The Marriage Debate: More Than a Gay Issue
by Michael J. McManus
November 15, 2003
America's Catholic bishops have taken on a cause that can win broad public support - fighting to "support marriage," as Savannah Bishop J. Kevin Boland put it at a recent meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The debate at the moment is focused on whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Vermont's Supreme Court literally ordered the state legislature to legalize homosexual marriage or provide the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, and Vermont enacted America's first same-sex civil union statute. In 2000, then-Gov. Howard Dean, the Democratic front runner for President, signed the law that is same-sex marriage in all but name. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is currently considering a case which would allow gays and lesbians to marry; the liberal court is expected to do so.
If that occurs, the case could move to the U.S. Supreme Court within a year. How would it vote? Court-watchers point to the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned a Texas sodomy law. However, the court went far beyond stating that homosexual acts are legal. It said, "Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression and certain intimate conduct." The Court added, that the case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." However, in his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia quoted that sentence and tartly wrote, "Don't believe it."
Concerned that the courts might force gay marriage on America, a group called the Alliance for Marriage has drafted this Constitutional Amendment: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, or state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal ingredients thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Without saying so directly, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops supported the amendment by voting 234-3 to publish a pamphlet explaining why they oppose making same-sex unions "the legal equivalent of marriage."
First, they defined marriage as "a faithful, exclusive lifelong union of a man and woman" who "commit themselves completely to each other and to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Men and women are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other."
They explained why marriage can exist only between a man and a woman: "The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for the transmission of human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God in marriage."
The bishops note that "The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children: namely the stable, loving relationship of a mother and father present only in marriage." Further, they argue that law plays an educational role on what is socially permissible and acceptable. "In effect, giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage would grant official public approval to homosexual activity and would treat it as if it were morally neutral."
Some bishops wanted to add language of the Vatican that homosexual acts are "intrinsically evil" and "disordered." Others wanted to call it "sinful." By voice vote, those amendments were defeated. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops avoided antagonistic language, in hopes of gaining support not only of Catholics, but "other people of good will who are trying to understand what is at stake."
Bishop Boland, chairman of the bishop's committee that drafted the statement, said in a press conference, "Marriage is in crisis, and its value will be eroded unless we are willing to point out that same sex unions are not equivalent to marriage."
However, the crisis of marriage is not so much the possible impact that gay marriage might have - as it is the actual destruction of heterosexual marriage by divorce.
At the press conference, I asked Bishop Boland, "While you define marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman, the fact is there have been 38 million divorces since 1970 affecting almost as many kids. What is your position on reforming No-Fault Divorce laws which make it possible for one person to unilaterally divorce another? Shouldn't a marriage that was entered into by two people, be exited only with the mutual consent of both people, unless there is a grievous fault such as adultery or physical abuse? Would you support a change from No-Fault Divorce to Mutual Consent Divorce?"
Bishop Boland replied, "Marriage is a permanent, intimate relationship between one man and one woman. The fact there are many divorces does not take away what marriage is. Both the state and the church can regulate marriage, but they can't change its definition. It's the basic unit of society, and we have become very cavalier about it. Does that answer your question?"
I responded, "No. I am talking about the civil law which at present makes divorce very easy to get. Catholic bishops regularly take stands on the need to change other laws. Do you think No Fault Divorce Laws should be changed to require the mutual consent of husband and wife if there are no major faults involved, especially if children are involved?"
While he had apparently never considered it, Boland gamely replied, "We should look into it. We should do everything we can to support stable marriages. Marriage is in a very real crisis situation in our nation." After the press conference, he added, "I agree there must be change of civil law. The states make it easy to divorce, which is a tragedy, creating conflict for the children and a whole quagmire of fights by the couple over property and custody."
Bishop Boland is right. A child of divorce is three times more likely than a child from an intact home to be expelled from school or to conceive a child out of wedlock as a teenager, six times as likely to live in poverty, 12 times as apt to be incarcerated and 14-fold more likely to be physically abused, according to the Heritage Foundation.
Furthermore, the greatest impact on children of divorce is not while they are children – but as adults. Dr. Judith Wallerstein tracked 100 children of 60 divorces for 25 years and wrote a landmark book, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce. The unexpected legacy hits when children enter adulthood. Two-thirds are unable to form lasting bonds with someone of the opposite sex. Of 100 adult children of divorce, only 60 married, of whom 24 have already divorced.
This is not a legacy parents, the church or the state should bequeath to innocent children. That is one reason why the Catholic Church has taken a consistent moral position against divorce. Another is the impact of divorce on adults. In his book, The Broken Heart: The Medical Consequences of Loneliness, J.J. Lynch reveals that divorced men are twice as likely to die in any given year from heart disease, stoke, hypertension and cancer as married men. And death for the divorced is four times more likely via auto accidents and suicide; seven times higher by cirrhosis of the liver and pneumonia. Similarly, divorced women are two to three times as likely to die of cancer as married women. This data provides evidence that Jesus was right when he said, "What God has joined together, let man not separate."
