"It is a simple fact that word ‘marriage' as we have traditionally known it is being redefined in our times," said Monsignor Charles Pope of Washington archdiocese.

"To many in the secular world the word no longer means what it once did and when the Church uses the word marriage we clearly do not mean what the increasing number of states mean."

Continue reading

Yet this claim deflects attention from the real issue: what is the true nature of marriage?

Two rival visions jostle for supremacy. The conjugal model says marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman. The partnership model says marriage is a contract between committed loving couples.

Conjugal marriage is a comprehensive union (mental and physical, emotional and sexual) of a man and a woman.

Marriage has a true essence, a fundamental core; it is a real phenomenon, not just a human invention or convention.

A crocodile is a crocodile, a tree is a tree, a river is a river. We did not invent crocodiles, we simply discovered them and named them. We can call a hippopotamus a crocodile if we want but that does not change its essential nature.

All it does is lead to confusion.

Marriage is a pre-political institution.

States recognise marriage; they do not invent it. States value the institution in which men and women commit indefinitely and exclusively to each other and to the children their sexual union commonly (but not invariably) produces.

Gay marriage proponents will argue that defines marriage so as to exclude gay couples, a neat trick that fools no-one.

Not so. Recall their key claim: gay couples deserve equal legal recognition.

That is an empty argument. To insist upon equality is to require that "like things be treated alike".

So X and Y should be treated equally for X and Y are alike. But we need to know in what respects X is like Y and whether these characteristics are morally valid before we can be confident that they merit equal treatment.

We must have a standard for deciding which characteristics count and which don't.

Is gay (partnership) marriage "like" conjugal marriage?

In some respects, yes: both may involve monogamous couples who have a deep commitment to each other. Continue reading

Sources

• Rex Ahdar in The Dominion Post
• Image: kidspot.co.nz

Rex Ahdar is a law professor at Otago University.

Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco is the chairman of the US bishops' Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. As the Supreme Court on Tuesday and Wednesday heard arguments in two cases regarding same-sex "marriage," the archbishop is at the forefront of the Church's battle to defend marriage against this latest, and more "extreme" assault.

The archbishop was in Washington on Tuesday to lead the prayer for the first national March for Marriage, which ended precisely at the Supreme Court.

ZENIT spoke with the archbishop by phone on the vigil of the march.

ZENIT: Recent polls report that a slight majority of Americans favor same-sex "marriage," but of course polls are only worth so much. What is your view? Is this battle lost at the level of culture, both here at home and internationally?

Archbishop Cordileone: We've been hearing for 10 years that public opinion has shifted and that the majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex "marriage," but until the last election the traditional concept of marriage has won out every time the people have been able to vote on it. And even now, this last election may indicate some shifting of opinion, but there was another poll that was done the day of, or the day after the election, which indicated that 60% of Americans still favor the traditional concept of marriage. It always depends on how the question is phrased. So, I think that when people understand what marriage really is, what its true purposes are — and that it's not something that's discriminatory, that they come around to appreciate it more. Continue reading

Sources

• Zenit
• Image: San Francisco Chronicle