2cornucopias

Posts Tagged ‘Marriage’

, ,

Marital Commitment

In 05 Homilies by Fr. Reid on 2013/06/14 at 12:00 AM

• Both the reading and the Gospel today come from St. John the Beloved Disciple.  And both of these readings focus on love, reminding us that as the children of God, we are called to love one another just as God – Who Is Love Itself – has loved us.

• Indeed, love is one of those topics that we cannot over-emphasize in the Church because our Lord teaches us that the greatest commandment is to love. We are called first to love our Lord above all things, and then to love one another as we love ourselves.

• Love comes in many forms: there is the charitable love that exists between friends and neighbors, the nurturing love that exists between parents and children, the fraternal love that exists between siblings, and, of course, there is the life-giving love that exists between a man and his wife.

• While I could give homilies on any of these forms of love, I want to focus today on this last type of love: marital love, because in many ways this is the most important form of love that we exercise with one another.

• Marriage forms the basis of family life, and families are the building blocks of any human society. For better or worse, marriage is public; it’s not just a private arrangement between two people, and therefore the success or failure of a marriage has an impact on society as  a whole.

• Therefore, it’s important that we all be invested in protecting the institution of marriage, which is very sadly under attack today. It’s also important that we live out our marriages in conformity with God’s laws. But to do this, we must understand what marriage is all about.

• If you look at the documents of Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes) and Canon Law, you’ll find that marriage is the intimate, exclusive, indissoluble communion of life and love entered into by a man and woman. God designed this sacrament for the procreation and education of children and for the purpose of the spouses own good.

• “Marriage is a holy mystery, a symbol of Christ’s love for the Church.” It is a vehicle for  holiness! Marriage is not simply a social institution; it also has religious implications. Specifically, marriage is a conduit for God’s grace to flow to a couple and to their children.

• So marriage has both natural and supernatural dimensions, and both must be recognized.

• Thus, for Christians, marriages are actually triangular relationships: husband – wife – and God. All three are necessary to make a marriage work. And in living out a marriage, all three parties must be respected. All three must be willing to love.

• Furthermore, the love that is shared in a marriage is a particular type of love: a covenantal love, which requires an exchange of one’s whole self. A man gives himself fully to his wife, and a wife gives herself fully to her husband in a mutual embrace of love and fidelity.

• And this covenantal love that is shared in marriage is intimate, exclusive, indissoluble, and hopefully fruitful through a growth in holiness and the bearing and education of children.

• So the whole purpose for the covenant of marriage is growth in holiness and the bearing and education of kids. Sadly, one thing that our modern western society refuses to acknowledge is that marriage is fundamentally oriented toward the creation of life.

• We know this not just from revelation, but also from natural law. This is where Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is indispensable. Pope John Paul has taught us that our bodies are designed to be in union with another body.

• Because the male body and the female body are complementary and actually “fit” together, we know we are called – in the very depths of our being – to give ourselves fully to another and to receive another fully unto ourselves.

• But even more than that, by creating man as male and female and calling us to be one flesh, God has stamped within our bodies an image of the reality that He desires to be one flesh with us. That’s why you often hear the Church being called the Bride of Christ!

• This is because we are called to be one flesh with God, as well as with our spouses!

• This one flesh union is meant to help us grow in communion with one another and with God, and thereby grow in holiness. But it’s this one-flesh union that also brings about children.

• Because the marital act is the one way that we participate with God in creating life, we know that the marital act is sacred. And it’s from this sense of sacredness that all of the Church’s sexual teachings are derived.

• Because it is so sacred, the conjugal act is not something we can just enter into as we please and with whom we please. It’s not simple recreation.

• On the contrary, it’s an action that carries serious responsibilities, and thus it should only be entered into by people who have accepted and vowed to live out these responsibilities: namely a man and a woman who are married to each other.

• You see, the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children, and the secondary purpose of marriage is the intimate, exclusive, and indissoluble unity of the couple.

• These fundamental purposes are most perfectly realized in the marital act. Thus, neither purpose should ever be divorced from the marital act because doing so distorts the purpose of the act and breaks down the marriage.

• This is why contraception is intrinsically evil and gravely sinful. Contraception and sterilization willfully undermine the marital act by suppressing or destroying one’s fertility. Contraception divorces the procreative purpose of marriage from the marital act.

• By eliminating the possibility of procreation, we severely limit the love of the act because we take away part of that gift of self that is fundamental to the act, for by its nature marital love is meant to be fruitful and boundless.

• Understanding that marriage is fundamentally oriented toward the creation of new life also helps us to understand why same-sex unions are wrong. By their very nature these types of unions can never be procreative, and therefore they can never be a true marriage.

• Because same-sex unions lack the fundamental complementarity that makes the procreative and unitive purposes of marriage possible, because same-sex unions are contrary to the natural law, and because same-sex unions close the conjugal act to life, the Church has always taught these unions are gravely sinful.

• Now I realize that the subject of same-sex unions is a very sensitive issue, and I am not here to condemn or upset anyone. I’m simply here to let you know what the Church teaches.

• Specifically, the Church is very clear that people who struggle with same-sex attraction are not to be discriminated against, but rather are to be supported, treated with compassion, and encouraged to live a life of celibacy. This is very important to remember.

• The Church condemns the sin, not the sinner. But She also recognizes and speaks the truth about the sinful nature of homosexual acts. Speaking this way is nothing more than true compassion combined with a frank recognition of the disordered nature of these acts.

• There is currently a movement in our country to legalize same-sex marriages in many states. So let’s be clear about something: the Church’s opposition to recognizing gay marriage is not a matter of the Church being prejudiced, unloving, or homophobic. It’s a matter of the Church speaking the truth. And speaking the truth is an act of love.

• The Catholic Church opposes homosexual acts because they are intrinsically disordered, and they abuse our human nature. Homosexual acts make us less than who God is calling us to be. And legalizing same-sex marriage will weaken an already damaged understanding of marriage in our society.

• In the Gospel today Jesus tells us that: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” And this notion of self-sacrifice is at the very heart of marital love. In fact, by dying on the cross, Jesus shows us that sacrifice is the very essence of love.

• If we are to be truly loving, we have to die to self. There is no other way to love. And in today’s world, that often means that we must sacrifice our own feelings and desires in order to love as God calls us to love.

• As we now prepare ourselves to become one flesh with our Lord by receiving Him in the Eucharist, let us pray that all married people will grow in their sacrificial love for their spouses and children.

• And let us pray as well that all people will grow in a greater understanding and respect for the sacrament of marriage, for the good of our society, and for the good of our souls.

Copyright 2009 by Reverend Timothy S. Reid

Reverend Reid is pastor of St. Ann’s Catholic  Church in Charlotte, NC

, ,

Judicial Tyranny at Work

In 10 Colleen Carroll Campbell on 2013/05/08 at 12:00 AM

When a New York judge ruled earlier this month that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, she bucked the state’s ban on gay marriage, overrode the will of most Americans and ignored the universal, millennia-old understanding of marriage.  But in one respect, at least, she was adhering to tradition: Her decision was only the latest in a series of controversial rulings issued by activist judges who have been reshaping American sexual mores from the bench for more than three decades.

As citizens who believe in government of the people, by the people and for the people, we should be concerned that a small cabal of judicial elites is making nearly all of the important decisions that face us as a nation, and they are too often making them with a flagrant disregard for our most fundamental values.  Their decisions are increasingly rooted not in the self-evident truths of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but in a morally relativistic worldview that rejects ethical absolutes, opposes religious values and fails to defend our most fundamental rights and institutions – especially faith and family.

The Founding Fathers never wanted it this way.  They established the separation of powers to prevent any of the three branches of government from overstepping its bounds and exercising too much influence over society.  Judges were to be neutral interpreters of the law, their authority limited by the words of the Constitution and the intent of the legislature.  They were not to usurp the power of legislators or to interfere with the most basic principle of our democracy: our right to govern ourselves.

The vision of the Founding Fathers is confirmed by Catholic teachings.  In his 1991 social encyclical, Centesimus Annus (“Hundredth Year”), Pope John Paul II argued that a free society must honor the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.  Subsidiarity holds that the government should not do for the people what they can and must do for themselves.  Solidarity ensures a defense of the weakest among us.

