Situating the debate on the question of same-sex unions and marriage is no easy task. Marriage today is already a fragile institution at best. Changing or adding to its meaning seems astonishing when some have even asked, Is marriage obsolete? Since our society is now "postmarital." The problems are many: the increased rate of divorce; the growing number of couples who live together without a civil or church wedding; single-parent families; violence within marriage exampled in battered wives and children, not to mention the sexual abuse of children. In Reclaiming Spirituality, Diarmuid O Murchu proposes that the more fundamental question is not marriage, but rather the central issues surrounding "intimacy, loneliness and disembodied living."

Vatican correspondent John L. Allen Jr. lists the "Top Vatican Stories of 2003" and names as No. 4, close to the top, "Marriage and Homosexuality." He rightly points out that this past year witnessed an increasingly marked defense on the part of the Holy See of monogamous, heterosexual marriage as "the front line of the culture wars." This insistence was also at the heart of the crisis in Anglican/Catholic Canterbury Rowan Williams to Pope John Paul II unfolded under the shadow of the crisis within Anglicanism set off by tow developments concerning same-sex unions by the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada and the election (and subsequent consecration) of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican Communion. These developments pose serious consequences within Anglicanism, not to mention its relationship to Catholicism.

On Jan. 16, 2003, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Public Life." Referring to same-sex marriage, this document calls on Catholics in public office to uphold church teaching on marriage: "in no way," the note indicates, "can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such"

In June 2003, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made this same point in "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons." The congregation strongly maintained that a Catholic politician cannot promote any form of civil recognition for same-sex unions. In other words it is not simply acceptable to preserve the unique legal status of heterosexual marriage, but no support in any fashion can be shown to a legal recognition of same-sex partnerships. The document insists that "one must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection"

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 20, 2004, President Bush articulated a strong denunciation of gay marriage and insisted that "our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." Bush identifies marriage as "one of the most fundamental enduring institutions of our civilization." He added that if judges continue to force their "arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process." Michele Ammons, spokeswoman for the Christian Coalition applauded the president for his "courage" in taking "a stand for the family."

This brief synopsis gives a glimpse into the complexity of this question: upholding the uniqueness of marriage, and indeed its sacredness and sacramentality in Catholic theology, in the midst of myriad difficulties within marriage itself and forces pressing for its redefinition. The central question in the current debate: Whether the meaning or definition of marriage be changed or enlarged to be more inclusive. Is marriage a "special covenant" between a man and a woman or does it lend itself to other meanings, e.g., a union of two persons committed in intimacy and love? This latter question inevitably connects "marriage" with persons of the same sex and their desire, some would argue their right, to also claim marriage as their union of choice.

"It is critical to remember that benefits accorded to families by government and society are not primarily benefits rendered to individuals who are married (although they do extend to married couples without children and to couples whose children are grown). Rather, benefits are rendered to establish a nurturing environment for children. Any discussion of same-sex marriage that misses this point becomes mired in confusion."

When tackling this point, Roman Catholic authorities, among others, have gone out of their way to place the argument in this fashion: It is possible to maintain marriage as a union of a man and woman, either by definition or reasonable legislative intent, while at the same time upholding the dignity and respect due to homosexual persons who want this particular form of partnership. This is a very delicate balance to maintain. To this point, for instance, the 2003 "Statement on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling" by the Massachusetts bishops stated that "it is not the intention of the Catholic community to infringe on the civil rights of homosexuals or anyone else. Our opposition to a redefinition of marriage is to safeguard the institution or marriage for future generations."

This same point is made in the November 2003 statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions." The bishops assert that marriage and same-sex unions are 'essentially different realities," but upholding this fact is not meant to "offend the dignity of homosexual persons". The bishops declare their opposition to "unjust discrimination against homosexual persons" and repeat the teaching of the catechism that homosexual persons "be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity". Bishop Daniel Reilly of Worcester, Mass., attempted to bridge the gap between upholding marriage as a union of a man and woman while respecting homosexuals by suggesting that it is possible for the church to discuss economic justice for "individual" homosexuals, while not recognizing the legality of "same-sex marriage" or "same-sex domestic partnerships." This posture is echoed by Boston Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley, "People of homosexual orientation should be treated with every respect and with compassion, and their rights should be defended."

