Catholics and Gay Marriage

My grandfather - a conservative Catholic - was a wise and funny man. He used to quip that he was against prayer in the public schools because he was convinced that they would teach children the wrong way to pray. This simple and folksy logic actually reveals some profound insights: it is an acknowledgement that ours is a pluralistic nation, and that in such a free and open society, there are many different religious traditions; it is an admission that on some matters of faith, Catholics are not willing to compromise; and it also expresses a measure of acceptance that all of this is just fine. I think it even illustrates his gentle yet piercing sense of humor, the comment coming as it did back at the height of the animus-filled debate over prayer in the public schools. 

Which brings me to the topic of marriage. Right now, gay marriage is a contentious issue for people of faith, much like the issue of school prayer used to be. In Minnesota, led by the bishops, the Catholic Church has come out in support of a constitutional amendment to permanently ban gay marriage. Frankly, I am not sure what is driving the Catholic campaign against gay marriage, nor do I understand why the church has chosen to take such a stand at this time. If I had to guess, I would say that it is a top-down effort by the Church to re-assert its moral authority in the United States at a time when it has been rocked by scandal and its influence is waning. It certainly does not seem like a widespread and spontaneous expression of anti-gay sentiment by its members.

In a way, I can understand why this debate is so important to Catholics. For Catholics, marriage is more than a long-standing and powerful institution; it is a sacrament: a sacred rite that binds its recipients to each other and to the church. Catholic marriage has many tenets: it is a lifelong, indissoluble commitment and the only proper place for sexual expression. Procreation is seen as a primary purpose. Marriage between Catholics and non-Catholics is circumspect and even frowned upon. And so on. In a formal and strict sense, the church does not recognize non-Catholic marriage because its expression outside of the church does not enshrine these tenets as its foundation.

I have seen a fair number of essays and other commentary by Catholics that purport to explain why everyone should oppose gay marriage. Really, though, all of these arguments simply express why people should oppose Catholic marriage for gays. Essentially, they reiterate Catholic beliefs about coupling, reproduction, and sexual morality. Forgotten or abandoned in these essays is that there are other ideas about marriage that simply do not conform to Catholic beliefs.

Religious people of many faiths, as well as non-religious people, define marriage differently, and some religious organizations openly embrace marriage between same-sex couples. I am certain that Catholics do not want to have the marriage standards of another faith imposed upon them. So they should not seek to impose their standard on others. This is the heart of the matter, and everything else simply clouds this essential truth. Whether or not the amendment passes, Catholics will continue to define and to celebrate marriage in their own way. Similarly, passing this amendment will not alter the expression (or lack thereof) of marriage by non-Catholics.

In short, the issue of gay marriage really does not challenge or undermine Catholic marriage as an institution in any way. Instead, this issue offers another, deeper challenge to Catholics: to find the humanity and the good in people with whom they disagree. I do not say this glibly; this is one of the most difficult challenges that we as human beings face. And it is a sacred as well as civic duty to do so.

Catholic Minnesotans should choose to protect the religious and personal liberty of non-Catholics so that those outside of the Church may find fulfillment and practice their beliefs in their own way. Or they should choose to protect the Catholic sacrament of marriage from being misused and diluted by forcing it upon a reluctant public. Either way, let's all take my grandfather's advice: leave Catholic teachings and practices to Catholics. Vote No.

***
Update: This essay is a plea to Catholics to reject the Church's anti-gay marriage position on the grounds that the State of Minnesota does not administer the Catholic sacrament of marriage, and never will. For those interested, here is the first essay I wrote on the subject of Minnesota's anti-gay marriage amendment, and it includes a more expansive plea for marriage equality.

Update II: I wrote two additional essays that respond to the "natural law" arguments against marriage equality. "Natural Law" is commonly invoked by Catholics to mask the religious nature of their opposition to same-sex marriage. You can find these essays here and here.

21st Century Know-Nothing Party

Yesterday, I received a tea-party-ish email that I feel compelled to write about. It contained a list of "wants":

HERE IS ALL WE WANT
Obama: Gone!
Borders: Closed!
Congress: Obey it's own laws
Language: English only
Culture: Constitution, and the Bill of Rights!
Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!
NO freebies to: Non-Citizens

This list is both comical and frightening - it reads like the Know-Nothing Party platform updated for the 21st century. Let's go through this list and see if any of it makes sense.

"Obama: Gone!" - this is one of the few things on the list that is legitimate: I can understand not liking a politician and his policies. At this point in the 2012 election, however, the only realistic alternative to Obama is Willard "Mitt" Romney. And this is Romney: a mendacious, entitled, sliver-spooned, job-killing vulture capitalist whose (only) major accomplishment as a politician is a state health care plan which Obama used as a model for the national plan. I note here that these are the criticisms coming from Romney’s own party! So how can Romney be any better than Obama? 

"Borders: Closed!" - how would this be implemented? I'll tell you how: this would be a big government program that would cost an immense amount of money, both in actual dollars and in lost potential revenue. It is an absolutely terrible idea.

"Congress: Obey it's [sic] own laws" and "Language: English only" - these two are funny together because of the grammatical mistake in the first sentence. I'm not really sure what it means to demand that "Congress obey its own laws." In one sense, they follow their own "laws" perfectly - it's just that the rules are different for them than they are for regular people. And making "English only" a rule will cut off many sources of knowledge and income, leaving us poorer and dumber.

"Culture: Constitution, and the Bill of Rights!" - the Constitution is actually a pretty boring and dated read. Who wants a culture that is boring and dated? The Bill of Rights, however, is a fairly radical document, and activists, lawyers, and ordinary people have been fighting to secure the rights it enumerates for the last 200+ years. This, I like. Maybe a culture based on the Bill of Rights would eliminate kill lists and police brutality and the continuous attempts to control women's bodies through legislation.

"Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!" - This idea can finally die. The State of Florida actually implemented this plan, and found (to few people's surprise) that the program to administer drug testing cost quite a bit more than the money it set out to save by catching supposed cheaters.

"NO freebies to: Non-Citizens" - I'm not really sure what "freebies" non-citizens are receiving. Immigrants have always been a hardworking class of people, proud of their heritage and yet willing to try something new in order to better themselves and their families. Generally, they are just ordinary folks looking for a fair shake, which is why they came here in the first place (much like our own ancestors). Are those really the kind of people we want to complain about and turn away?