2cornucopias

Posts Tagged ‘Marriage’

, ,

“The enormous importance of the task of parents”

In 01 Daily Meditations on 2013/01/18 at 9:11 AM
You should be full of wonder at the goodness of our Father God. Are you not filled with joy to know that your home, your family, your country, which you love so much, are the raw material which you must sanctify? (The Forge, 689)

I am moved that the Apostle should call Christian marriage sacramentum magnum ‑‑ a great sacrament. From this, too, I deduce the enormous importance of the task of parents. You share in the creative power of God: that is why human love is holy, good and noble. It is a gladness of heart which God ‑‑ in his loving providence ‑‑ wants others freely to give up. Each child that God grants you is a wonderful blessing from him: don’t be afraid of children! (The Forge, 691)

In conversations I have had with so many married couples, I tell them often that while both they and their children are alive, they should help them to be saints, while being well aware that none of us will be a saint on earth. All we will do is struggle, struggle, struggle. And I also tell them: you Christian mothers and fathers are a great spiritual motor, sending the strength of God to your own ones, strength for that struggle, strength to win, strength to be saints. Don’t let them down! (The Forge, 692)

Don’t be afraid of loving others, for His sake: and don’t worry about loving your own people even more, provided that no matter how much you love them, you love Him a million times more. (The Forge, 693)

That close intimacy you have with Christ means that you have a duty to bear fruit. And yours will be a fruit that will satisfy the hunger of men who come up to you in your work, in your day‑to‑day life and in your family environment. (The Forge, 981)

, ,

“Married life: an occasion for God’s presence on earth”

In 01 Daily Meditations on 2013/01/11 at 9:30 AM
There are many good reasons to honor Saint Joseph, and to learn from his life. He was a man of strong faith. He earned a living for his family – Jesus and Mary – with his own hard work. He guarded the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was his Spouse. And he respected – he loved! – God’s freedom, when God made his choice: not only his choice of Our Lady the Virgin as his Mother, but also his choice of Saint Joseph as the Husband of Holy Mary. (The Forge, 552)

When I think of christian homes, I like to imagine them as being full of the light and joy that were in the home of the holy family. The message of Christmas is heard in all its forcefulness: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will” [1]. “And may the peace of Christ triumph in your hearts,” writes the Apostle [2]. It is a peace that comes from knowing that our Father God loves us, and that we are made one with Christ. It results from being under the protection of the Virgin, our Lady, and assisted by St Joseph. This is the great light that illuminates our lives. In the midst of difficulties and of our own personal failings, it encourages us to keep up our effort. Every christian home should be a place of peace and serenity. In spite of the small frustrations of daily life, an atmosphere of profound and sincere affection should reign there together with a deep‑rooted calm, which is the result of authentic faith that is put into practice.

For a Christian marriage is not just a social institution, much less a mere remedy for human weakness. It is a real supernatural calling. A great sacrament, in Christ and in the Church, says St Paul [3]. At the same time, it is a permanent contract between a man and a woman. Whether we like it or not, the sacrament of matrimony, instituted by Christ, cannot be dissolved. It is a permanent contract that sanctifies in cooperation with Jesus Christ. He fills the souls of husband and wife and invites them to follow him. He transforms their whole married life into an occasion for God’s presence on earth. (Christ is passing by, 22-23)

[1] Luke 2:14
[2] Col 3:15
[3] Eph 5:32

, ,

Long Married Couples’ Joy

In 14 Book Corner on 2013/01/11 at 9:20 AM

Christian marriage is constantly renewed by sacrifice…..It is the slow transfiguration of love through the experiences of a common reality. Early love does not yet see this reality, for the pull of the heart and senses bewitch it.  Only gradually does reality establish itself, when eyes have been opened to the shortcomings and failures revealed by everyday life.  She who accepts the other then, as he really is, in spite of all disappointments, who can share the joys and problems of daily life with him, just as she has shared the great experience of early love, who can walk with him before God and with God’s strength, will achieve second love, the real mystery of marriage.  This is far superior to the first love as the mature person is to the child, as the self-conquering heart is to that which simply allows itself to be conquered.  At the cost of much sacrifice and effort something greater has come into being.

Guardini, Msgr. Romano THE LORD.

 

, , ,

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

In 09 Mary Summa, JD on 2012/08/11 at 11:11 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 [sp] 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

1. “Stories From Donors Conceived: A Letter to My Father.” AnonymousUs.org. September 26, 2011. http://anonymousus.org/stories/ Last visited March 10, 2012.