Marriage

The proposed federal marriage amendment straightforwardly affirms that "marriage in the United States is exclusively a union of one man and one woman." This definition repeats the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which states that in federal law marriage is the "legal union between one man and one women," and a spouse is "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Defending this meaning is not merely an exercise in semantics but a defense of a "public moral culture which recognizes that there are moral truths built into the human condition. One of those truths is that marriage ... is exclusively a union of one man and one woman." Maggie Gallagher of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy insists, therefore, that there are "good things that happen when husbands and wives are joined in permanent, public, sexual, emotional, financial and parenting union," and these "good things" can only be realized in a sexual love that is an expression of sexual complementarity, permanent commitment and generativity."

This definition is in extreme opposition to the meanings given to same-sex unions. An affidavit by a Catholic priest to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2003, e.g., praises the decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeals, the British Columbia Court of Appeals and the Quebec Superior Court for "reformulating" the definition of marriage as "the voluntary union for life of two persons with the exclusion of others." This testimony echoes the fundamental points argued before the county of Suffolk in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The 14th Amendment was cited as precluding government from intruding into "deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and of one's choice of an intimate partner. "The thread that weaves this argument rests strongly on the point that the "right to chose to marry" is a "fundamental right."

Advocates of this position generally sustain these arguments:

First: Marriage is the highest form of public recognition of "personal integrity" and denying it to same-sex people is an "affront to their civil equality." Such a denial constitutes the "imposition of unjustified inequality." Parity, then, is the key issue.

Second: Sexual relationships should be defined primarily by love and commitment, rather than by a "specific form," e.g., one man and one woman. All persons have deep erotic and human desires for closeness and friendship, and these desires form the bedrock of the meaning of marriage. William Eskridge, the prominent advocate of same-sex marriage, thus argues that marriage is a matter of "simple justice" because all persons have a "right to intimate relationships" protected by the "unitive" institution of marriage.

Third: Marriage is primarily a choice, an agreement between individuals. Marriage is, therefore, invented rather than natural. Marriage above all, then, is a private choice arising from one's own personal reasons and desires. Personal support is the central expectation of marriage.

In viewing these approaches, it is important to keep in mind that advocates of same-sex marriage do not wish to undermine the "institution" of marriage nor to abolish it. In general they do not attack the binary nature of marriage or any of the main gate-keeping provisions of marriage-licensing law such as consanguinity. What is desired is "inclusion": to legally permit same-sex persons to enter the "institution" of marriage and consequently realize its many benefits: e.g. property rights; medical insurance; medical decisions; custody rights; economic protections.

Set against this panorama is this belief that marriage has a meaning prior to individual wishes, desires and choices, and this meaning cannot be realized by persons of the same sex. This affirmation does not mean that homosexual people do not have hopes or seek lasting and significant relationships. It does not mean, as some argue, that homosexuals are "second-class citizens" if denied marriage. Let us view this point from two perspectives:

A Secular Perspective

Marriage is a union that enhances the welfare of the community and of society because it anchors "family," which lies at the heart of any ordered society. Marriage is a union which encourages stable over transient relationships and ensures that children are properly and adequately cared for. Can a some-sex couple "properly and adequately" care for a child? Adequate data is not available in this regard, even though there are doubtlessly a number of same-sex couples who have children whom they deeply love, nourish and care for. There is more than adequate evidence to show that heterosexual marriage, committed to fidelity and permanence, is the very best place of fostering stability for the full nourishing and growth of a child. Some argue that gender and sexual orientation make no difference in nurturing children; the main ingredients are a safe, consistent and supportive environment. It is an untested assertion that this is true, and history demonstrates that children learn about sex and gender first of all from their parents. To preclude these factors, then, seems overly naïve at best, and inconclusive at the least.

Heterosexual marriage remains the principal weave of our social fabric and de facto provides the normative link to procreation. A child binds together husband and wife and places them in a critical relationship to themselves and their child. Society cannot separate heterosexual intercourse, marriage, procreation and child care. This is the normative understanding of family, and family grounds all of society.