The Pope said that both are necessary for the proper functioning of a free society.  He also emphasized the importance of a vibrant moral culture that teaches citizens the virtues they need to govern themselves and acts as a counterweight to government power.  After living under Nazi and Communist occupation in Poland, the Pope knew the dangers of a government that grows too powerful, too intrusive and too hostile to the religious and moral values of its citizens.

In considering what sort of judges belongs on the bench, Catholics should heed the teachings of their faith and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.  The activist judges who legalized abortion 32 years ago violated the constraints of our Constitution, the self-governance principle of our democracy and the right to life of the unborn.  Now a new breed of judicial elites is aiming to radically redefine marriage as a private affair for the gratification of consenting adults rather than a public institution geared toward the bearing and rearing of children.

Social science has shown again and again what the Catholic faith teaches as a matter of principle: that children lead healthier, happier lives when they are raised by their married, biological parents.  If activist judges use their power to separate marriage from procreation in the public mind, children will be the first to suffer in a culture that no longer encourages their parents to get married and stay married.

For the sake of the next generation, and in deference to the generations that came before us, we have a duty to defend the moral culture that sustains our democracy and demand judges who will do the same.

Our Sunday Visitor

Colleen Carroll Campbell is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. 

, ,

Death of Marriage by Joanna Bogle

In 11 Joanna Bogle on 2013/05/01 at 12:00 AM

“In the valley of the shadow of death…”

…The words of the Psalmist came into my head today as I read the headlines. The psalmist promises that, with the Lord as our shepherd, we need not fear…Today our country walked into the valley of the shadow of death. Parliament has voted that a family does not consist of a mother and father who transmit life to their children. It banned any statement that a family needs a father, and agreed that two lesbians who want a child can decide to have one using artificial means. It rejected calls to tighten up the abortion law even after hearing the descriptions of how children are dismembered as small perfectly-formed babies at 22 weeks. It passed legislation which treats a human person as something that can be used for a utilitarian purpose.If some one, in whatever civilisation replaces ours, writes about these days, those who passed this legislation will be treated with savagery. The evil that will result from what Parliament has now permitted is clear enough even at this stage – but it will generate more evil, and terrible things will be done.No civilisation has ever survived, let alone prospered, when it failed to understand that human beings are at the heart of it all, that human existence has a value. Nor can any civilisation work that is based on a lie: and everyone knows that it is a lie to pretend that human life is not generated through the union of a man and a woman, and that this creates a family.

, ,

Questions About Marriage

In 07 Observations on 2013/05/01 at 12:00 AM

Following are a few answers  to some commonly asked questions about the definition of marriage:

What is marriage?
Marriage is the lifelong partnership of mutual and exclusive fidelity between a man and a woman ordered by its very nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children. The bond of marriage is indissoluble – that is, it lasts “until death do us part.” At the heart of married love is the total gift of self that husband and wife freely offer to each other. Because of their sexual difference, husband and wife can truly become “one flesh” and can give to each other “the reality of children, who are a living reflection of their love”.

Marriage between a baptized man and a baptized woman is a sacrament. This means that the bond between husband and wife is a visible sign of the sacrificial love of Christ for his Church. As a sacrament, marriage gives spouses the grace they need to love each other generously, in imitation of Christ.

Why can’t marriage be “redefined” to include two men or two women?
The word “marriage” isn’t simply a label that can be attached to different types of relationships. Instead, “marriage” reflects a deep reality – the reality of the unique, fruitful, lifelong union that is only possible between a man and a woman. Just as oxygen and hydrogen are essential to water, sexual difference is essential to marriage. The attempt to “redefine” marriage to include two persons of the same sex denies the reality of what marriage is. It is as impossible as trying to “redefine” water to include oxygen and nitrogen.

What is sexual difference?
Sexual difference is the difference of man to woman and woman to man. It affects a person at every level of his or her existence: genetically, biologically, emotionally, psychologically, and socially. Sexual difference is an irreducible difference. It is unlike any other difference we experience, because it – and only it – allows for the total personal union between husband and wife that is at the heart of marriage. The difference between men and women is for the sake of their union with each other. It is what makes spousal union possible.

Isn’t marriage just about love and commitment between two people?
Of course love and commitment are important for marriage – as they are for many relationships. But marriage is unique because the commitment it calls for is better described as communion, where “the two become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Only a man and a woman in marriage can become a “one flesh” communion. The unity of husband and wife is so intimate that from it can come a “third,” the child – a new life to be welcomed and raised in love. No other relationship, no matter how loving or committed, can have this unique form of commitment – communion – that exists in marriage, between a husband and a wife.

What’s the difference between a husband and wife who can’t have children, and two persons of the same sex, who also can’t have children?
Only a man and a woman, as husband and wife, can enter into the two-in-one-flesh communion of persons. Only a man and a woman are able to conceive a child through each other. That is to say, only a man and a woman can be joined so intimately that their bodies work together in the common task of procreation. Even when a husband and wife do not in fact conceive a child (due to infertility, age, and so on), their sexual acts are still the kind of acts by which children are naturally conceived. In contrast, two persons of the same sex may be perfectly healthy, but will never be able to enter a one-flesh communion and thus unite in such a way that a child is conceived.

Why is a child meant to have both a father and a mother?
The fact is, every single child, without exception, does have a mother and a father. Sexual difference between a husband and wife is necessary to conceive a child. But its importance does not end there. Men and women bring unique gifts to the shared task of parenting, that is, of fathering and mothering. Only a woman can be a mother. Only a man can be a father. Each contributes in a distinct and unique way to the formation of children, helping them to understand their identity as male or female. Respecting a child’s dignity means affirming his or her need for – and right to – a mother and a father.

What about single parents? These families lack a father or a mother, just like households headed by two men or two women.
A child is meant to be raised by his or her own, married father and mother. But there are times when, due to family tragedies or other unfortunate circumstances, this ideal cannot be realized. The Church acknowledges the difficulties faced by single parents and seeks to support them in their often heroic response to meet the needs of their children. There is a big difference, however, between dealing with the unintended reality of single parenthood and approving the formation of “alternative families” that deliberately deprive a child of a father or a mother, such as arrangements headed by two men or two women. Undesired single parenthood can still witness to the importance of sexual difference by acknowledging the challenges faced by single parents and their children due to the lack of a father or mother. In contrast, arrangements of two men or two women are incapable of such witness and present motherhood and fatherhood as disposable. These arrangements of themselves contradict the conjugal and generative reality of marriage and are never acceptable. Children deserve to have their need for a father and a mother respected and protected in law.

Reprinted with permission from the ©US Catholic Bishops Conference: CommDept@usccb.org

More detailed information available at: http://usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm#m3

, , , ,

Prince William and Kate…second anniversary

In 07 Observations on 2013/04/24 at 12:00 AM

The Bishop of London’s Sermon

29th April 2011

“Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire.” So said St Catherine of Siena whose festival day it is today. Marriage is intended to be a way in which man and woman help each other to become what God meant each one to be, their deepest and truest selves.

Many are full of fear for the future of the prospects of our world but the message of the celebrations in this country and far beyond its shores is the right one – this is a joyful day! It is good that people in every continent are able to share in these celebrations because this is, as every wedding day should be, a day of hope.

In a sense every wedding is a royal wedding with the bride and the groom as king and queen of creation, making a new life together so that life can flow through them into the future.

William and Catherine, you have chosen to be married in the sight of a generous God who so loved the world that he gave himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

And in the Spirit of this generous God, husband and wife are to give themselves to each another.

A spiritual life grows as love finds its centre beyond ourselves. Faithful and committed relationships offer a door into the mystery of spiritual life in which we discover this; the more we give of self, the richer we become in soul; the more we go beyond ourselves in love, the more we become our true selves and our spiritual beauty is more fully revealed. In marriage we are seeking to bring one another into fuller life.

It is of course very hard to wean ourselves away from self-centredness. And people can dream of doing such a thing but the hope should be fulfilled it is necessary a solemn decision that, whatever the difficulties, we are committed to the way of generous love.

You have both made your decision today – “I will” – and by making this new relationship, you have aligned yourselves with what we believe is the way in which life is spiritually evolving, and which will lead to a creative future for the human race.

