From: Finbar McMullen, FSC
Eight weeks have gone by and none of those highly educated people who rail against same-sex marriages have been able to explain how this practice harms family. I am indebted to Rev. John V. Carrier for the letter he wrote to this newspaper detailing how it is heterosexuals who are destroying family. They are the ones who get married and then divorced, breaking up families. My guess is that homosexuals who enter a regular marriage, and later find out that they are not being true to themselves, make up less than one-half of one percent of the divorce rate. I cannot imagine anyone who would say that families are not important. I do not know of any other church that matches what the Catholic Church does to prepare its members for success in marriage. Our belief is that the sacrament of matrimony gives couples help to make a success of their marriage. It is the right and even duty of the Catholic Church to protect the sacrament of matrimony because we hold that it was given to us by Jesus at the marriage in Cana where he worked his first miracle. But it is obvious that people grow up with forces in society that make it necessary to do more than just rely on the help from the sacrament. But, as to this amendment, the Catholic Church owns the sacrament of matrimony, but not the marriage. Marriage is a civil contract. It just happens that civil authorities accept a minister of religion as the official witness of this contract. This is a special benefit that we enjoy. It is not so in France, where a couple can have a religious ceremony, but must also have a separate civil marriage. So, the question is, “Should a religious authority inject himself into what is strictly a civil contract?” It is especially troubling when a religious authority, such as the Archbishop of Newark, N. J., threatens to refuse communion to any Catholic who would vote against the marriage amendment in New Jersey. This is doubly so since the claim that same-sex marriages destroy families is a blatant lie, with absolutely no evidence to sustain it. I expect this conduct from Republicans who tell one lie after another to support their claims, Romney not excepted. It was not his idea, as he claimed, to look for qualified women to appoint to office in Massachusetts. The truth is that a bipartisan group of women came to both candidates before the election to get them to pledge to increase the number of women in high offices. They gave both candidates ring binders with the resumes of qualified women. To Romney’s credit, he increased that number from 30% to 42%. However, by the time he left office it was down to 25%.
He talks out of both sides of his mouth so often that he can say anything and make it seem sincere. If I had my druthers, I would like to see homosexuals invent another word, but the word “marriage” has many emotional undercurrents that no other word could generate. Homosexuals are just like the rest of the population. There will be stable marriages and broken ones; some will make good adopting couples, and some will not. But what else is new? Adoption is not all peaches and cream with heterosexuals who adopt. We live in a messy world. It has always been messy, the Garden of Eden notwithstanding. Can’t we just try to make life better for everyone? Can’t we be just plain honest?