It is critical to remember that benefits accorded to families by government and society are not primarily benefits rendered to individuals who are married (although they do extend to married couples without children and to couples whose children are grown). Rather, benefits are rendered to establish a nurturing environment for children. Any discussion of same-sex marriage that misses this point becomes mired in confusion.

It is impossible to justify special benefits to married couples if these benefits are seen first and foremost as benefits to the spouses themselves. Sexuality is indeed a creative force that aligns people together in intimacy; however, the main stabilizing factor is the begetting and rearing of a child. Human sexuality seeks to beget new life, and only the procreative dimension of sexuality within a committed heterosexual marriage can fully realize this basic human factor. The "procreative purpose" of sex cannot be adequately grasped by a mere understanding of acts of sexual intercourse. It is parenthood that makes sex, or the couple's sexual relationship, fully accountable and contributory to the well-being of society beyond the couple. Consequently, in the same-sex marriage debate, it is not only the unity of love and procreation that is at stake, but also the social implications of sex and its reproductive potential.

In this fashion, a man and a woman unite their entire persons in marriage and create a "new union" radically different than simple sexual intercourse. Marriage is, then, a social structure which embodies four interlocking dimensions: consummation, a bodily union which is open to new life (the structural dimension); companionship, a relationship of mutuality (the social dimension); consent, a choice to marry a particular person (the subjective dimension); and covenant, a promise of total commitment (the anthropological dimension). The law cannot require a married couple to love one another, to have children or to stay together for life. But the law can and does require that marriage be modeled in accord with its inherent unitive and procreative nature, which means, as a matter of fact, the union of a male and a female.

A Theological Perspective

The 1981 exhortation of Pope John Paul II Familiaris Consortio ("On the Family), sets the parameters for the church's teaching on marriage. The pope explains that marriage and the family find their ultimate origin and mission "in the plan of God". From "the beginning" God's "creative act" set in motion marriage as an "intimate communion of life and love' which finds its fulfillment in enhancing the world and the kingdom of God with new life. Familiaris Consortio repeats the teaching of the 1980 synod on the family by insisting that marriage sustains four general objectives: to form a community of persons, to serve life, to participate in the development of society and to share in the life and mission of the church. Christ inscribes in a married couple "a new heart," which helps them to overcome "hardness of heart" and thus serve as faithful witnesses of God's plan for humankind.

Sexuality is the means by which a man and a woman give themselves to one another in not merely some biological fashion, but more significantly in a total human bond (una vita) which is a sign of their complete personal self-giving, with the promise of new life, thus precisely imaging God's love for his people. The crowning of marriage is the family, wherein a married couple cooperates with God (cooperators Dei) in the procreation and nourishing of children. This teaching is at the heart of the 1965 Vatican Council II document Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World): In marriage, a man and a woman "are no longer two but one flesh" as they create an indissoluble bond of a life-long covenant wherein their marital intimacy finds its completion in the procreation of children. Gaudium et Spes summarizes this vision in this way: "Of their nature, marriage and married love are directed toward the begetting and bringing up of children. Children are the supreme gift of a marriage, and they contribute greatly to the good of their parents. God, who said 'it is not good that the Man should be alone' (Gn. 2:18) and who 'from the beginning made them male and female' (Mt 19:4), wished to give them a special share in the divine work of creations and blessed the man and woman, saying, 'be fruitful and multiply' (Gn. 1:28). Thus the true practice of marital love and the whole dimension of family life which results from it, without prejudice to the other purposes of marriage, point toward married couples courageously prepared to cooperate with the love of the Creator and Savior, who is daily increasing and enriching his family through them".

Theologically speaking, then, marriage is much more than a personal commitment of love to another person. Rather, in a marriage, commitment is primarily to a community, carrying the promise of the beginning of a new community. Marriage is more than partnership and love as it entails a combination of personal and interpersonal relations. In other words, marriage is not simply an intimate relation to a private other, but rather a commitment to foster a community of intersecting relationships and interests, marked critically in the creating of new life.