We stand looking forward to a century which is full of promise and full of peril. Human beings are confronting the question of how to use wisely a power that has been given to us through the discoveries of the last century. We shall not be converted to the promise of the future by more knowledge, but rather by an increase of loving wisdom and reverence, for life, for the earth and for one another.

Marriage should transform, as husband and wife make one another their work of art. It is possible to transform as long as we do not harbour ambitions to reform our partner. There must be no coercion if the Spirit is to flow; each must give the other space and freedom. Chaucer, the London poet, sums it up in a pithy phrase:

“Whan maistrie [mastery] comth, the God of Love anon,

Beteth his wynges, and farewell, he is gon.”

As the reality of God has faded from so many lives in the West, there has been a corresponding inflation of expectations that personal relations alone will supply meaning and happiness in life. This is to load our partner with too great a burden. We are all incomplete: we all need the love which is secure, rather than oppressive, we need mutual forgiveness, to thrive.

As we move towards our partner in love, following the example of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is quickened within us and can increasingly fill our lives with light. This leads to a family life which offers the best conditions in which the next generation can practise and exchange those gifts which can overcome fear and division and incubate the coming world of the Spirit, whose fruits are love and joy and peace.

I pray that all of us present and the many millions watching this ceremony and sharing in your joy today, will do everything in our power to support and uphold you in your new life. And I pray that God will bless you in the way of life that you have chosen, that way which is expressed in the prayer that you have composed together in preparation for this day:

God our Father, we thank you for our families; for the love that we share and for the joy of our marriage.

In the busyness of each day keep our eyes fixed on what is real and important in life and help us to be generous with our time and love and energy.

Strengthened by our union help us to serve and comfort those who suffer. We ask this in the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Amen.      

, ,

Myth of Sexual Liberty by Mary Summa, J.D.

In 09 Mary Summa, JD on 2013/04/24 at 12:00 AM

 

 

screen-shot-2012-02-10-at-11-52-35-am

How Lawrence v. Texas Threatens Families and Freedom

On July 12, 2011, Kody Brown and his “wives” stood before the cameras to announce that they were filing a lawsuit challenging Utah’s anti-polygamy law. Proud polygamists, Kody and company star in the hit reality show “Sister Wives,” which follows the lives of this Mormon clan. Recently, the state of Utah began investigating their polygamous relationship, and the Browns fled to Nevada to avoid prosecution. They are now suing the State of Utah, claiming that the anti- polygamy statute is unconstitutional. They have hired Jonathan Turley, a high-powered constitutional lawyer and law professor at George Washington University Law School, to pursue their case against the State and to defend them if they are prosecuted.

In response to the Brown lawsuit, Americans barely seemed to stir from a deep sleep. Perhaps they just do not believe that a case like this will actually go anywhere. After all, polygamy is illegal in every state and has been illegal under federal law since the mid-1800s. The thought of legalizing may just seem beyond the pale.

Sadly, it is not. Kody Brown’s case is a logical step down the slippery slope our nation embarked on 50 years ago. Encouraged by the legal elite, the judiciary has advanced the social agenda of this country’s few to the detriment of many. It has weakened the moral fiber of this country and has abandoned its job to protect the fundamental rights of its citizenry. Eight years ago, waving the banner of liberty, the Supreme Court, in Lawrence v. Texas, for the most part nullified state anti-sodomy laws and opened the legal floodgates for future legal attacks on “morality laws.” Most recently, the logic of Lawrence has been used to legalize same-sex “marriage,” and now, with the skillful pen of Jonathan Turley, Lawrence is being employed to promote the legalization of polygamy.

Americans need to wake up. Kody Brown’s victory, should the case prevail, could spell liberty’s defeat. To change course, Americans need to appreciate the proper foundation of law, the appropriate role of government, and the role that traditional marriage serves in preserving freedom. If Americans remain asleep, freedom now enjoyed will be a thing of the past. A Foundation in Natural Law

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines law as “a binding custom or practice of a community.” Law is, and always has been, a method to regulate human behavior in civil society.

As noted by the late Notre Dame Professor Ralph McInerny, natural law provides foundational values which are critical for a society’s survival. Natural law teaches “that there is an absolute right and wrong and that God is the ultimate source of law.” Fairness, goodness, and justice are founded in divine law.

Furthermore, natural law recognizes “natural rights” bestowed on man by God. Government’s role is to protect these rights. These fundamental rights include, but are not limited to, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to ownership of property, the right to marry.

Natural law is reflected in our founding documents. Thomas Jefferson, a student of classical thought, embraced natural law in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote, “all men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The Bill of Rights, first introduced by James Madison at the first Congress, adopted and ratified by the states in 1791, encapsulated these rights in the U.S. Constitution.

Historically, legislative enactments and court decisions have reflected the principles of natural law. Rights were recognized as emanating from the Creator—the right to life, the right to freedom of religion, speech, press, the right to private property, the right to marry, the right to educate and rear one’s own children free of government interference—and when threatened, were protected by the courts. “Morality laws,” enacted by state legislatures, reflected natural law.

Legal Positivism

Legal positivism dictates that God and the moral law serve no role in governmental law. Law is a separate and distinct creation of man and a product of force, not conscience or human reason. The courtroom, in the mind of the legal positivist, is a “laboratory” where law is “discovered.” Jurists embracing this theory view their role not as determining the founding fathers’ intent in the Constitution, but as interpreting a “living and breathing” document that should evolve as society needs change. As pointed out by Paul Rickert at the Helms School of Government at Regent University, legal positivism shifts power away from the individual to the state and the “elevation of personal freedom over accepted morality.”

Legal positivism reached the highest levels of the American judicial system with the confirmation of Oliver Wendell Holmes to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1902. While it continued to grow in popularity on the Court during the early part of the 20th Century, legal positivism did not hold a consensus on the Court until the 1960s.

Removing God from Public

The social and legal consequences of this newly adopted jurisprudence soon became painfully evident. In 1961, in Torasco v. Watkins, the Court struck down a Maryland state statute requiring individuals holding the position of notary publics to acknowledge the existence of God. In 1962, in Engle v. Vitale, the Court struck down a 10-year- old non-denominational prayer recited in New York public schools. In 1963, in Abington Township v. Schempp, the Court struck down a state statute requiring daily Bible reading in public schools.

This reverse discrimination of removing God from public policy, according to Charles Rice, an eminent constitutional law professor, did not simply create “neutral” public policy but, by default, resulted in “a governmental preference of agnostic secular humanism.” Agnostic secular humanism takes no position on the existence of God and holds that man, not God, is the final arbiter of right and wrong. Ultimately, as Professor Rice points out, that authority will be seized by the State.

The Court’s Assault on Morality

With God ushered to the exit door of public policy, the dismantling of “morality laws” soon followed. The opportunity arose in 1965, when the Court addressed the constitutionality of “Com- stock Laws” that had enjoyed a long history in the United States. In 1873, the U.S. Congress enacted the Comstock Act, which outlawed the “interstate mailing, shipment or importation of articles, drugs, medicines and printed materials of ‘obscenities,’ which applied to anything used ‘for the prevention of conception.’” By 1920, according to one source, 45 states had enacted laws to regulate “obscene” or “immoral” information. By 1960, 30 states explicitly outlawed the distribution of information or advertising about articles, instruments, and medicine concerning contraception, and 24 states explicitly banned the sale of such articles, instruments, or medicines. Several states had exceptions to this law for physicians, pharmacists, or “legitimate businesses.”

Law is, and always has been, a method to regulate human behavior in civil society.

Amidst this political and legal backdrop, in 1961, Estelle Griswold, an Executive Director of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut, opened a Planned Parenthood clinic that provided contraceptives and contraceptive counseling to married couples. Griswold was arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty of violating Connecticut’s Comstock law. In turn, Griswold filed a lawsuit against the state challenging the law’s constitutionality. In 1965, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and, in effect, nullified Connecticut’s Comstock law.

Griswold served as a legal launch pad for an all-out assault on fundamental rights traditionally protected by the courts. While some of these rights have been repaired in subsequent decisions, they were never fully restored:

• In 1973, the Supreme Court gutted the fundamental right to life.

• In 1976, it weakened parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children by denying parents the right to consent to their child’s abortion.

