object width="425" height="344">
Thanks to a ruling from the State Supreme Court, Iowa has become the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. In my view, this is a bad decision that should have been left the people of Iowa. The vast majority of Iowans regardless of party affiliation, like most Americans, favor limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
The ruling and the subsequent political fallout is likely to hurt Democrats in Middle America. Iowa Democratic elected officials will have to have ask themselves if they want to follow traditional values and public opinion or pander to a powerful pressure group within the party.
The following is a statement from the Iowa Catholic Bishops which sums up why this decision will negatively impact their state and the rest of the nation:
“Marriage is a basic human and social institution. Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.
“Marriage, whose nature and purposes are established by God, can only be the union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law. In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children.
“The union of husband and wife becomes, over a lifetime, a great good for themselves, their family, communities, and society. Marriage is a gift to be cherished and protected.”
(Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers About Marriage and
Same-sex Unions, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2003)
In August 2007, a Polk County District Court judge struck down Chapter 595.2 of the Iowa Code, which said that “only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid” in the State of Iowa. At the heart of the judge’s ruling was a finding that marriage is a fundamental right. Consequently, the State of Iowa had the burden of proving that it had a compelling interest in withholding marriage from members of the same sex.
On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Polk Country District Court. According to its own summary, the Supreme Court directed “that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.”
Because of this decision, we affirm that it is important to work towards the passage of an amendment to Iowa’s Constitution which would define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Amending Iowa’s Constitution requires that two successive General Assemblies pass the legislation, which would then put the amendment to a vote of the people of Iowa.
We are convinced that the passage of this amendment is important for the following reasons.
First, the institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman goes back to the beginning of recorded human history. Marriage between a man and a woman is a good from the perspectives of both natural law and our Catholic faith. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is a creation of the State (or, just of its judiciary) and will likely open the door to redefining as marriage additional relationships, such as polygamy. A constitutional amendment is the best available legal means to protect the traditional understanding of marriage from a redefinition by the judiciary.
Secondly, we affirm that marriage is a gift from God which is essential to the stability of family and society. Society has chosen to protect and promote marriage because of its unique contribution to the common good. For example, marriage between a man and a woman supports responsible behavior in the care of children. Children who are raised by a married father and mother have more positive outcomes, including behavioral and educational accomplishments.
Thirdly, unfortunately, in recent decades, cohabitation and divorce laws have already contributed to a weakening of marriage. This has tended to harm women and children in particular. Usually, children do better physically, emotionally and financially if they are in a stable family relationship of father/mother (husband/wife).
Fourthly, social engineering by judges or legislatures adds to the confusion about the good that marriage offers to society, and weakens the critical relationship between marriage and parenting.
Therefore, we call on Catholics and other citizens of Iowa to reflect carefully on the real social cost of this judicial imposition, and to support the need for a constitutional amendment. We affirm that this is the best way for Iowans to support the ideal of marriage as the stable union of one man and one woman.
Most Rev. Jerome Hanus, OSB, Archbishop of Dubuque
Most Rev. R. Walker Nickless, Bishop of Sioux City
Most Rev. Martin Amos, Bishop of Davenport
Most Rev. Richard Pates, Bishop of Des Moines
http://www.iowacatholicconference.org/bins/site/templates/blank.asp?_resolutionfile=templatespath|blank.asp&area_2=pages/ICC%20Web%20Site/Statements/Marriage%20Amendment%202009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The economic populism (including the economic patriotism) and the foreign policy realism (including the economic patriotism) of President Obama were and are hugely attractive to those who reaffirmed traditional marriage in California and Florida, as also to those who abolished legal discrimination against working-class white men in Colorado, who declined to liberalise gambling in Missouri or Ohio, and who keep the black and Catholic churches (especially) going from coast to coast. Those are the people whom he owes, and without whose support he has no hope of re-election.
President Obama is on record as supporting traditional marriage. He needs to say so rather more often, and rather more loudly. Those who would rather that he did not, would you rather have President Palin in 2012?
Religion is anti-progress, and always has been. If it was up to Christians, we'd still be living in caves and believing that the sun revolves around the earth.
