Quantcast The Heights
College Media Network
 

 Edition

 
The real meaning of marriage
By Matt Hamilton
  • Print
  • Email
  • Page 1 of 1
Few birthday parties hand out as favors a Barack Obama sticker and a Mary Oliver poem, but this was no ordinary party.

On a recent stormy night, about 50 people gathered to celebrate the birthday of Dr. John McDargh and his son, Sasha. With tasty food and a jukebox's music, people from different places and differing points of their lives mingled - the gay and straight, old and young, endowed chairs, undergraduates, community organizers, a bishop, priests, and all those in between. For such is the crowd that gathers around one of Boston College's most beloved professors.

For years, students have known this theology professor as a loyal friend, confidant, and mentor. Students, staff, and faculty seek his counsel, knowing "John" to be a gifted story teller, an uplifting conversationalist, and a wise spiritual director.

For BC's gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer communities, John McDargh remains a figure of vitality and hope. With his partner of 29 years and their son, John does not simply make a political statement on same-sex marriages; he gives witness to its meaning.

For at this party, McDargh stood next to his son and partner to toast the crowd. My own cultural formation occasionally results in a visceral dismissal of same-sex couples on account of the "unnaturalness" of the sight. Two men? Two women? With children!? But as McDargh's son and partner each recounted anecdotes from family vacations while guests listened and exchanged their own stories, and as one was given insight into their family life, there was nothing "unnatural" about two men, their son, and the family they form.

For that is all family is: an organic community of love and commitment, not a complex web of obligation and fear created for the accompanying tax benefits. Whether it is between two men, two women, or the "traditional" woman and man, marriage is a union of love. It is not meant to atomize and exclude the two - but to be a wellspring of life and support for the community around the couple.

Thus, what is lost on opponents of same-sex marriage is evinced rather profoundly by John McDargh and his family. Marriage can be a locus of hope and support for a community, a welcoming love-space that promotes empathy and compassion. Such is the dynamic of all human relationships - we are each a summation of the love and lessons exchanged with others over the course of our lives.

Fittingly, Dr. McDargh referenced the conclusion of Fellini's film 8 1/2 in telling everyone at his 60th birthday party that all present were completely necessary in their family's arriving to the point at which they stood today. And in that point of the night, one learned the true meaning of the Mary Oliver poem that each guest was given: "How it is that we live forever" is in the messengers we call our friends, our spouse, and our children.

Matt Hamilton is a Heights staff columnist. He accepts comments at hamiltonm@bc.edu.
Page 1 of 1

Article Tools

Viewing Comments 1 - 8 of 12

Sophiy

Ginay

posted 9/08/08 @ 10:04 PM EST

I admire those groups working for GLBT, also those online services like the one **BisexualMingle dotcom**. Members there are very active. Hope you are the one. (Continued…)

Jon

posted 9/09/08 @ 6:21 PM EST

Of course if marriage were only about love then this argument would hold water. The fact remains that there is a procreative element to marriage. Of course in certain circumstances exceptions are given, but procreation is still a central part of a marriage. (Continued…)

(1 reply)   Details   Reply to this comment

Christopher

posted 9/10/08 @ 3:32 PM EST

Jon, how ironic that you used the word "logically" in your post since your contention is illogical. You failed to mention one important fact - marriage is not required for procreation. (Continued…)

Jon

posted 9/10/08 @ 9:15 PM EST

Thanks for your thoughts Christopher, but you misread my comment. I stated that procreation is a part of marriage, not that marriage is necessary for procreation. (Continued…)

(2 replies)   Details   Reply to this comment

Mike

posted 9/11/08 @ 4:00 PM EST

"Same-sex marriage advocates should consider the consequences of changing the definition of marriage. Why should we stop at 2 people?"

Worked in the Old Testament. (Continued…)

(1 reply)   Details   Reply to this comment

Rich

posted 9/15/08 @ 8:55 PM EST

Also, if procreative abilities are requisite for marriage, should people who are medically infertile be allowed to marry? Other scenarios regarding the reproductive organs, etc. (Continued…)

Buddy

posted 9/16/08 @ 10:48 AM EST

Jon, thanks for your comments and for facing a harsh crowd without resorting to too much sarcasm.

I think the fundamental disagreement I have with you is whether a marriage should be defined by a single institution, in this case the patriarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, or by the people marrying one another. (Continued…)

Steve

posted 9/18/08 @ 12:51 PM EST

This is two separate issues that should not be intertwined. 1) Should gay marriage be legal; 2) Should it be recognized by the church.

As for the second question, I have absolutely no problem with the Catholic church being opposed to gay marriage and to continue to not recognize the religious institutional significance of the event. (Continued…)

Post a Comment

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Advertisement

Poll

What fall show are you most excited about this year?
Submit Vote

View Results

Advertisement