Rob, thank you for sharing with us your struggle with what I will call “the marriage problem.”
Marriage – as a public institution – is in deep trouble, there is no doubt about it. And, to be perfectly clear, the trouble has nothing to do with the debate over SSM. Traditionally marriage has had one quantitative and three qualitative elements: two people; man and woman; monogamous; and permanent. Culturally and legally (no fault divorce), the idea of permanence has disappeared. An article in the June 15, 2008 Our Sunday Visitor cites a statistic that over 70% of Catholics don’t think divorce is immoral. Two quick anecdotes. First, I had a receptionist many years ago who changed her mind about her fiancé but decided to go through with the wedding because to her it was easier to get divorced than suffer the embarrassment of sending out notice of wedding cancellation. Second, I had a student in my Catholic Perspectives Seminar this past spring who had never heard that marriage was supposed to be a life-long union until reading for my class. In other words, Fr. Coughlin – in his chapter – was the first person to propose to my student that marriage was permanent.
Marriage is in deep trouble, and the question is what to do about it. Some propose privatizing marriage by getting the state out of the business of privileging marriage. And, if marriage is merely about two (or more) people’s current and transitory preferences, then I’m not sure why the state ought to privilege it. Others argue that it should be opened up to SSM either as a matter of equality and/or as a matter of possibly strengthening the institution itself. As Rob indicates, arguments against this position have a hard time gaining traction in our culture, especially with the use of all sorts of reproductive technology. Several years ago I gave a CLE at the Christian Legal Society annual meeting entitled “Sex, Marriage, and Procreation.” In that talk, I argued that the gay marriage is a logical extension of Griswold v. Connecticut. (As an aside, advocates of SSM are not advocating for equality but for the privileging of SSM along with traditional marriage above all other forms of intimate association).
Biologically, 1 + 1 = 1 when it comes to the coupling of one man and one woman, but 1 + 1 = 0 when it comes to the coupling of two men or two women. In nature, one man and one woman make one reproductive unit. Does this biological fact signify a deeper reality about the nature of man and woman and the relationship between the two or is it merely a fact of nature that has been overcome by technology? Since I believe that the biology signifies a deeper reality – the complementarity of the sexes, and I further believe that the marriage is, as Fr. Araujo said, the foundation of the basic unit of society, I come to the conclusion that we must work to strengthen this wounded institution. But, strengthening it will not come about, IMHO, by extending its privileges to those who are categorically unqualified by reason of biology and what it signifies.
Will this argument be successful? Can it gain traction? Will it even get a hearing in our culture? Can it be articulated in a way that may be persuasive? I don’t know the answers to these questions, and I must confess doubt. One thing is clear, the argument cannot be successful in a secularist culture that sees nothing beyond the biological fact and our ability to overcome the biology. But, I do think that we can make the argument (whether successfully or not) in secular terms in a culture that is open to a deeper meaning.
My thoughts on this subject became clear to me once I understood (it took decades) why the unitive aspect of the marital act could not be separated from the procreative aspect. But, that is even a hard sell among Catholics who can talk in theological terms. But, that is for another day...
Yesterday the Tenth Circuit ruled that Lawrence v. Texas struck down state sodomy laws under a rational basis test. The Ninth and First Circuits have ruled that Lawrence recognized a fundamental right to private adult sexual intimacy. Dale Carpenter comments: "There is a real and growing circuit split on this basic doctrinal issue with potential consequences to a range of governmental policies. Whatever one thinks of the result in Lawrence, the Supreme Court has created a mess that only it will be able to clean up."
I agree with Rick's amendments to my post, but I wanted to disagree with one part of his comments. It is true that many suburban residents have nothing to do with the center city and that roughly half of commuters are suburb-to-suburb. Now, half is not all, so moving towards the core would help, but Rick is right that it would not free suburban dwellers of the need to commute. On the other hand, travel to work is just one way that people use cars, and moving from the outskirts of a metropolitan area to walkable, transit-friendly neighborhood in a closer-in suburb or to a city center would help to eliminate reliance on the car for trips to the store, school, church, the gym, etc. One recent study found that residents of New Urbanist, transit-oriented developments made roughly 50% fewer vehicle trips than residents of traditional suburbs. It's not the whole solution, but it is one way to reduce dependence on the car. Getting employers to move closer in would obviously help as well, but if gas prices remain high, employers located near transit are going to find it easier to recruit employees and enjoy some competitive advantages that might lure other employers back in from the corn fields.