This is straight out of the Communist Revolution. Letting a hand full of ruling elite redefine (Marriage) the foundation of society. They don't want the people voting on this because the radical homosexuals know they will lose.
My answer to the bishops:
The bishops of Iowa have published a statement on the Iowa Supreme Court decision restoring the right of same sex couples to marry in Iowa. As on so many other important questions in the history of the Catholic Church, they are on the wrong side of science, history and theology on this question. Not only this, they are not even true to the Catholic Church's stated ideals in “Dignitatis Humanæ” on freedom of religion and conscience and the bishops' own statement on political activity approved in 2007 about protecting human dignity and human rights.
The bishops claim, “This decision rejects the wisdom of thousands of years of human history. It implements a novel understanding of marriage, which will grievously harm families and children.” The wisdom on marriage has changed many times in recorded history depending on the culture of the people at the time. Once again our culture is changing and with it our definition of marriage. We are moving toward an even more enlightened and inclusive culture. The second part of the statement, this is somehow a “novel understanding of marriage” does not stand up to scrutiny. Recorded history provides numerous examples of marital arrangements besides “one man and one woman”, including many involving same sex partners. The final piece of this statement is that marriage equality will some how “harm families and children”. This view ignores the great body of peer reviewed scientific literature stating unequivocally this is not the case.
The bishops continue, “This unwarranted social engineering attacks the good that marriage offers to society, especially the good of children, and weakens the critical relationship between marriage and parenting.” This is a restatement of the earlier statement predicting grievous harm, but they miss their own point that marriage is good for society. Regardless of the sexual orientation of the married couple, marriage is good for society and makes parenting children easier. They can not claim that marriage is a boon to society for some and in the same statement say marriage is going to be the doom of society because others can marry. I would like to point out to the bishops that the proper functioning of our three branches of government is not some covert “unwarranted social engineering attack”. It is the proper role of the courts to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the “majority”. This is exactly what the Iowa Supreme Court did in this case.
The bishops go on to say, “We uphold the right of all people to be treated with respect and live in peace.” They then cheapen this noble sentiment by following it up with this, “This right, like the right to enter into a permanent, monogamous marriage of one man and one woman, derives directly from the intrinsic dignity of the human person.” I find this troubling, either they support the right of all persons to live in peace, be treated with respect, and have all the intrinsic dignities of being human or they do not. The right to enter a loving committed relationship called marriage is one of those basic rights, which should not be denied simply because of sexual orientation. These are indeed the rights that should be recognized and protected by the state, as the bishops go on to say in their statement.
Finally, the bishops say that the people of Iowa should be given the right to vote on this important civil rights issue. I would be inclined to agree with them if the basic question was not one of whether basic human rights should be stripped from an entire class of people. What would have happened after the 1868 overturning of school segregation in Iowa if the people were allowed to vote on it? What would have happened in the South, if after Brown v Topeka Board of Education, they had been allowed to vote on desegregation as many called for at the time? The human and civil rights of anyone should never be held to a vote of the majority.
Therefore, I would urge Catholics and the rest of the citizens of Iowa to recognize the clear need for the protection of basic human rights by ensuring the rights of the minority are not held to the tyranny of the majority at the ballot box. By supporting an ideal of marriage that is inclusive instead of exclusive, we defend marriage, families, children, and the common good for everyone. Further, we say loud and clear that the people of Iowa support the right of all persons to live in peace, be treated with respect, and have all the intrinsic dignities and rights of being human.
The bishops are right. Put in a societal context we must ask the question 'does society value life?'. The obvious answer is yes (or is it) because society would not exist without human life. If society has such a value then it should discriminate and value one human relationship over another, that being the one that produces life is more valuable than one that does not because life is a value that society holds. If on the other hand society does not value life it is easy to say that there is no intrinsic good to a relationship that produces life and therefore should not make a distinction.
Like all laws this is a statement about what society values. There is added value in the relationship that produces life and so society rewards that relationship. When we start rewarding any relationship regardless of whether it produces life or not we say that life and, it follows, our own selves have no special value.
Post a Comment