• In 1977, it denied parents the fundamental exclusive right to consent to their child’s use of contraceptives.

Griswold paved the way for legal positivism in American courts. The courts, both federal and state, abandoned their traditional role of Chief Guardian of fundamental rights and became, instead, Chief Creator of “rights.” In effect, Griswold stole from the people the power of self-governance through representation and gave it to the courts. The courts could now overturn laws reflecting accepted morality under the guise of the “freedom” of the few. Secondly, as pointed out by Professor Rice, the case set into law an important tenet of secular humanism—that there is no inherent connection between the unitive and procreative aspects of sex and that man is the final determiner of whether sex will have any relation to procreation.

The cultural collapse that coincided with the court’s newfound role in American jurisprudence cannot be denied. According to William Bennett in his book, The Index of Cultural Indicators, between 1960 and 1990:

The courts, both federal and state, abandoned their traditional role of Chief Guardian of fundamental rights and became, instead, Chief Creator of “rights.”

There has been more than a 500 percent increase in violent crime; more than a 400 percent increase in illegitimate births a tripling of the percentage of children living in single-parent homes; a tripling in the teenage suicide rate, a doubling in the divorce rate and a drop of almost 80 points in SAT scores. … The social regression of the last 30 years is due in large part to the enfeebled state of our social institutions and their failure to carry out a critical and time-honored task: the moral education of the young.

Although few would blame the courts for this moral decay, their hand in aiding and abetting the culture’s decline cannot be refuted.

A “Right” to Sex

Before 1986, the Supreme Court had tacitly approved of non-marital sexual activity by finding a fundamental right to privacy for minors to obtain abortions and contraceptives without parental approval, but had never addressed the issue head-on. In 1986, the opportunity arose, and the Court upheld a state statute prohibiting sodomy. In 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court did an about-face. Refusing to call it a “fundamental right,” the court used a distorted view of “liberty” to declare a Texas anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Scalia warned in his dissent that the case could spell the end to all “morality laws.” His words have proven prophetic.

Almost immediately, law professors and their students began opining about Lawrence’s impact on the constitutionality of statutes outlawing incest, adultery, bigamy, and prostitution. Surely, many gleefully argued, Lawrence would serve to justify same-sex “marriage,” and “free” Americans from the archaic legal restraints on all private consensual sexual behavior.

A few state courts subsequently used the Lawrence decision to impose same-sex “marriage” on their citizens. In fact, the ink was barely dry on the Lawrence decision when State Supreme Court Justice C.J. Marshall applied it to legalize same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts in 2003. In total, since the Lawrence decision, six states and the District of Columbia, have legalized same-sex “marriage.”

Broadening Lawrence

Attempts to overturn other laws restricting sexual behavior soon followed the Lawrence decision. Most notably, in 2005 in Muth v. Frank, petitioners asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to find a Wisconsin law prohibiting incest unconstitutional. In this case, a brother and sister married. In 1997, the couple was charged and convicted of incest. During the court proceedings, using Lawrence to justify their position, the couple argued that the Lawrence case prohibited all legislative proscriptions on sexual activity between consenting adults. Writing for the majority, Judge Daniel Manion, a Reagan appointee and a strict constructionist, refused to find that Lawrence granted a fundamental right to engage in incest. Later that year, the Supreme Court refused to review the case and so the Manion decision stood. Perhaps, the Supreme Court, by denying review of the circuit court’s decision, was unwilling, just yet, to face the logical consequences of its previous actions. The blistering response from the legal community over the Manion decision indicates that this issue is far from over. At least one other circuit court has refused to find that Lawrence recognized a “fundamental right” to sexual intimacy.

A Blessing in Disguise?

Marriage between a man and a woman, intended for a lifetime, while recognized by the government, is ultimately a God-given institution. It has pre-existed and survived government. It has served the purpose of funneling sexual desires into an institution that provides the best environment for raising children. Traditionally, government has protected the rights of fit parents to rear children as they deem appropriate. Overall, the family unit has escaped the meddling hand of government control.

Legally protecting the right to engage in sexual activity—homosexual and heterosexual—outside of marriage devalues marriage as a critical institution for the rearing of children. Legalizing institutions that mimic marriage and legally creating rights that emanate from those institutions threaten parental autonomy traditionally enjoyed within the walls of marriage. Legalizing polygamous marriage undercuts a key component of marriage—sexual fidelity to one person—and could be the knock-out blow to marriage as a social institution protecting freedom.

The Court may still face the consequences of its decision in Lawrence. Notwithstanding a legal hurdle in September, most legal scholars anticipate that a battle to stop same-sex “marriage” in California may soon reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court will then be forced to face whether to constitutionally justify same-sex “marriage.” While that case winds its way through the legal maze, however, Kody Brown and his lawyers may be on a faster track. If the Brown polygamy train reaches the Court first, the collective conscience of the court may see the legalization of polygamy as just too great a leap and jeopardize the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” Indeed, Kody Brown’s lawsuit may not spell the end of traditional marriage, but instead prove to be its saving grace.

Preserving Freedom

Seeking justice should be the highest goal of American jurisprudence. By routinely renouncing natural law in favor of legal positivism, the courts have abandoned their preeminent duty. Mortimer Adler, an American philosopher, has suggested that by rejecting absolute good and absolute truth, the legal positivists “can find no basis for the distinction between what ‘ought’ to be desired or done and what is desired or done… Just and unjust is determined solely by whoever has the power to lay down the law of the land.”

Historically, the movements against slavery, segregation, and genocide were driven by natural law and scriptural ideals, rather than temporal culture. Without natural law’s impetus, these valid movements would have lacked justification and would have been snuffed out by the will of the majority.

Since its inception, America has always been the shining beacon of hope for millions around the world thirsting for freedom. Her civil institutions have been constrained by the belief that their role is to preserve fundamental rights given by a gracious God. Her people have understood and cherished their independence and self-government and the understanding that enduring freedom rests in the pursuit of truth. Marriage between one man and one woman has served the critical role of providing the best environment for the rearing of children, the nation’s future citizens.

Of late, with the judiciary at the helm, our nation has taken a different path, which will only lead to its demise as the freest nation in the world. But it is not too late to correct the error. Americans can reclaim their nation’s liberties by using the ballot box. They must elect legislative and judicial candidates who believe in absolute moral truth and that the government’s role is to preserve, not create, fundamental rights, and that justice should be the highest goal of American law. If legislators and judges hold these beliefs, blessings of liberty will be preserved for America’s posterity. If they do not, the world will witness the demise of the greatest experiment of liberty ever known. The choice is ours.

Mary Summa, J.D., is an attorney in Charlotte, North Carolina, who served as Chief Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Jesse Helms during the 1980s. For a footnoted version of this article, please visit ncfamily.org.

Re-printed with permission from the NORTH CAROLINA FAMILY COUNCIL MAGAZINE PUBLICATION.

 “The Myth of Sexual Liberty:  How Lawrence v. Texas Threatens Families and Freedom.  Family NC.  Fall 2011.

, ,

The Changing Definition of Parenthood: How Adult Whims Have Superseded Children’s Needs in American Family Law

In 09 Mary Summa, JD on 2013/04/17 at 12:00 AM

by Mary Summa, JD

A Letter To My Father. Who are you?
I ask myself this question every time I catch a glance of my reflection in the morning … I fear for what the future holds and wonder if I will receive  any slight information about you. I grieve for you and for the part of myself that I will never truly know. I feel as though half of me is missing alongside my family, because that’s what you are. Family.
I feel as though I have been cheated out of knowing you, communicating with you, as I never got a say in the first place. I still don’t now, You are Anonymous.
And there is nothing I can do to change that.1

The pain revealed by this writer is palpable. One may think it is the story of a child whose father died or abandoned the family. In truth, it is a letter from a child to her biological father, an anonymous sperm donor.

One hundred sixty years ago, human beings in this country were treated as chattel, bought and sold on the auction block to the highest bidder. A civil war settled the matter: America would not tolerate the sale of human life. Now, with the help of the medical profession and the blessing of the judiciary, this past is being repeated. The only difference is that now babies, in whole or in part, are being sold, many times by their own parents, who before these babies’ conceptions have no intention of rearing them.