2. Although not recognized by common law, states in the mid 19th Century began enacting adoption laws that provided a legal link between children and married parents. In the early 20th Century, adoption laws were fleshed out to insure that the child was being placed in a stable and safe environments. Social mores dictated that children Preferences in Adoption Law in All 50 States, iMAPP Policy Brief. February 4, 2005. http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPPmarriage.adoption.pdf Last visited March 12, 2012.

3. Linda C. McClain, “Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage: Revisiting the Channelling Function of Family Law.” 28 Cardoza Law Review 2133, 2133 (2007). http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/28-5/28.5_mcclain.pdf. Last visited March 9, 2012.

4. Carl Schneider. “Moral Discourse and the Transformation of American Family Law.” 83 Mich. L. Rev. 1803, 1819 (1985).

5. Hadley Arkes. 2002. NATURAL RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3.

6. W. Bradford Wilcox. “The Evolution of Divorce” National Affairs. Issue No. 1. Fall 2009. http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce Last visited March 9, 2012.

7. Ryan MacPherson, “From No-Fault Divorce to Same-Sex Marriage: The American Law Institute’s Role in Deconstructing the Family” The Family in America. Spring 2011. http://www.familyinamerica.org/ Last visited March 10, 2012.

8. Carolyn Kolker and Patricia Hurtado. DLR 170 (2010). “Divorce Easier As New York Ends Need to Lie.” Bloomberg. August 16, 2010. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-16/breaking-up-not-so-hard-to-do-as-new-york-s-divorce-law-ends-need-to-lie.html. Last visited March 11, 2012.

9. Wilcox. 2.

10. Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003).

11. Jennifer Roback Morse. “Prepared Remarks for the Rhode Island Legislature, Hearings on Same Sex Marriage.” Providence, Rhode Island. February 9, 2011. Reprinted at http://www.ruthinstitute.org/DefendingMarriage/RhodeIsland.pdf. Last visited March 13, 2012.

12. Diane Fitzpatrick. “The History of Artificial Insemination.” Life123.com. http://www.life123.com/parenting/pregnancy/infertility/the-history-of-human-artificial-insemination.shtml Last visited March 10, 2012.

13. The History of InVitro Fertilization” PBS. Last visited March 9, 2012.

14. Betsy Schiffman. “U.S. Sperm Donations Rise in Recession” Daily Finance. 5/6/10. < http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/05/06/sperm-bank-donations-rise-in-recession/&gt; Last visited March 9, 2012.

15. See Jacqueline Mroz, “One Sperm, 150 Offspring”, The New York Times online. September 5, 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/health/06donor.html?pagewanted=all&gt; Last visited March 9, 2012.

16. Emerging Human Embryo Market Poses Moral and Ethical Dilemmas. Heartlander. May 1, 2008.< http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/05/01/emerging-human-embryo-market-poses-moral-and-ethical-dilemmas.&gt; Last visited March 12, 2012.

17. Nana Schoenberg. “Born in the U.S.A.” Chicago Tribune. April 16, 2010. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-13/health/ct-news-surrogate-mom-20110413_1_surrogacy-center-for-surrogate-parenting-international-parents. Last visited March 9, 2012.

18. Roger Hieghfiel and Nic Fleming. “Scientists Create Human Embryo Without a Father.” The Daily Telegraph. 10 September 2005. Reprinted at http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/archive/index.php/t-123682.html&gt; Last visited March 10, 2012.

19. “State Laws By State.” AllAboutSurrogacy.com. http://www.allaboutsurrogacy.com/surrogacylaws.htm.

20. N.C.G.S. 130A-101(2009).

21. David Rennie. “How’s Your ‘Progenitor A?’ The Telegraph. March 7, 2006. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/1512344/Hows-your-Progenitor-A.html Last visited March 9, 2012.

22. “Birth Certificate Victory for Same Sex Couple” ACLU Newsletter. 24 May 2005. http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2005/05/24/birth-certificate-victory-for-same-sex-couple/ Last visited March 9, 2012.

23. Anne Case, et. al. “How Hungry is the Selfish Gene?” The Economic Journal 110 (October 781-804) (2000).

24. “Gay Couple Fights for Names on Birth Certificate” Des Moines Register. November 8, 2011 <http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-08/same-sex-couple-birth-certificate/51122394/1&gt; Last visited March 9, 2012.

25. AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE: PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION; ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 2002. Section 2.03. St. Paul, Minnesota: American Law Institute Publishing.