Perspectives of marriage which make its central component simply a matter of interpersonal affection and love mirror the individualism of modern society and in fact contribute to the breakdown of marriages. One author states the problem clearly: "The logical progress of this trend in modern Western society, where love is conceived as being the single most important consideration in the choice of spouse and in the relationship between husband and wife, is that the loss of sentiments of love on the part of one spouse toward the other (or mutually) is more likely than ever to be perceived by them as indicative of the breakdown of their marriage." Consequently, marriage can never be viewed simply as a "private affair."

A Catholic Perspective

In Catholicism: The Story of Catholic Christianity, O'Collins and Farrugia point out that there are certain "distinctive and persistent" moral convictions in Catholic moral teaching, one of which is that "men and women were both created in the image and likeness of God and find through marriage their human and religious fulfillment." As the whole biblical testimony avows, God created man and woman to overcome their singular loneliness by becoming "one flesh" and thus one spirit. Marriage is a promise to foster genuine conjugal love and to cooperate with God in the transmission of new life. This belief grounds the teachings of two important documents relating to same-sex unions: "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons" from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and "Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions" From the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Vatican document points out that "marriage is not just any relationship between human beings, but a "form of life" created and missioned by God to enable a man and woman to leave their parental home, cling to their spouse and, by sexual complementarity and fruitfulness, contribute to the work of creation by begetting children. This is God's plan for marriage, and no other type of union is "even remotely analogous". Same-sex unions are unable intrinsically, i.e., biologically and anthropologically, to create a "marriage" as they are unable to foster authentic sexual complementarity and the fostering of new life.

"Each man and woman is a whole person who discovers deeper life within the community of the two sexes. As a result, the interaction of the two whole beings leads to a more fertile result, and their bonding in marriage adds up to more than two, thus developing true complementarity, which enriches themselves, their children and society."

The U.S. bishops' statement likewise upholds the singular nature of marriage and demonstrates that only a male and female can fully complement one another, create "true conjugal union" and bring children into the world. Marriage is the basic unit of society and the family, and constitutes what the "Second Vatican Council called a 'domestic church'". Marriage and the family are unique in their "irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children". Any attempt to equate same-sex unions with marriage devalues marriage itself as a union of complementarity and procreativity.

These teachings lead to clear and unequivocal conclusions:

First, the theological anthropology of Genesis 1 and 2 roots the existence of human sexuality in its male and femaleness, and is an essential part of humanity's being created in the image and likeness of God. The relationship between male and female is neither casual nor accidental, but rather sacred and grounded in the very depth of created being.

Second, complementarity is at the very heart of the sexual image. In the garden, the man and the woman were made for each other and as complementary of each other. The physical, moral and spiritual "difference" and "complementarity" are oriented toward the good of marriage and the flourishing of family life. In raising the marriage of the baptized to a sacrament, Christ transforms sexual difference and complementarity, making married couples participatory in the redemptive mystery of Christ and his relationship to the church.

Third, marriage exists for the mutual love and support of the spouses, and for the procreation and education of children. Marriage is equally unitive and procreative, rooted in sexual difference and complementarity. In marriage, couples thus acquire a special relationship to one another and to society.

Fourth, a man and woman relate asmasculine and feminie and display different affects the development of gender identity in their children. Man and women are not one-half of a human being and in need of the other half to be whole. On the contrary, each man and woman is a whole person who discovers deeper life within the community of the two sexes. As a result, the interaction of the two whole beings leads to a more fertile result, and their bonding in marriage adds up to more than two, thus developing true complementarity, which enriches themselves, their children and society. No other form of sexual union can provide this total union. Marriage is, then, the basic unit of society whereby a man and a woman make a total commitment to each other, give of themselves completely, nourish intimacy and gift the world with children. The "one flesh" of Genesis 2:24 can only be achieved in the unity of one man and one woman committed to a covenant of faithful marriage, open to the promise of new life.

Fifth, sexual intercourse between married men and women exemplifies the purpose of human sexuality: Two distinct persons unite their entire persons into a dynamic sexual community and move beyond themselves to assure future generations. No other form of sexual activity can provide this total union. Only heterosexual intercourse in marriage embodies the substantive premises of consummation, difference, complementarity and covenant. Heterosexual marriage is thus the most basic institution of society.

To read the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Statement on Same Sex Marriage please go to their web site at http://www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexunions.shtml.