This new phenomenon raises several questions: Should parents be free to sell their biological children? Do children have a right to know their biological heritage? How does the changing meaning of parenthood affect freedom? Failing to confront and properly answer these questions could spell disaster.

Parenthood Within Marriage 

Traditionally, “parent” has always been defined as a mother or father related to a child by blood. Under common law, a woman who gave birth to a child was considered the child’s legal mother. If the mother and father were married at the time of the child’s birth, the husband was presumed to be the child’s father. The title of mother and father, and the obligations and rights attached to that title were exclusively the husband’s and wife’s. In short, biology determined motherhood. Marriage presumed legal fatherhood.2

The inextricable common law link between marriage and parenthood was not serendipitous. Rather, the law elevated marriage and parenthood,3 reflecting an aspirational morality.4 Judges and lawmakers understood that marriage provided the best environment for the rearing of children. Additionally, marriage linked fathers to their children.

Illegitimacy was frowned upon in public policy well into the 20th Century. Laws extended few, if any, of the rights traditionally enjoyed by married couples to unmarried couples. Adoption laws were legislatively-created laws, which were not found in common law, enacted to protect children’s health and well-being.

Marriage laws were designed to keep the marriage intact, and to keep children in the custody of their biological parents. Divorce was obtainable, but only after egregious behavior by a spouse was proven in court.

Government Redefines Marriage 

Law often influences a society’s morality. As pointed out by Hadley Arkes in his book, Natural Rights & the Right to Choose, “as the public absorbs the understandings of right and wrong contained in the laws, the character of the public becomes shaped for better or for worse.”5

The 20th Century brought forth a different understanding of the foundation of law and public policy. Influenced by their European counterparts, American jurists began rejecting natural law and embracing legal positivism, a jurisprudence that defines law by what the majority says it is, and that was less moralistic, less judgmental, and less demanding than natural law. Stoked by the sexual revolution, the last quarter of the 20th Century witnessed personal autonomy masquerading as individual liberty dominating legal theory, particularly in the area of sexual freedom. In terms of marriage laws, the focus shifted from children’s needs to adults’ wants.

No-fault divorce illustrates the law’s changed focus and its impact on marriage and parenthood. In 1969, California enacted the country’s first no-fault divorce law.6 By 1974, all but five state legislatures had adopted no-fault divorce.7 In 2010, New York became the final state to legalize no-fault divorce.8 As a result, divorce rates sky-rocketed. Since 1974, according to the online publication National Affairs, over one million children every year see their parents divorce.9

The same-sex “marriage” movement has impacted the stability of marriage and family life as well. In order to accommodate homosexual relationships under the marriage umbrella, courts and legislatures have redefined marriage in ambiguous terms of “love and commitment,” rather than as an institution designed to channel sexual activity into a permanent, life-long relationship for the rearing of children the couple begets.10 This slight of hand, has imposed significant damage on the meaning of parenthood. As underscored by one expert, “Rather than attaching children to their biological parents, same-sex ‘marriage’ is the vehicle that separates children from a parent.”11

Reproductive Technology Is Redefining Parenthood

No-fault divorce legitimized the separation of children from one parent, usually the biological father. Remarriage and step-parenting introduced into public policy the idea that “parenthood” was no longer exclusively the right of one father and one mother.

Concurrently with the legal weakening of marriage, new reproductive technology, such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogacy, medically redefined parenthood. For the first time in history, legal parenthood no longer depended on genetics and gestation.

Artificial Insemination separates conception from the procreative act, allowing it to occur with sperm donations from anonymous donors. The first baby produced by artificial insemination was born in 1953. Today, the procedure is relatively routine. There are no official records of the number of children conceived by artificial insemination. One source has reported that by 1987, 172,000 women were artificially inseminated in the U.S. each year, resulting in 65,000 births.12

In vitro fertilization, a newer procedure, allows for conception to occur outside the womb, many times with anonymously donated eggs and/or sperm. The embryo is then implanted into a woman’s uterus. In 1979 the federal Ethics Advisory Board approved federal funding for research on in vitro fertilization. The first IVF clinic opened in the U.S. in 1980. In 1981, the first “test tube” baby was born in the U.S. By 2004, according to a series produced by PBS, over half a million babies worldwide were conceived outside the womb. There are 450 IVF clinics in the United States alone.13

Sperm banks and egg donor centers have become big business in the U.S. While it is unclear how many banks exist in the U.S., Daily Finance, an online business publication, reports that donations are up during this recession. Cryobank, a sperm bank in Los Angeles, pays donors $100 per donation. The sperm bank recruits college students, who make approximately $1,000 per month donating sperm to the bank. Donors work for the company an average of one and a half years.14 Just doing the math, conceivably, an anonymous college male student could biologically father hundreds of babies during his employment with the sperm bank, a possibility that has raised concern about accidental incest.15 Egg donations reap even greater profits. According to the website Heartlander, it is a $3 billion business reaping $4,000 per egg for the egg donor.16

Surrogacy. Artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization separate legal parenthood from genetics. Surrogacy removes legal parent status from the gestating mother. With surrogacy, a woman is paid to carry to term a baby for another person or couple in exchange for money. She is neither biologically related to the child nor intends to keep the child. Although there is no official recordkeeping on how many babies are born via surrogacy, a 2010 Chicago Tribune article estimated that 1,400 babies are born in the United States each year through surrogacy.17

Most recently, reproductive technology has pushed the envelope even further. In Britain, scientists have been granted permission to create embryos with three genetic parents, and, according to the Commission on Parenthood, researchers announced in 2005 that they developed human embryonic stem cells into forms of cells that can become eggs and sperm. In Edinburgh, Scotland, researchers announced that they had “tricked” an egg into dividing and created a human embryo without a genetic father.18

Government Dismantles Parenthood

Rather than protecting children’s needs for a mother and father, legislatures and courts have engaged in legal back-bending to accommodate adults’ desire for parenthood. The term “parent,” once defined by biology, is now being legally defined in terms of genetics or gestation or intent. In fact, legal trends indicate the elimination of genetics or gestation as grounds for parenthood and a reliance solely on parenthood by “intent.” In Ireland, for example, a proposal was presented that recommended that a surrogate have no legal standing with regard to a child that she bears during or after birth.

This trend in the U.S. is most readily seen in the area of surrogacy. According to the website Allaboutsurrogacy.com, 14 states have statutorily legalized surrogacy contracts.19 In North Carolina, in 2009, a bill was introduced to legalize surrogacy contracts. In that bill, the surrogate was described as the “gestational carrier.” The contracting couple was described as the “intended parents.” Currently, gestation establishes legal motherhood.20 If the bill had been enacted, arguably, the bill would have surreptitiously introduced into North Carolina statutory law “parenthood by intent.”

Same-Sex Relationships’ Effect

The legalization of same-sex “marriage” has brought increased political pressure on jurisdictions outside the U.S. to define parenthood by “intent” and to erase references to genetics on birth certificates.

In Canada, when same-sex “marriage” was legalized in 2004, the law quietly changed the term “natural parent” to “legal parent.”

In Spain, eight months after legalizing same-sex “marriage” in 2005, the law governing birth certificates was changed. Rather than “mother” and “father,” birth certificates now read “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B.”21

In the U.S., courts have succumbed to pressure from same-sex couples to eliminate references to gender or genetics on birth certificates.

In 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union won a court order in New Jersey granting the right to two lesbians to be listed on a birth certificate as the parents of the child born to one of the lesbian partners.22

In Virginia, in 2006, a court ordered lesbians to be listed as “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” on a birth certificate after the couple opposed having one of the partners listed as “father.”23

In Iowa, as of November 2011, a case was pending where a lesbian couple asked the court to require the state to list them as the “parents” of a child born to one of the partners as a result of artificial insemination.24

Parenthood Myths. In recent years, courts and legislatures have created two very similar legal myths, called the “psychological parenting doctrine” and the “de facto parenting doctrine,” to award parentage and custody rights based on “intent” to non-biologically related individuals. Although this doctrine has been used by cohabitating heterosexual couples, the expanding body of case law involves same-sex couples.