26. See William Duncan, “The Legal Fiction of DeFacto Parenthood” 36 Journal of Legislation 263, 265 (2010). <http://www.nd.edu/~ndlaw/jleg/issue_articles/volume36/Duncan_Final.pdf&gt; Last visited March 9, 2012.

27. Boseman v. Jarrell, ___N.C.____ , 704 S.E.2d 494 (N.C. 2010); Davis v. Swan, ___N.C.___, 697 S.E.2d 473 (2010).

28. Anne Case, 784.

29. David Blankenhorn. “The Rights of Children and the Redefinition of Parenthood.” Presentation Before the Danish Institute for Human Rights. 2 June 2005. http://www.americanvalues.org/html/danish_institute.htm Last visited March 12, 2012.

30. David Blankenhorn et al. 2006. THE REVOLUTION IN PARENTHOOD: THE EMERGING GLBOAL CLASH BETWEEN ADULT RIGHTS AND CHILDREN’S NEEDS. New York: Institute for American Values. http://www.americanvalues.org/pdfs/parenthood.pdf. Last visited March 11, 2012.

31. Russell Kirk. 2002. THE AMERICAN CAUSE. Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books. 65.

32. ”Quotes from Mother Theresa.”.<goodreads.com.http: http://www.goodreads.com=”&#8221; quotes=”” search?q=”%22The+greatest+disease+is+<span” class=”hiddenGrammarError” pre=”is “>to+be+nobody+to+anybody.%22&commit=Search> Last visited March 10, 2012.

, ,

“Sowers of peace and joy”

In 01 Daily Meditations on 2012/06/20 at 9:11 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)

, ,

David Hains: Marriage – more than a word

In 07 Observations on 2012/05/03 at 11:09 AM

 hainsThe latest deception from opponents of the upcoming statewide constitutional marriage amendment is the use of the expression “Amendment One.” Like much of the rhetoric from the other side, this latest term is likely to confuse rather than inform the voting public.

The term “Amendment One” started appearing on signs and bumper stickers in late March. Apparently the long-winded and inaccurate previous reference, “the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage,” wouldn’t fit on a yard sign.

The problem with the term “Amendment One” is that it doesn’t exist. The ballot for the primary, produced by the N.C. Board of Elections, does not associate a number with the only amendment under consideration, which is the last item voters will see on the May 8 ballot.

So, it doesn’t have a number and it’s last, not first. So why would opponents of the marriage amendment use the term?

They don’t share strategy with me. But my guess is that they are afraid of the word “marriage” and want to avoid using it. There is so much goodwill associated with that single word, so many hopes and dreams, so much happiness and, with children, a promising future. The word simply cannot be demonized or mocked.

Marriage pre-dates the state of North Carolina and even our 2,000-year-old Catholic faith. In His wisdom God created man and woman differently, and from that beautiful and loving difference comes the whole human race. Without it the Bible would end about halfway through the Book of Genesis. God knew what He was doing when he created Adam and Eve and the complementary natures of men and women.

I’ve yet to speak with an opponent of the marriage amendment who has an underlying philosophy or theology for their arguments that is as deep or as broad as natural law, Scripture, Church teaching and thousands of years of human experience in support of traditional marriage.

Without a logical argument for their opposition to marriage, the opponents have chosen to play word games. They substitute “Amendment One” for “Marriage Amendment” and – presto – people who support traditional marriage can now be miscast as bigots.

Sadly, even President Barack Obama has chosen to jump in to what essentially is a local event by declaring his opposition to the amendment. His re-election campaign office released a statement on March 20 saying, “While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples.”

Putting aside the fact that North Carolina’s marriage amendment will not deny rights and benefits to anyone, the weakness of the president’s argument is made clear when you realize that he couldn’t bring himself to utter the word marriage.

David Hains is the Diocese of Charlotte’s director of communication.

Reprinted with permission from the Catholic News Herald

, ,

The Unexpected Debate by Linda Granzow

In 07 Observations on 2012/04/26 at 9:11 AM

Up until the 21st century, no reasonable human being, of faith or not, would have ever deemed it possible that the definition and understanding of marriage could be the subject of a statewide vote to either protect it or to redefine and reinvent it as something other, something less than what it has always been. The ever increasing relativism and disregard for absolute truths based on natural law in our society has put us at an unimaginable crossroads at this moment in history. This is a country founded and fought for, where religious liberty (freedom of religion, not freedom from religion) and true freedom would form the ideal society—true freedom, not to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what is right.

