to wonder whether their objections are visceral or rational. That’s why it is both important and urgent to speak candidly and articulately about the harms that the redefinition of marriage and same-sex marriages themselves bring.
The first damage is to the institution and understanding of marriage itself. Calling same-sex unions marriage radically transforms and obscures the fundamental meaning of marriage. It makes the publicly committed union of one man and one woman merely one possible form of marriage. This obviously opens the door to polygamy and polyamory, as many proponents of the redefinition of marriage have plainly and expectantly stated. If marriage means anything four Supreme Judicial Court Justices say it means, then it in fact means nothing — or possibly everything. The law is a teacher and shows what is considered acceptable or approved. Calling same-sex relationships marriage teaches that marriage has no intrinsic need of a man and a woman and furthermore undercuts the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. This harm will affect everyone, especially the young.
The redefinition of marriage, moreover, does not merely allow different understandings of matrimony, but forces everyone else to accept this dramatically altered conception of marriage and family in schools, law and in our public language. We have already seen this in Massachusetts. Words like “husband” and “wife,” “mother” and “father” have been deemed discriminatory, replaced by “Party A” and “Party B,” “Parent A” and “Parent B.” Our law and educational institutions are being compelled to pretend — contrary to common sense and various studies — that there is nothing special about mothers and fathers raising children together and, specifically, that children do not need both a mother and a father. The notion of parenthood is being changed to consist in any arrangement of emotionally attached people who care for kids. And anyone who opposes these harmful developments is not tolerated, but in fact is called a bigot. It happened to David Parker in Lexington, who was publicly castigated after objecting to his child’s being taught about transsexuals and same-sex couples in kindergarten. It happened to other parents in Newton, who protested their five year olds’ having to read a fairy-tale about two princes kissing. This mandated acceptance of the redefinition obviously points to an allied danger to the religious freedom of those who oppose same-sex marriage. This harm, too, affects everyone.
One application of this forced acquiescence points to another notable harm, the radical changes made necessary in adoption and foster-care work. Since the redefinition makes it legally impossible to give preference to families headed by a married father and mother, most adoption and foster-care preferences — prescribed for the benefit of at risk children — have needed to be eliminated. Institutions like Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston have had to give up their valuable adoption work altogether lest they be forced to place children against religious beliefs and common sense in same-sex homes. No one can honestly argue that this is a harmless development.
This segues directly to the harm that will come to children reared in same-sex homes. While we do not yet have long-range comparative studies about children raised in these situations, the literature is voluminous that describes overall that children raised without both a mother and a father in the home suffer in comparison with those raised in intact heterosexual homes. Recent statistics reveal that two-thirds of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts involve lesbians and that lesbian couples are much more likely than male same-sex partners to try to raise children. This means that most children raised in same-sex homes will be raised without a father. Multiple studies have shown that, in general, children raised without a father in the home suffer educationally, emotionally and developmentally. They are up to three times more likely to have discipline problems in school. They will have deep questions about their identity due to insecurity about their biological origins and family identity, especially when they have never had their father in the home. Girls will be far more sexually active at a younger age and will experience much higher rates of teenage pregnancy and sexual abuse from unrelated males. One study found that only five percent of girls who grew up with a married mother and father got pregnant as teenagers, compared to ten percent of girls whose dads left when they turned six, and 35 percent of girls whose fathers left when they were preschoolers. These harms that will come to kids are obviously not intended by the same-sex couples who seek to raise them, but they are nevertheless real.
Finally, those who care for the common good cannot ignore the economic consequences that flow from the redefinition of marriage with respect to business insurance policies, health care systems and social security programs. This fiscal impact will be in addition to the economic harms that will come from the weakening of the traditional family, the economic benefits of which are well-documented.
These are just some of the possible answers to how the redefinition of marriage will result in tangible harm to others. The sky is not falling, but that does not mean that the fundamental building block of society is not being severely weakened. November 9th gives us a chance to stop and reverse the damage.