A “de facto parent,” as defined by the American Law Institute, is an unrelated adult who has lived with a child for two years and provides a majority of childcare (or at least the same amount as the primary legal parent) with the approval of one legal parent or where the legal parent fails to provide it.25 Psychological parenting bears a similar definition.

Under de facto and psychological parenting, a child may have a number of “parents” petitioning the court for joint custody and visitation.26 Unbeknownst to an ex-husband, the government may force him to share his child visitation with one or more of his ex-wife’s boyfriends or girlfriends.

In several states, courts have refused to adopt the de facto parenting doctrine. Nonetheless, the doctrine has received significant traction in other state courts. According to a report by the Commission on Parenthood, as of 2006, at least 10 states have recognized the de facto parenting doctrine. The North Carolina Court of Appeals adopted the doctrine in 2008, and the North Carolina Supreme Court used it in 2010 in two cases to award joint custody to a lesbian partner who was not biologically related to the child.27

The Psychological Impact on Children

Despite all the medical and legal energy expended to accommodate adults (whether heterosexual or homosexual) desiring parenthood, very little thought has been given to the overall impact on children. Collateral research suggests the damage is irreparable.

Biology matters. Research shows that children who grow up in families with one biological parent and a step-parent have outcomes that more closely resemble children growing up in single-parent households in numerous statistical areas: lower academic achievement, poorer physical and mental health, and more abuse within the home. Girls engage in earlier sexual activity and have higher rates of pregnancy. Boys have higher rates of violent behavior.28

Children want to know their parents. More children, similar to the one at the outset of this article, are coming forward and revealing their pain. In 2005, David Blakenhorn, a marriage and family expert, spoke about Narelle Grech from Australia. Narelle, is now a 28-year old donor-conceived female who wrote to the Canadian ethicist Margaret Somerville about a magazine article where Somerville advocated societal acceptance of all reproductive technologies. As quoted by Blakenhorn, Narelle wrote the following:

I feel as though donor conceived people are the last to be thought of in these trade deals; only adults, including clinics, doctors and wannabe parents … little bits of non-identifying information will not substitute for the real person’s family. You are not only encouraging people to intentionally separate people from their families, you are going to be the cause of people who have to question their identity and no one on this earth should have to do that. How dare someone take away someone else’s freedom to know themselves.29

Researchers caution that stories like these could become all too commonplace as children continue to be biologically separated from their parents.30

For the Sake of Freedom 

In his book, The American Cause, 20th Century political theorist Russell Kirk cautioned,

The American cause is not the cause of a revolutionary thirst for demolishing all obstacles to anarchic self-gratification…. American freedom has been the liberty of temperate policies and temperate intellects.31

The right of fit parents to rear their biological children as they deem appropriate is a fundamental right of liberty, historically recognized in common law and protected by courts and legislatures. The right to custody is the keystone of parental rights.

These attempts to satisfy the desires of adults at the expense of children are dismantling the foundations of freedom. Redefining parenthood by disconnecting it from biology and connecting it to “intent” takes the presumption of parenthood from parents and gives it to the state. Parents have become beholden to the whims of an all-powerful bureaucracy or judiciary to determine the destiny of their own children.

For the Sake of Children

Reportedly, Mother Theresa once said, “One of the greatest diseases is to be nobody to anybody.”32 By promoting anonymous parenting by commission or omission, legislatures and courts are inflicting far worse on today’s children: They are allowing the creation of children who are intended to be “nobodies” to their own parents.

The parent/child relationship is the strongest bond in human nature. Marriage is the best environment for children to thrive. Laws have recognized these facts and protected these relationships. Of late, those laws have been dismantled to accommodate the selfish whims of adults.

North Carolinians should demand that the General Assembly restore children’s interests, not adults, to the focus of family law. The Legislature can begin that process by prohibiting the sale of these children, in whole or in part, by banning surrogacy agreements and the marketing of sperm and eggs. Secondly, the General Assembly should legislatively nullify the judge-created de facto parenting doctrine existing in this state. Lastly, the General Assembly should repeal no-fault divorce laws, especially when minor children are involved.

Refusal to take these active steps will make the outcries by the woman at the outset of this article not merely the scars of a disease affecting a few, but the manifestation of an epidemic intentionally inflicted on children.

Mary Summa is an attorney in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Re-printed with permission from Family Council of North Carolina.  Summer 2012

, ,

A Threat to Liberty: Same-sex “marriage”

In 09 Mary Summa, JD on 2013/04/10 at 12:00 AM

screen-shot-2012-04-06-at-8-50-23-pm

A Threat to Liberty: Same–Sex “Marriage,” Domestic Partnerships, and Civil Unions

Family North Carolina…written by: Mary Summa, J.D.

In Sweden in 2004, a court convicted a pastor of a hate crime and jailed him for one month for preaching against homosexuality.1 In Canada in 2007, fearful of losing custody of their children for refusing to put them in government-run schools that taught homosexuality as an ‘alternative’ lifestyle contrary to their religious beliefs, Mennonites fled Quebec for Ontario.2

These accounts should surprise no one. The homosexual rights army has been on the march for decades. The last 10 years have witnessed the fiercest battles for legalization of civil unions (or its equivalent), domestic partnerships, and same-sex “marriage.”3

What is surprising is America’s response to the struggle. Many people, including some Christians, have adopted a laissez-faire attitude when it comes to same-sex “marriage.” They have been indoctrinated by the homosexual lobby to believe that the legalization of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and same-sex “marriage” has nothing to do with them. Sadly, it does.

Make no mistake, the legalization of same-sex “marriage” would fundamentally transform the social and legal understanding of marriage. It would affect the rights and freedoms Americans hold dear and spell the death-knell of liberty. In fact, it already has.

The Steep Climb Toward

Same–Sex “Marriage”

The legalization of same-sex “marriage,” domestic partnerships, and civil unions does not represent the genesis of the homosexual rights movement, but rather its pinnacle. Beverly LaHaye, the founder of Concerned Women for America, astutely wrote: “The homosexual ideology implies the intent to rearrange our perceptions, lifestyle and legal system in the strict sense of the term. This change is revolutionary. It requires, if it is to be effectively implemented, the careful and gradual application and transfer of power. The homosexual movement is a … hard-nosed political movement bent on changing our society.”4

The goal of altering society has not come easily for the homosexual rights movement. While the first homosexual rights group was founded in 1924, 5 the movement stalled and sputtered through most of the 20th Century. Things changed drastically in 1973, when the American Psychiatric Association did an about-face and removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. Buttressed with their new medical ally and aligning itself to the civil rights bandwagon, the homosexual rights movement gained traction and then momentum. Focusing on anti-discrimination laws, the movement began building an arsenal of local, county, and state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Simultaneously, the movement began successfully targeting anti-sodomy statutes and “hate crimes” based on sexual orientation.

In the 1980s, homosexual advocacy groups began demanding legalization of their status as couples. A former ally in the fight to preserve the traditional family, numerous courts became the family’s enemy. The last 25 years have witnessed a struggle between the courts (and some legislatures) who have sought to destroy marriage, and the public who has fought to preserve it.

To date, 37 states have enacted Defense of Marriage Statutes (DOMAs) and 30 states have passed amendments to preserve the definition of marriage in their State Constitutions.6 Six states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex “mar- riage,” either by judicial mandate or by legislature initiation.7 Unlike every other southern state, North Carolina lacks a Marriage Protection Amendment.

Some courts, although unwilling to overturn traditional marriage laws, began mandating that state legislatures enact laws to allow and recognize civil unions. The homosexual rights lobby saw civil unions, simply, as a legal waiting room for the subsequent coronation of the marriage title. In 1999, responding to a court mandate, Vermont became the first state to legalize civil unions.8 Praising the decision, Lambda Marriage Project Director Evan Wolfson commented, “Americans will see that when lesbians and gay men are given access to most of the rights and obligations of civil marriage, the sky will not fall and the institution of marriage will be even stronger.”9 Seven years later, the New Jersey Supreme Court mimicked Vermont’s high court and mandated the legislature to enact civil unions legislation.10 In 2005, Connecticut became the first state to legalize civil unions without a court mandate.11

Judges and legislators who thought the legalization of civil unions would quell the demand for same-sex “marriage” have been proven dead wrong. As Archbishop Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, noted in a recently published article, “…in every state where civil unions have become law, the political pressure for ‘gay marriage’ has not declined; it has increased.”12

To date, seven states—Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, and Delaware—have enacted civil unions laws. The laws in Hawaii and Delaware will go into effect in January 2012. Seven states—California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Hawaii, Maine, and Wisconsin—and the District of Columbia legally recognize domestic partnerships.13

Three of those jurisdictions—Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire—have subsequently replaced civil unions with legalized same-sex “mar- riage.”The District of Columbia has legalized same-sex “marriage“ and retained its domestic partnership law.14 If the trend in the U.S. continues, most, if not all, of these states with legalized civil unions or domestic partnerships will eventually legalize same- sex “marriage.”

