Marriage at the crossroads

Every now and again in the course of human history there are moments when the division between advancement and decline is monumental. For some these divisions are clear, and it is easy to discern the path of cultural progress; while for others, the paths seem all too blurred. In the opinion of many we are at just such crossroads in our country (and, in fact, in much of the world). It is hard to imagine the question before us being more significant, for it deals with those questions that are quintessentially human. The debate over the redefinition of marriage to include unions of those of the same sex is vastly larger than so many are willing to admit. The current debate over marriage concerns how deeply (or superficially) our culture is willing to value life, the family, and the very structure of human relationships.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has declared that there can be no distinction made in civil law between unions of those of the same sex and of those between a man and a woman. The fact that this ruling does not immediately sound senseless to many is a testament to how impoverished our notion of marriage has become. The union of husband and wife is that in which a man and a woman, in giving themselves completely to each other, unite to become one flesh and form an indissoluble union ordered to bringing new life into the world. This relationship is not simply one among many others, but rather that union set apart in which each of our lives began. Only when understanding the sanctity of this union can one begin to examine other relationships that claim equivalency with it.

When a government desires to give economic benefits to this sacred union, it is not a matter of unjust discrimination or bigotry toward anyone else, but rather is a recognition of certain relationships for what they are. The union of husband and wife is the basic building block of society. As it is said, "As goes the family, so goes society."

This obligation to promote marriage and family life means more than a distinction of terms. If a society is to be serious about preserving the sanctity of marriage, equivalent civil status to alternative unions simply doesn't make sense. Preserving the recognition of the distinct union that is marriage is a vital element in promoting a culture that honors life and the family.

It occurs to me that we already do this by not recognizing every relationship as equivalent to marriage. Few would suggest that polygamous unions are equivalent to monogamous marriage, because we rightly recognize that there is something special about having only one spouse. In order for the love to be truly self-giving and to respect the dignity of persons, we rightly understand marriage to be - by its very nature - monogamous. Likewise, the complementary nature of the union of husband and wife and its natural ordering toward new life make marriage - by its nature - the union of man and woman. Those who oppose the redefinition of marriage do so not because they choose to not recognize other types of marriages, but rather because they see marriage as being - again, by its nature - between one man and one woman.

Much of course has obscured our notion of the sanctity of marriage. While adultery has distorted marriage as a unity, divorce has corrupted its unbreakable nature, and contraception has obscured marriage as essentially open to life. The recognition of unions of those of the same sex as equivalent to those inherently open to life is yet another incredible rejection of the life-giving love that is marriage. While not every sexual act, or even every marriage, will beget children, the very idea that this union of husband and wife is of its nature directed and ordered to new life is an extraordinary gift. To simply classify this as an accidental addition to the love of husband and wife is to fail to recognize the gift of life itself.

Nothing said in exaltation of marriage should be seen as a rejection of those who are themselves not called to marriage. The need to affirm the dignity of every person and decry the terrible violence done to them in acts or words of bigotry should be an absolute priority of the both the church and state. The dignity of every person as a son or daughter of God is likewise not to be a seen as add-on or afterthought in the argument to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Rather, it is the very basis of the argument. Each and every human person is created in God's image.

The same moral principle that defends the dignity of persons must defend the dignity of marriage and the dignity of human life. There is a great need to promote a culture that values life and values that sacred union of self-giving love. This union of husband and wife in which one is completed and made whole by the other who is complementary, is a union that is of its nature life-giving.

Our culture is at a crossroads. We have before us the question of whether we are willing to defend marriage as the sacred union it is: the union of husband and wife in a relationship of total self-gift in which God has ordered new life to enter the world. The recognition of the distinctness of this union cannot be bigoted or unjust for it is simply the truth about the human person. The truth about who we are and of what the sacred union of marriage is cannot be a burden, but instead, it is a freedom. For it is the freedom to love in truth, the love for which we are made. For this love can never be opposed to truth, but rather, it is "love that rejoices in truth."

Ryan Connors is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences.