standard for marriages
Mark Styczynski
junior
In his Wednesday column, Professor Rice cited the Pontifical Council statement that marriage is a natural institution prior to the state, and thus it must be favored by the law.
However, for a government to adopt a position based solely on one religious group's opinion would violate a separation of church and state. There are other religions that allow homosexual marriages. Why should their teachings be superseded by the Catholic church's in the eyes of the government? The Pontifical Council's opinion holds weight in Church doctrine, but not in United States law.
Furthermore, if we examine what is actually done by marriage within the context of modern society (a partnership of property and protection and certain legal rights), we see that neither of these deals explicitly with any religious context.
Next there is the issue of promotion of heterosexual marriage. Let me propose an analogy: suppose that our "Cultural Indicators" showed that heterosexual people are still getting married by the church-load but less and less couples are having children. If this were the case, would it then be the government's responsibility (nay, duty) to take away legal rights and privileges from those married couples who had no children in order to promote the continuation of society? Would it be appropriate to take away their rights merely because they made a choice counter to what some religious institution deemed appropriate? I think not. While the "continuation of society" may seem to be a noble endeavor, I think it is foolhardy, perhaps to the point of ignobility.
Furthermore, the idea that the acknowledgment of marriage rights of homosexuals will put us on a "dead-end road to extinction" is at best a slippery-slope fallacy and at worst a red herring. Let's be realistic: are there people out there who say, "Well, I'm homosexual, and I'd love to pursue a homosexual love interest, but shoot, I might not get equal tax protection so I might as well go find me a heterosexual and have me some babies"? Of course not. This fallaciously constructed "harm" has no bearing.
Finally, I find it interesting that the Pontifical Council alludes to some sort of Aristotelian justice (equals equal, unequals unequal). How does one decide what makes people "equal"? If one person in a heterosexual marriage is biologically unable to have children, does that make them unequal, and thus undeserving of marriage? Why shouldn't this "equality of equals" be based on love, commitment and respect, three ideals that I'm quite sure the Church agrees are imperative in a successful marriage? With such a vague notion of justice presented I find it hard to use that as a philosophical buttress for the exclusion of a segment of our community (yes, it is our community as Americans) from rights and privileges that we all might want at some point.
Mark Styczynski
junior
Sorin College
April 5, 2001
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, April 9, 2001