Undermining Marriage

Marriage is God-given, not a creation of government, and has, in fact, existed outside of government.15 In every known human society, marriage has served as the foundational institution for society, and its purpose to regulate heterosexual activity and provide stability for the rearing of children has remained constant.16 Courts have recognized both of these facts.

Attempting to accommodate same-sex relations within the definition of “marriage,” some recent court decisions have ignored its source and minimized its foundational role in society. According to at least one court, God did not institute marriage. The State did. In Baehr v. Lewin, the Hawaii court described marriage as “a state-conferred legal status, the existence of which gives rise to rights and benefits reserved exclusively to that particular relationship.”17 In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, a court decision that forced Massachusetts to legalize same-sex “marriage,” the court ignored the long-standing procreational aspect of marriage and described it in terms of “exclusivity, mutual support and commitment to one another.”18 The words “commitment” and “love,” as pointed out by William Duncan, Director of the Marriage Law Foundation, “are terminable in a way that ‘obliga- tion’ is not because both are subjective and can, to some degree, be chosen or unchosen.”19

Who Cares?

Anyone who cherishes freedom should care about marriage. Traditionally, state legislatures and courts have only slightly regulated the marital institution or the decisions made regarding children. The state has simply provided a “legal shell that gave the institution status and legal effect.”20

In contrast, same-sex “marriage,” domestic partnerships, civil unions, and the rights ensuing from those institutions are totally created by government. Their lifeblood depends on the winds of power. As courts and legislatures empower these institutions with rights and privileges identical to marriage, the lines of distinction blur, and government begins to tread on the rights and privileges of traditional marriage.

Undermining Parental Rights

As the definition and purpose of “marriage” has been altered, so, too, have been the rights of parents. In 2007, William Duncan argued that if marriage is no longer about “procreation” but simply a “mutual commitment,” “it is at least possible that natural parents will have to be treated the same as individuals with no natural tie to a child.”21 In fact, by 2007, the courts in several states had already re-crafted the definition of “parenthood” by legalizing “de facto” parenting, giving individuals who were not biologically linked to a child the status of “parent” with at least partial parenthood rights and privileges.

North Carolina joined the “de facto” parent- hood bandwagon in 2008, when the State Court of Appeals in Mason v. Dwinnell ruled that a non- biological ex-partner was given rights to custody and visitation to a child over the objection of the biological parent.22 This de facto parenting doctrine recently was used by the North Carolina Supreme Court in Boseman v. Jarrell to justify the awarding of custody and visitation to a non-biological parent over the objection of an ex-same-sex partner, who was the biological mother.23 Biological parents can no longer be assured that their rights, at least the rights to custody and visitation, are secure.

The court’s creation of marriage-like institutions has adversely affected other parental rights in traditional marriage. The fundamental right of parents to provide for their child’s educational, moral, and religious upbringing—rights long protected by the courts—have been victimized as well. After Massachusetts legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2003, the State Board of Education altered its curriculum to accommodate same-sex couples. In 2008, the kindergarten “Diversity Book Bag” included a picture book, Who’s In a Family?, which depicted a variety of families, including two moms or two dads. Second graders were required to listen to the reading of King and King, which describes the story of a prince falling in love with another prince. Parents objected to the content of these pro-homo-sexual materials and sued because they had never been given the opportunity to remove their children from the classroom while the materials were being taught. The lower court dismissed the lawsuit, and on appeal, the federal circuit court affirmed that dismissal. Brushing aside a parent’s rights to provide for the spiritual and moral well-being of their own children, First Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch admitted in the opinion that the book “affirmatively endorsed homosexuality and gay marriage,” and boldly concluded, “It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage. That was the point of why that book was chosen and used.”24

Threatening Religious Freedom

For the past 20 years, churches and religiously- affiliated institutions worldwide have felt the sting of the homosexual rights movement. While not yet directly barring biblical teaching against homosexuality, many institutions have found themselves staring down the barrel of a lawsuit because they have refused to accommodate the homosexual lifestyle. In 1987, 13 years before D.C. legalized same-sex “marriage,” in Georgetown University v. Gay Rights Coalition of Georgetown Law Center, the D.C. Courts found Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, in violation of a public accommodations law for failing to allow homosexual groups to meet on campus. In the opinion of the court, “the goal of eradicating sexual orientation discrimination represents a more important government interest than protecting religious liberty.”25

The legalization of civil unions, while not called “marriage,” intensified the wrath against those who courageously spoke out against the homosexual life- style. In 2007, civil unions in California were legal but same-sex “marriages” were not. Four San Diego firefighters objected to participating in the San Diego Gay Pride Parade. Their superiors forced them to do so. (Subsequently, the firefighters won a sexual harassment suit in 2010 for injury occurring from working at the event.)26 In 2007, one year after New Jersey legalized civil unions, the State of New Jersey removed a greenway tax exemption from a New Jersey Methodist camp, because that camp refused to host a same-sex union in its marriage pavilion.27

The legalization of homosexual “marriage” has intensified the government’s scrutiny of organizations and individuals who have refused to bow to the homosexual agenda. In 2006, three years after the courts forced the Massachusetts legislature to legalize same-sex “marriage,” Catholic Charities of Massachusetts was faced with a dilemma: place children with same-sex couples or lose its license. Unable to obtain a waiver of the anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation, and refusing to violate religious convictions, Catholic Charities closed its doors to the adoption business after 100 years of service.28

In 2008, the same year the judiciary redefined marriage,29 a California court refused to allow a physician to claim a religious exemption when he was asked to perform In Vitro Fertilization treatments on a lesbian woman. The court, in North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. San Diego County Superior Court, found that the state’s compelling interest in extinguishing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation superseded a religious belief, even if that burden on freedom of religion was “substantial.”30 The legalization of same-sex “marriage” will elicit numerous cases of this nature.

The pro-homosexual attitude in government has pervaded government entities even in jurisdictions without civil unions or same-sex “marriage.” In many cases, local human rights commissions have wielded the hammer.

• In 2006, the Arlington, Virginia Human Rights Commission ordered a professed Christian, who operated a video duplicator business, to do a job for a lesbian activist. He had refused because he did not want to help promote homosexuality.31

• In 2008, a Christian couple in Albequerque, New Mexico was tried before the State Human Rights Commission after declining to photograph a same-sex ceremony. Reportedly, the couple had to pay the commission a fine of $6,600.32

These few examples provide a glimpse of how far the homosexual agenda has advanced in this country. Looking at Canada, a country that legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005, one can see what persecution might lie ahead.

• In 2005, the Alberta Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry, faced two complaints filed against him because of his pastoral letter defending the traditional definition of marriage. In a 2008 article, Bishop Henry is quoted as saying, “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police.”33

• In 2007, a Catholic city councilman from British Columbia was fined $1,000 and required to apologize for saying that homosexuality is “not normal or natural.”34

• In 2009, Ontario’s Ministry of Education mandated a policy that required every school board in Ontario, Catholic and public, to

implement a new ‘equity and inclusiveness’ policy recognizing sexual orientation” as a ground protected from discrimination by September 2010.35

These situations make one wonder how anyone could ever question how the legalization of same-sex “marriage” will affect them.

For Family and Freedom

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, 235 years ago, that man is endowed with the inalienable right to liberty. That right includes religious freedom and the right of parents to instill those religious beliefs in their children. Our forefathers understood that those rights serve as the foundation of freedom and a government must protect them.

Totalitarianism, on the other hand, is a system of government that is dictatorial and requires complete subservience of its citizenry. Strong families and the Church are its two primary enemies because both diminish the power of the State to control the loyalty of its citizenry. One demands loyalty to one’s spouse and children. The latter demands loyalty to God.

