Dear Friends,

The issue of redefining marriage has implications far beyond calling same-sex relations a marriage. It is important to understand the intended as well as the unintended consequences of such a redefinition. In other words it is not as simple as just allowing two same-sex persons to marry. The issue is complex and the changes it will bring about will come over time as the institution of marriage further deteriorates and the government exercises its prerogative to further such a right. In other words if same-sex marriage becomes law the world won’t end tomorrow nor will lightening bolts destroy the earth as God’s punishment. Rather like metal left to the elements that slowly rusts and corrodes compromising its integrity our society will shift to an actually less tolerant one with increasing governmental restriction of other rights.

Marriage as we have it now is a rather stand alone institution with little need for government supports. In fact for most of history the government did not regulate marriages. That is simply because marriage has a power and integrity all its own. The more the government became involved in the marriage business the more it suffered, e.g. no-fault divorce, custody rights, inheritance etc. Same-sex marriage requires a massive amount of government intervention if it is to be a right. Once declared a right the government then has a vested interest in perpetuating the right and protecting it.

The state, if it redefines marriage, is obligated to grant that form of marriage all the rights and privileges and responsibilities of opposite sex marriage. That means it has to hold those who do not support it or those institutions that do not further it accountable or legislate some sort of exemption. It also has to find a way to make the issue of children work. So in the case of a same-sex couple, since they naturally can’t produce offspring, the state has to make sure that the means to have children are available. This means adoption as well as surrogacy. In the latter the state has to take away the parental position of the surrogate or sperm donor or egg donor and give them to a third party who is biologically unconnected to the child. This in effect illegitimatizes a child, which has social, legal and psychological effects. In the case of adoption, as we have seen in Massachusetts, the state can require adoption agencies to consider same-sex couples for adoption. Hence the reason that the Catholic Church in Massachusetts was forced out of adoption work.

This is the first we are seeing of a religious right being supplanted by same-sex marriage.  Once a right then the state has an obligation to teach or convince others that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite sex marriage.  If same-sex marriage is a right then the state can mandate that children in schools be taught it as such including private schools. Private schools cannot violate or teach a violation of a civil right. Some examples: A private school (Mennonite) in Quebec (where same-sex marriage is law) is being forced to insert same-sex behavior as normal in their curriculum; a doctor in California has been court mandated to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple against his objections; a Methodist Church in NJ lost part of its tax-exempt status for refusing to allow a lesbian couple to use its facilities, then there is the issue of gender neutral restrooms…

These are just a few examples of how same-sex marriage gives the government access into every area of civil life. Obviously the biggest issue is the restriction of religious freedom. With same-sex marriage an individual right supplants a general right and furthers an intolerance of religion and a serious constriction of a religious group’s ability to perform its mission. We most certainly over time, would be expected to teach the normalcy of same-sex marriage in our schools, preaching against same-sex behavior is increasingly moving towards being considered hate speech, exemptions based on sincerely held religious beliefs would have to be reconsidered, such as not performing same-sex marriages. (We see a similar effort being made to mandate that Catholic hospitals perform abortions. This will become a big issue as we rework our health care.)

Apparently our society holds “oozing compassion” as the highest good, nobility and virtue. Rather than showing how tolerant we are we are actually recreating our society and surrendering self-determination to absolute state power. This issue requires rigorous intellectual honesty not just good feeling. This is not about discrimination (since no adult is denied the right to marry in AZ) but rather an awareness that to tinker with the fundamentals of society is a very dangerous thing for everyone including same sex couples. Redefining marriage simultaneously restricts or contracts first amendment rights.

The proposed amendment to the AZ Constitution does not change anything. No one gains or loses anything including rights, benefits, legal standing etc. What it does do is prevent in the future a judge or a governor from self-legislating a redefinition of marriage. On the surface same-sex marriage may seem innocuous but underneath there is a Pandora’s box of trouble that is ready to escape. Marriage is never one of those things that is a private affair of the heart but a public action that shapes individuals and society. Intended or unintended, redefining marriage begins the toll for the death of many civil rights.

Love,

Fr. John Bonavitacola