California's Decision

Well, I caught glimpses of same-sex couples in California lining up for marriage licenses this morning, courtesy of CNN. This issue has, lately, created sort of a conundrum for me. On the one hand, it goes against my nature to want to deny someone the same opportunities for happiness and stability that have been granted to me. So, part of me is in agreement with California, Massachusetts and other states that have granted same-sex unions. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is against it. So, there's my problem. I have always been one who wants to use my faith to justify good behavior and vice versa. There are many out there who feel that if you are Catholic, you cannot and should not support same-sex unions. I have prayed about this issue and have thought, academically and politically about it, as well. In my family and among my circle of friends and acquaintances there have been homosexuals. There aren't deviants; they aren't out to destroy family values. In my experience, they are just people in search of happiness and the American Dream...aren't we all? And, yes, Church and State are kept separate...what I'm talking about here is my own personal struggle with the issue and what my response as a good American citizen who is also Catholic should be.

The Catholic argument against homosexuality goes something like this:

1. Homosexual acts are gravely disordered because they go against natural law. This natural law is designed towards procreation. In other words, because homosexual relations cannot result in the conception of a child, the act itself is depraved. For the Church, this is quite logical because, as Catholics, we are also against contraception, pre-marital sex, and abortion. So the Church, in its teachings on marriage, is consistent in that the sex act itself serves the purpose of both procreation and unity. To separate either purpose from the act is an offense against natural law.
2. Homosexuals are called to a life of chastity and are to be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination is to avoided in their regard. (CCC 2358-2359).

Here's the rub, for me. As a country, is it possible to reserve civil unions for heterosexual couples, even though that could be seen as discriminatory? On the other hand, does granting civil unions to same-sex couples automatically sanction the act of homosexuality which goes against natural law? It seems the answer to second question is yes while the answer to the first question is no. I guess the Church (or an orthodox Catholic) might argue that if preserving natural law necessitates discriminatory behavior, then natural law must trump. That makes sense to me. But, we do live in a country that does not recognize itself as Christian or Catholic and strives to separate the entities of Church and state for the benefit of the inclusion of rights for all. That, I feel, is what makes this country great.

So, in the end, I end up separating my religious faith from my politics (a very bad thing I know). How do I justify it? I guess I can't. All I do know is that when the argument is made that homosexuality is an offense against heterosexual marriage, I stop listening. There are so many other grave offense against heterosexual marriage that I don't even think homosexual unions show up on the radar. Marriage, in general, is no longer looked at as a sacramental union between anyone. Instead, our culture seems to view marriage as something that is to be entered into for convenience, for fun, and for the moment. Divorce abounds; adultery is commonplace; etc. So does that mean, we should just add homosexual unions to the list of "offenses"? I don't know. Perhaps I've just convinced myself that homosexual unions are not ideal. But I think I see homosexual unions as something that has sprung up as a result of our disrespect and disregards for marriage in general. Rather than persecuting the homosexuals in search of stability, acknowledgement, and happiness, then, our best bet may be to start with taking a good hard look at what makes heterosexual unions so wonderful in the first place and why they are worth saving at all.

I did want to clarify that if I see homosexual unions as an offense against anything, it would be against the sacramental purpose of marriage. This means, I would see homosexual unions as an offense against the Church. I don't think, at this time, that homosexual unions pose a threat to the state. In fact, I think such unions could be good for the state and would, therefore, have to agree with the civil proceedings and rights that are granted to same-sex couples in search of such a union. For their part, many homosexual couples don't give a darn what any Church thinks about their union. They just want the right to be happy and they want the right to share in the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy (and probably take for granted). Again, taking religion out of the picture, what is wrong with that?