As the battle over homosexual “marriage” continues to be waged in state legislatures and courtrooms nationwide, marriage defenders should not fool themselves into thinking that it does not affect all individuals and marriage at large. Amidst charges of “homophobia,” “unfairness,” and “bigotry,” the fight to preserve traditional marriage—the foundation of freedom—must continue. North Carolinians must act now to stem the tide by demanding a state constitutional amendment that will protect the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman with that relationship being the only valid and legally recognized domestic union in the state. If pro-family citizens sit back and do nothing, this religious persecution and all-out war against the family will intensify here in North Carolina. As a result, parental and religious freedom will be lost.v

Mary Summa, J.D., is an attorney in Charlotte, North Carolina, who served as Chief Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Jesse Helms during the 1980s. For a footnoted version of this article, please visit ncfamily.org.

Family North Carolina

Re-printed with permission from the NORTH CAROLINA FAMILY COUNCIL MAGAZINE PUBLICATION.

“A Threat to Liberty:  Same Sex ‘Marriage,’ Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions. Family NC.  Summer 2011.

, , , ,

“Sowers of peace and joy”

In 01 Daily Meditations on 2013/04/09 at 12:00 AM
You laugh because I tell you that you have a ‘vocation for marriage’? Well, you have just that: a vocation. Commend yourself to the Archangel Raphael that he may keep you pure, as he did Tobias, until the end of the way. (The Way, 27)

It is very important that the idea of marriage as a real call from God never be absent, either from the pulpit and the religion class or from the conscience of those whom God wishes to follow this way. Couples should be convinced that they are really and truly called to take part in the fulfillment of God’s plan for the salvation of all men.

For this reason, there is perhaps no better model for a christian couple than that of the christian families of apostolic times: the centurion Cornelius, who obeyed the will of God and in whose home the Church was made accessible to the gentiles; Aquila and Priscilla, who spread Christianity in Corinth and Ephesus, and who cooperated in the apostolate of St Paul; Tabitha, who out of charity attended to the needs of the Christians in Joppe. And so many other homes and families of Jews and Gentiles, Greeks and Romans, in which the preaching of our Lord’s first disciples began to bear fruit. Families who lived in union with Christ and who made him known to others. Small christian communities which were centers for the spreading of the Gospel and its message. Families no different from other families of those times, but living with a new spirit, which spread to all those who were in contact with them. This is what the first Christians were, and this is what we have to be: sowers of peace and joy, the peace and joy that Jesus has brought to us. (Christ is passing by, 30)

, , , , , ,

Relationship Between Faith and Marriage

In 07 Observations on 2013/03/08 at 12:00 AM

The Holy Father’ address focused on the relationship between faith and marriage in light of the “current crisis of faith that affects various areas of the world, bearing with it a crisis of conjugal society.”

“The Code of Canon Law defines the natural reality of marriage as the irrevocable covenant between a man and a woman. Mutual trust, in fact, is the indispensable basis of any agreement or covenant. On a theological level, the relationship between faith and marriage has an even deeper meaning. Even though a natural reality, the spousal bond between two baptised persons has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament.”

“Contemporary culture, marked by a strong subjectivism and an ethical and religious relativism, poses serious challenges to the person and the family. First, the very capacity of human beings to bond themselves to another and whether a union that lasts an entire life is truly possible. … Thinking that persons might become themselves while remaining ‘autonomous’ and only entering into relationships with others that can be interrupted at any time is part of a widespread mentality. Everyone is aware of how a human being’s choice to bind themself with a bond lasting an entire life influences each person’s basic perspective according to which they are either anchored to a merely human plane or open themselves to the light of faith in the Lord.”

“‘Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing,’ Jesus taught His disciples, reminding them of the human being’s essential incapacity to carry out alone that which is necessary for the true good. Rejecting the divine proposal leads, in fact, to a profound imbalance in all human relationships, including marriage, and facilitates an erroneous understanding of freedom and self-realization. These, together with the flight from patiently borne suffering, condemns humanity to becoming locked within its own selfishness and self-centredness. On the contrary, accepting faith makes human persons capable of giving themselves … and thus of discovering the extent of being a human person.”

“Faith in God, sustained by God’s grace, is therefore a very important element in living mutual devotion and conjugal faithfulness. This does not mean to assert that faithfulness, among other properties, are not possible in the legitimate marriage between unbaptised couples. In fact, it is not devoid of goods that ‘come from God the Creator and are included, in a certain inchoative way, in the marital love that unites Christ with His Church’. But, of course, closing oneself off from God or rejecting the sacred dimension of the conjugal bond and its value in the order of grace make the concrete embodiment of the highest model of marriage conceived of by the Church, according to God’s plan, arduous. It may even undermine the very validity of the covenant if … it results in a rejection of the very principle of the conjugal obligation of faithfulness or of other essential elements or properties of the marriage.”

“Tertullian, in his famous “Letter to His Wife”, which speaks about married life marked by faith, writes that Christian couples are truly ‘two in one flesh. Where the flesh is one, one is the spirit too. Together they pray, together prostrate themselves, together perform their fasts; mutually teaching, mutually exhorting, mutually sustaining one another.’”

“The saints who lived their matrimonial and familial union within a Christian perspective were able to overcome even the most adverse situations, sometimes achieving the sanctification of their spouse and children through a love reinforced by a strong faith in God, sincere religious piety, and an intense sacramental life. Such experiences, marked by faith, allow us to understand, even today, how precious is the sacrifice offered by the spouse who has been abandoned or who has suffered a divorce—’being well aware that the valid marriage bond is indissoluble, and refraining from becoming involved in a new union. … In such cases their example of fidelity and Christian consistency takes on particular value as a witness before the world and the Church’.”

Lastly, I would like to reflect briefly on the ‘bonum coniugum’. Faith is important in carrying out the authentic conjugal good, which consists simply in wanting, always and in every case, the welfare of the other, on the basis of a true and indissoluble ‘consortium vitae’. Indeed, the context of Christian spouses living a true ‘communio coniugalis’ has its own dynamism of faith by which the ‘confessio’—the personal, sincere response to the announcement of salvation—involves the believer in the action of God’s love. ‘Confessio’ and ‘caritas’ are ‘the two ways in which God involves us, make us act with Him, in Him and for humanity, for His creation. … “Confessio” is not an abstract thing, it is “caritas”, it is love. Only in this way is it really the reflection of divine truth, which as truth is also, inseparably, love’.”

“Only through the call of love, does the presence of the Gospel become not just a word but a living reality. In other words, while it is true that ‘Faith without charity bears no fruit, while charity without faith would be a sentiment constantly at the mercy of doubt’, we must conclude that ‘Faith and charity each require the other, in such a way that each allows the other to set out along its respective path.’ If this holds true in the broader context of communal life, it should be even more valuable to the conjugal union. It is in that union, in fact, that faith makes the spouses’ love grow and bear fruit, giving space to the presence of the Triune God and making the conjugal life itself, lived thusly, to be ‘joyful news’ to the world.”

“I recognize the difficulties, from a legal and a practical perspective, in elucidating the essential element of the ‘bonum coniugum’, understood so far mainly in relation to the circumstance of invalidity. The ‘bonum coniugum’ also takes on importance in the area of simulating consent. Certainly, in cases submitted to your judgement, there will be an ‘in facto’ inquiry that can verify the possible validity of the grounds for annulment, predominant to or coexistent with the three Augustinian ‘goods’: procreativity, exclusivity, and perpetuity. Therefore, don’t let it escape your consideration that there might be cases where, precisely because of the absence of faith, the good of the spouses is damaged and thus excluded from the consent itself. For example, this can happen when one member of the couple has an erroneous understanding of the martial bond or of the principle of parity or when there is a refusal of the dual union that characterizes the marital bond by either excluding fidelity or by excluding the use of intercourse ‘humano modo’.

“With these considerations I certainly do not wish to suggest any facile relationship between a lack of faith and the invalidity of a marital union, but rather to highlight how such a deficiency may, but not necessarily, damage the goods of marriage, since the reference to the natural order desired by God is inherent to the conjugal covenant.”

VIS 130128