Reflection

Why the true meaning of marriage must be enshrined in law

Archbishop John C. Nienstedt

Contents - Aug 2010 - Buy a copy now Feast of the Assumption: Benedict XVI's homily Troubled future of the Church in Ireland - Archbishop Diarmuid Martin News: The Church Around the World The Mass: why we should focus on its essence - Fr John O'Neill PP Liberalism: Christian churches and the 'religious left' - Babette Francis Foundations of Faith: The Sacrament of Penance: whatever happened to confession? - Br Barry Coldrey Foundations of Faith: The angel who died on Christmas Day - Arthur N. Ballingall Justice: A Queensland Year 12 student: the injustice of abortion Vocations: Mother Dolores Hart OSB: from Hollywood to convent - Michael Gilchrist Letters: Liturgy Letters: Infallibility - Dr Frank Mobbs Letters: Safe abortion? - Maureen Federico Letters: Obama Health Bill - Sr Rose Mary Kinne OP Letters: Euthanasia - Dr Arnold Jago Letters: Definitions by design - J. Loring Letters: Future Church - John Barich Books: THE CATHOLIC PRIEST IMAGE OF CHRIST: Through Fifteen Centuries of Art - Terri Kelleher (reviewer) Books: THE GUILLOTINE AND THE CROSS, by Warren H. Carroll - Michael Daniel (reviewer) Books: BLESSED PIUS IX, by Roberto de Mattei - Michael Daniel (reviewer) Books: JESUS CHRIST, YESTERDAY, TODAY, FOREVER, by Fr Anthony Percy - Micheal Daniel (reviewer) Books: DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT CATHOLIC HISTORY: From the Catacombs to the Reformation - Terri Kelleher (reviewer) Books: Order books from www.freedompublishing.com.au Reflection: Why the true meaning of marriage must be enshrined in law - Archbishop John C. Nienstedt

The following is the edited text of a recent newspaper article by Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of Minneapolis-St Paul which called upon the US State of Minnesota to pass legislation protecting the meaning of marriage as between a man and a woman. This was prompted by nation-wide pressures to allow same-sex "marriage". It parallels the situation in Australia except that in the US the issue is a state responsibility, not a federal one as in Australia.

Why should we care about passing a marriage amendment?

Marriage matters to every citizen, whether or not we choose to marry personally, because it is the natural way we bring together men and women to conceive and raise the next generation. The intended reality of marriage as a lifelong, committed, life-giving union between one man and one woman, a reality long accepted as established fact, is severely challenged today.

High rates of fatherlessness and family fragmentation impoverish children and leave women with the unfair burden of solo parenting. Children suffer, but so does the whole society, when marriage fails in its irreplaceable task of bringing together mothers and fathers with their children.

Into this confusing mix, so-called same-sex "marriage" throws a whole new level of challenge and uncertainty. Defining marriage as simply a union of consenting parties will change the core meaning of marriage in the public square for every individual.

Past experience

We might learn caution from past experience. Back in the early 1970s, the experts told us that no-fault divorce would liberate women from bad marriages without affecting anyone else. We now know that as many as one-third of women fall into poverty with their children as a result of divorce. Social science caught up late with the commonsense wisdom that children need a mother and father working together to protect them.

In other words, changing the law of marriage to enshrine no-fault divorce had unintended consequences that few predicted. Same-sex marriage represents an even greater challenge.

Throughout history, human beings in virtually every society have recognised that, to make a marriage, one needs a man and a woman. What is more, it has long been acknowledged that marriage is not just about the happiness of adults but concerns the well-being of society - that is, the common good. Marriage exists in civil law primarily in order to provide communal support for bringing mothers and fathers together to care for their children. Same-sex unions cannot serve this public purpose.

What will happen to children growing up in a world where the law teaches them that mums and dads are interchangeable and therefore unnecessary, and that marriage has nothing intrinsically to do with the bearing and raising of children? Do we really want first-graders to be taught that gay marriage is OK, or that the influence of a mother and a father on the development of a child somehow doesn't matter?

We all know that not all children live in the ideal situation. Many parents are doing a magnificent job working hard to raise children in less than ideal circumstances. Every son or daughter is a child of God who deserves our concern. But gay marriage would certainly be a declaration by the government that we have officially abandoned the ideal that children need both a mother and father.

The only way to secure the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman is to follow the lead of other American states and put a simple definition of marriage in our state Constitution, beyond the reach of activist courts.

In years past, our elected officials told us that we did not need a marriage amendment, because there was no realistic threat from the courts. But the Iowa court decision, on the heels of rulings in Connecticut, California and Massachusetts, clearly demonstrates that an amendment is needed.

Marriage amendments

Thirty-one states have passed marriage amendments, from Oregon to Wisconsin, from Michigan to California. There is nothing radical about the ideal of making sure marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman. Marriage is the way a man and woman bind their love into a lifelong commitment that is mutual, exclusive, and open to new life - where they promise not only to love each other, but to love any children whom they create together. With that vow, the die is cast and the adventure of receiving and raising the next generation has begun.

A question as important as the future of this great, social institution called marriage should not be decided by a few, narrow elites, but by the people of this state themselves. A marriage amendment is the only just and respectful resolution.

Reprinted from AD2000 Vol 23 No 7 (August 2010), p. 20