HONOLULU (CNS) — U.S. District Court Judge Alan Kay in an Aug. 8 ruling said Hawaii’s laws banning same-sex marriage “are not unconstitutional,” and he threw out a lawsuit that had argued otherwise.

The Hawaii Family Forum, a Christian educational organization, had intervened in the case to defend Hawaii’s marriage statutes, and its attorney, Jim Hochberg, said he was pleased Kay “agreed with every argument,” except one, “made on behalf of” the forum.

Three people had filed a lawsuit, supported by Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, asking the court to declare unconstitutional the 1998 constitutional amendment that gave the state legislature the power to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and the state law that subsequently did that. They argued that the amendment and the law violated due process and equal protection under the law.

Kay disagreed, however, saying any restructuring of “the traditional institution of marriage” should be done through the legislature or by the people by amending the constitution and “not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately pre-empt democratic deliberation.”

He said the state could conclude that it has addressed the same sex marriage issue over the years “with caution,” first when the legislature established reciprocal-beneficiary relationships 15 years ago and last year when it legalized civil unions.

“To suddenly constitutionalize the issue would short-circuit the legislative actions,” he said.

Our esteem as Christians for that unique friendship which we call marriage arises from not only the natural union of a woman and a man that begins when they consent to it but also its call to reflect the nature and generous love of God. God is a trinity of persons, equal yet unique. Married love is a creation in this image.
No legislation of its contents or parameters will ever quite be able to define its mystery. However, there was a time when what civil law calls marriage embraced a  generous understanding than what is has devolved towards.
Restoring a sense of the full potential of marriage will not be accomplished through any legislation – civil or canonical – alone, however protective or well-intentioned it may be. Needless to say, neither will the use of slogans and mantras that sound like they come another era, like the French Revolution (“liberty, equality and fraternity”) or the suggestion of facile comparisons with the struggle against slavery or for civil liberties. It has yet been to be determined whether or to what extent there is, in fact, a Constitutional “right” to marry or whether any particular legal definition of marriage is even a federal issue, that power having always resided in the states. Even the so-characterized “evolution” of President Obama’s “position” (as he calls it) on same-sex marriage, which has invited any number of accolades and critiques, does not appear to include a political strategy for legislative change. His statement neither proposes nor challenges any laws.
The controversy over “same sex marriage,” in any event, will not likely be resolved without a consensus on what marriage is, which cannot be forced by law.  In the present socio-political climate in the U.S., this is unlikely to occur any time soon.  When asked to opine on the issue, many people begin with the words “I feel” or “I believe.”  How can one argue with a feeling or a belief?  The appeals of those seeking legislation either to change or uphold traditional understandings of marriage are often emotional and anecdotal. Witness the recent strategy used effectively to enact New York’s so-called “Marriage Equality Act,” whose title merely begs the question: equal to what? Precisely what understanding of marriage can a same-sex union be said to be equal to?
If marriage is traditionally understood as (a) a partnership of mutual aid and affection (b) between a woman and a man (c) uniquely oriented towards the new life their love generates and nurtures mutually (d) and for life, then several of these components would seem to be absent from some contemporary definitions, and not only same-sex unions.
History is not always progress. The institution of marriage has, for some time now, been suffering from erosion. Civil divorce is now virtually institutionalized – even celebrated – thus breaking the promise of permanence (for life). The contraceptive mentality is widespread.  For some couples the promise of generous love does not extend to children after a certain point, if ever. What remains unique to civil marriage except a physical and emotional relationship sanctioned by a state? What does registration under the label “marriage” add but evidence for certain rights guaranteed by law that could as easily be contracted to?
As disheartening as it might be for those seeking to preserve the fuller meaning of marriage to observe a president, wittingly or not, contributing to its deconstruction, the tidal wave has long since passed over us and we are living already amidst the social devastation. Much courage and sacrifice will be demanded to bear witness to a world where happiness is thought to derive from receiving gratification quickly rather than creating beauty slowly, patiently and with infinite, forgiving love. In the end, true married love will find a way of bearing witness to its indestructible mystery.

by Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

My dear brothers and sisters in the Lord,

This is the fourth of a series on the Theology of the Body.