Why should two people be bound together if they no longer want to be bonded? "So often it is just one of the two who is tempted to quit, while the other wants to work at making a success of the marriage," writes Russell Shaw in Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine. Unfortunately, No-Fault Divorce law allows one person to declare in court that the marriage is irreconcilable. If a spouse counters that the marriage is reconcilable, that is no defense; the judge simply forces the divorce on an unwilling partner. Before the first No Fault Divorce was adopted in California in 1969, a partner had to agree to the divorce. He or she had leverage to press for genuine reconciliation, or, failing that, to demand alimony as well as child support or possession of the house. The price was high enough for some warring partners to reconcile their differences. In other cases, at least a more equitable settlement was possible. Sadly, virtually every state now has No Fault Divorce. In her book, Stolen Vows, Judy Parejko writes, "Courts have stolen peoples' ability to make promises to each other."
Three states have passed a modest reform of No Fault Divorce: the Covenant Marriage Law first adopted in 1997 by Louisiana under the leadership of then Rep. Tony Perkins, who is currently President of the Family Research Council in Washington. Couples are given a choice to enter a standard marriage, or a fortified "Covenant Marriage" in which the couple solemnly declares that "marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman who agree to live together as husband and wife for as long as the both may live...We have received premarital counseling on the nature, purposes and responsibilities of marriage. We have read the Covenant Marriage Act, and we understand that a Covenant Marriage is for life. If we experience marital difficulties, we commit ourselves to take all reasonable efforts to preserve our marriage, including marital counseling." In effect, the law permitted couples to waive their rights to no-fault divorce, and to choose a marriage license written in permanent ink, not one with disappearing ink. Divorce is possible, but only after counseling and for such serious faults as adultery, abandonment, physical or sexual abuse, habitual intemperance, or living apart for two years. Similar laws passed in Arizona and Arkansas.
Covenant Marriage Laws held great promise in prompting couples to work harder at saving their marriages for two reasons. First, Catholic leaders of Retrouvaille, a weekend retreat for troubled marriages, report that they can save four out of five deeply troubled marriages. Each weekend is led by Catholic couples whose own marriages had once nearly failed and by a Catholic priest. (See retrouvaille.org). Second, a study at the University of Chicago by Linda Waite found that 86% of unhappily married people, if they stick to their vows for five years – report having a happy marriage five years later.
But what have been the results of Covenant Marriage laws? Only two percent of those marrying in Louisiana have signed up for this more secure marriage. In Arkansas, in 2002 and through May 20, 2003, there were 48,979 marriages, but only 100 Covenant Marriages. Why so few? Clergy marry 86% of all couples. Perhaps pastors did not encourage couples to sign up for the Covenant Marriage. Why not? Louisiana is a state that is 53% Catholic. Surely, Catholic priests know that the Covenant Marriage Law comes closer to traditional Catholic opposition to divorce than the standard marriage which dissolves as soon as one person is unhappy.
Clearly, a more substantial reform is needed. Allen Parkman, a lawyer and an economist at the University of New Mexico, suggests a major reform in his book, Good Intentions Gone Awry: No Fault Divorce and the American Family. He proposes permitting No-Fault Divorce early in marriage, before children, when the damage of marital failure is lower. However, if the couple makes the decision to have children, he would require "mutual consent" for any divorce. Parkman argues that "would encourage spouses to make sacrifices that benefit the marriage," such as a woman giving up a career to care for children. There would be fewer divorces for trivial reasons. And Mutual Consent Divorce would be more equitable. A marriage entered into by two people willingly, should not end without mutual consent, unless there is grievous fault.
If America's Catholic bishops called for a well-designed reform of No Fault Divorce, they could put the issue on the agenda of every state legislature in 2004. It could become an election year issue that candidates would have to take a position on. Some states would pass the reform that would be a model for other states, what Jesus called a "city on a hill." .
Last week, America's Catholic bishops took an important first step to revitalize marriage. However, they must move from simply opposing gay marriage to fight for the reform of heterosexual marriage, which affects millions of families.
Most Catholics and Protestants would applaud such an initiative.
_____________________________
Michael J. McManus is president and co-founder, with his wife, Harriet, of Marriage Savers, a non-profit group that has reduced the divorce rate in more than 100 cities. He also writes a syndicated newspaper column, Ethics & Religion.
Michael J. McManus
Ethics & Religion column
Founder & President
Marriage Savers
9311 Harrington Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
(301) 469-5873
Website: www.marriagesavers.org
 |
 |