In the midst of desensitization, through the media, targeted especially toward the younger generations to unprecedented violence, pornography, divorce and homosexual activity, there appears a trend toward indifference to this critical issue of what constitutes marriage and even growing support for radical negation of an undeniable truth. Many say, “What’s the big deal? I don’t have to approve of their lifestyle. If they want to get married, who cares?” It is a lack of understanding and an exaggerated expression of tolerance for any desire, urge, want, or fashionable cause that is automatically presumed to be a “right,” even if it goes against the very nature of what it means to be a man or woman, violates the natural law and ultimately corrupts and devolves the society into chaos.

Biology Lesson & Common Sense 

Males and females are physically different and are so obviously meant to join together like two puzzle pieces that fit perfectly. Further, when they join together in that beautifully perfect way, the physical reality often results in a chain of events that actually creates a new male or female.

Take for example the classic children’s toy, Tinker Toys. The inventor of Tinker Toys created simple wooden wheels with holes, and sticks which would fit perfectly into the holes. As these individual pieces are connected together, a fantastic building process takes place, limited only by the number of pieces in the set and the child’s imagination. But if one were to take all of the wheels by themselves and try to build something, the best would be to build a tower or perhaps a pyramid, which would be easily knocked down. So too, the sticks by themselves do not have the ability to build anything. It is only through the joining of the wheels and the sticks that something wonderful and structurally stable can be built.

In the same way, neither females by themselves nor males by themselves can build a wonderful and structurally stable family, community or society. In fact, the species would die out! So the primary biological purpose of sexuality for animals and humans is to procreate to ensure the species’ survival. The United States Supreme Court agreed when it said that marriage is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the (human) race.”  In the human species, because of the added element of the soul, sexuality takes on a much deeper meaning and purpose. We are wired not only to perpetuate our community, but also to love and protect others within that community. We do this through different bonds of love depending upon our relationship to another person.

Friendship and Beyond 

We are all born capable of loving and being loved, and in fact, we need it. There are many forms that love can take, for example, the love between a mother and her child, the love between two friends, the love between a child and his dog, and the love between a man and a woman. Between two human beings, married love is the fullest expression of love. This has been true throughout human history because it requires a lifelong, faithful commitment between a man and a woman, usually witnessed by others in the community, to love and protect each other and to love and protect the children who are created out of their sexual union. This definition of marriage “has served as the very cornerstone of civilization and culture from the start.” (Archbishop Timothy Dolan)

Although we could say that a great bond of love exists between a mother and her child, we would never say that the two could be married. We could admire the bond of love between a child and his dog, but we would never say that the two could be married. In these instances, the nature of the bond of love does not fit the reality of what marriage is. Two men or two women could be great friends and enjoy each other’s company and they may have a logical expectation that they will have a lifelong friendship. But their bond of friendship love will never fit the reality of what marriage is by definition.

Dignity and Rights 

Each human being is born with inherent goodness. Even someone born with a physical or mental disability is endowed with an inherent goodness and dignity and is entitled to certain rights to life and liberty. As such, a society or culture recognizes basic natural laws—laws that are instinctively known by each individual–that protect the dignity and rights to life and liberty of its individual members. For example, a natural law would be the instinctive knowledge that killing another human being takes away that person’s right to live. Therefore, it becomes “against the law” to kill another person.

Another natural law is in the area of sexuality. Instinctively, individuals know that they are physically made as a male or a female and know that they are made to fit together complementarily for procreation. In the same way that circumstances, environment and temperament can affect a person to the point where he no longer honors the natural law against killing and instead chooses to fulfill an errant desire to commit murder, these same elements can affect a person to the point where he no longer honors the natural law of sexuality and instead gives in to an errant desire to commit rape, incest, pedophilia or homosexual acts.

Although the dignity of the person who commits such acts must be respected, the behaviors themselves cannot be allowed to supersede the natural laws that exist for the good of other individuals and that of society as a whole.  As specifically related to the question of rights for homosexual individuals, Archbishop Timothy Dolan clarified that “the Church affirms the basic human rights of gay men and women, and the state has rightly changed many laws to offer these men and women hospital visitation rights, bereavement leave, death benefits, insurance benefits, and the like. This is not about denying rights. It is about upholding a truth about the human condition.”  Logically, it is not about denying homosexual couples a “right” to marriage since, by the very definition of marriage, that “right” does not exist for them in the first place.

Real versus Counterfeit 

Over the last several years, a very small group of people in this country has been forcefully pushing an agenda to change our society’s view on homosexuality even to the point of demanding that homosexual couples be allowed to marry. Although it is easy to psychologically understand their overwhelming and desperate desire to have their unnatural sexual actions be accepted as “normal” and just another lifestyle choice among many, the reality is that it is a counterfeit of reality. The very fact that in discussions it is referred to as “gay marriage” openly acknowledges that it is not the real thing—the word “marriage” has to be qualified with the word “gay” because it is different and not the same. Think of the popular game Monopoly and Monopoly money. The qualifying word “Monopoly” reveals that it is different from the real money used in our country on which our whole economy is based. What would happen if our country decided to allow a counterfeit to commingle with reality?

Although both are made of paper, money from the game cannot be used to buy things in real life. Why can you not go into a store and buy a loaf of bread with Monopoly money? Is it because the paper itself is not good? No, it is because the value of the exchange of that paper is not backed by a tangible valuable asset such as gold.

Suppose a small group of people in this country decided to pool all of their Monopoly money and present it at a store to buy food. The store would refuse to sell, not because those presenting the money are not good people, but because the money they are trying to use is not real. Imagine the group presents a plea to the government saying they are trying to buy food and the store will not sell it to them. What would happen to the economy of that society if the government ruled that the store must accept Monopoly money from that group? Chaos and economic collapse would result because real and counterfeit money cannot be circulated at the same time.

In the same way, a small group of people who think they have a “right” to go to the government and say they want to have the ability to get “married” is proposing that it would be acceptable to have a counterfeit institution pass for the real thing. But the result for the society would also be collapse. In addition, once something counterfeit is forced to be accepted as the real thing, any entity that does not honor the counterfeit would be punished for discrimination. This is what would happen in our country to churches, businesses and individuals who, based on their faith, morals and ethical standards, refused to accept the counterfeit.

Protecting Marriage 

Although it seemed impossible that the integrity of the true meaning of marriage would someday need to be protected, that day is here. Thirty states have already passed an amendment to their state constitutions protecting the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This is due to the current vulnerability of marriage as an institution, one which is the basic building block of a civilized and productive society, to be subject to activist judges and lawmakers who would impose decisions changing the real definition of marriage to allow its counterfeit “same-sex marriage.” Marriage is the logical, ideal and intended haven for the procreation, protection and raising of children. This is supported by an overwhelming body of social science evidence. Of course, for those who truly believe in the God who created man and woman and are still unsure, He has provided a most explicit and definitive answer to what the outcome of this unexpected debate should be.  (Genesis 1:27-28, 2:21-25, Leviticus 20:13, 18:22-24, Romans 1:24-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

, ,

Questions About Marriage

In 07 Observations on 2012/04/25 at 9:15 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 asacrament. 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

, ,

“My daughter, God is counting on your help”

In 01 Daily Meditations on 2012/04/11 at 9:11 AM
My daughter, you have set up a home. I like to remind you that you women – as you well know – have a great strength, which you know how to enfold within a special gentleness, so that it is not noticed. With that strength, you can make your husband and children instruments of God, or demons. You will always make them instruments of God: he is counting on your help. (The Forge, 690)

Women are called to bring to the family, to society and to the Church, characteristics which are their own and which they alone can give: their gentle warmth and untiring generosity, their love for detail, their quick‑wittedness and intuition, their simple and deep piety, their constancy… A woman’s femininity is genuine only if she is aware of the beauty of this contribution for which there is no substitute and if she incorporates it into her own life.

To fulfil this mission, a woman has to develop her own personality and not let herself be carried away by a naive desire to imitate, which, as a rule, would tend to put her in an inferior position and leave her unique qualities unfulfilled. If she is a mature person, with a character and mind of her own, she will indeed accomplish the mission to which she feels called, whatever it may be. Her life and work will be really constructive, fruitful and full of meaning, whether she spends the day dedicated to her husband and children or whether, having given up the idea of marriage for a noble reason, she has given herself fully to other tasks. Each woman in her own sphere of life, if she is faithful to her divine and human vocation can and, in fact, does achieve the fullness of her feminine personality. Let us remember that Mary, Mother of God and Mother of men, is not only a model but also a proof of the transcendental value of an apparently unimportant life. (Conversations with Monsignor Escrivá, 87)

A woman with adequate training should find the field of public life open to her at all levels. In this sense it is impossible to point out specific tasks that correspond to women alone. As I said earlier, in this field what is specific is not the task or position in itself, but the way in which the work is done. There are values which a woman more readily perceives, and her specific contribution will often, therefore, change the whole approach to a problem, and can lead to the discovery of completely new approaches. (Conversations with Monsignor Escrivá, 90)

, ,

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

In 09 Mary Summa, JD on 2012/03/22 at 9:11 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.