This week, President Obama thrust the issue of same-sex marriage into the headlines. Given that we are six months away from a national election, that he would choose now to flip-flop on the issue of marriage, can only be described as political expediency. Perhaps, we can take this as an opportunity to examine the fourth and final topic as we address questions related to the theology of the body.
The spousal meaning of the body, as articulated by John Paul II, reveals that the human body and human sexuality were purposely designed by God to enable man and woman to enact their complete self-donation and self-surrender in love in marriage. This giving and receiving of oneself in the marital embrace also, by God’s design, has the potential of bringing about new life. Thus, the deepest purposes of the sexual act and marriage are revealed: the self-surrender and union of the spouses in love and the possibility of new life flowing from that act.  Any use of our sexuality that does not respect those two inseparable dimensions is a misuse of the God-given gift of human sexuality.
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons states, “Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.”
It is not easy to state in just one paragraph the fundamental principle on which we base our belief and teaching. Yet, it goes beyond mere belief or doctrine. It is based on the nature of the human person. It is from here that all Catholic moral teaching, even in the area of social ethics, takes its beginning: the fundamental dignity of the human person. The human person lives on many levels: biological, psychological, and spiritual. Human sexuality pervades each one of these levels of existence. It is, however, the integrity of the human person that must be the guiding principle for moral behavior.
If the dignity of the human person is our beginning point, where must this take us when we apply it to those who have a homosexual orientation and find it difficult to abstain from homosexual acts?  This is a pastoral concern. However, some distinctions must be made regarding the intrinsic evil and distinct disordering of homosexual acts as distinguished from persons themselves.
No person is evil; however, certain acts in themselves can be evil. Nevertheless, the person’s moral responsibility for that act is not judged solely on the basis of objective criteria. Rather, any culpability must be judged through the lens of the person who acts, even if those acts are disordered.
The Catholic Church recognizes the fact that persons with same-sex attraction have often been the object of violence in action and in speech. The Church declares clearly and forcefully that these persons should not be the object of any discrimination or violence. At the same time, we cannot equate sexual orientation with race, nationality or other characteristics that frequently give rise to unjust discrimination.
The Church warns that we cannot generalize in judging cases or individuals. We cannot assume that the sexual behavior of homosexually oriented persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable.  What is at stake is the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him or her dignity, a dignity to be recognized as belonging to the persons themselves.
This brings us to the question of the  origin of homosexuality. There is no conclusive scientific evidence, one way or another, that homosexuality arises from genetic, hormonal, or psychological causes. At the same time, the issue of nature and nurture leads us to understand that certain influences can lead a person to act in ways for which they are not totally responsible.   Today, some advocates of homosexuality believe that homosexuality is a choice and therefore it is fruitless to seek an outside determination of the homosexual orientation. They conclude that the homosexual lifestyle should be respected as are any other lifestyles.
The pastoral care of homosexuals is a great concern for the Church. The Bishops Conference of the United States issued two separate documents aimed at discussing these matters.  First in 1997, “Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers” was issued, and then, in 2006, “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclinations: Guidelines for Pastoral Care.”
Today, some persons refer to themselves as “LBGT,” or gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. This pneumonic seems to have found its way even into our Church parlance. These labels do damage to individual persons. To label a person as straight or as gay, or any other label, is to see only one aspect of their personality as determining all that they are. This truly does not respect the full dignity of the human person. Whenever we try to concentrate on labels or use the same categories that are used by the advocates of any lifestyle, we fall into traps that are inescapable.  The pastoral care of persons with same-sex attraction must be directed to their spiritual well-being in a non-discriminatory fashion. They are welcome always to the Church and should be welcomed by all. But at the same time, we cannot condone homosexual activity.
The second document of the U.S. Bishops Conference mentioned above, “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclinations: Guidelines for Pastoral Care,” deals with more of the doctrinal matters involved in pastoral care. It states, “Sometimes the Church is misinterpreted or misrepresented as teaching that persons with homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, as if everything about them were disordered or rendered morally defective by this inclination. The disorder is in that particular inclination, which is not ordered toward the fulfillment of the natural ends of human sexuality.” This must be the touchstone for understanding the compassion towards a person of homosexual inclination, while at the same time the Church must resolve to assist persons to deal with their inclinations, and, with the help of God’s grace, to overcome them. We cannot abandon those with these inclinations; we must support them to live a life of chastity and integrity and to find the road to happiness which is available to everyone who seeks to do the will of God.
We are reminded of the sacredness of the human person and the intended ends for which God has created us, male and female, in our individual sexuality.  At times, an individual struggles to integrate and exercise sexuality properly according to his or her state in life, whether it be married, single or celibate. As sexual persons, we put out into the deep.  There are a few contemporary guideposts that seem to point in the right direction.  Hopefully, a deeper understanding of the theology of the body will not only give guidance and support to all who struggle, but also a way of trying to understand that the God-given sexuality is a gift.

by Carol Zimmermann,

WASHINGTON (CNS) – The same-sex marriage issue will be facing lawmakers and voters in several states this year.

Democratic-controlled legislatures in Washington state, Maryland and New Jersey are considering legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage, while Maine voters will vote on a same-sex marriage referendum in November.

Voters in North Carolina and Minnesota will consider constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In New Hampshire, the Republican-controlled legislature is gearing up to vote on a bill that could reverse that state’s same-sex marriage law.

Maryland Gov. Martin J. O’Malley, a Catholic, is sponsoring legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. If it passes, Maryland will be the seventh state, plus the District of Columbia, to allow same-sex marriages.

Mary Ellen Russell, executive director of the Maryland Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state’s bishops, said same-sex marriage is being pushed by a small group of advocates.

“If we dismantle the connection between marriage and mothers and fathers of children, we risk losing sight of the tremendous importance of keeping the nuclear family intact,” she told The Catholic Review, newspaper of the Baltimore Archdiocese.

Treating marriage differently from other relationships is not discrimination, Russell added, noting that there are already laws on the books that provide benefits for those in same-sex relationships.

Last July, after a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland was effectively dead by the close of the legislative session, O’Malley vowed to introduce the bill in the 2012 legislative session.

Two days before the governor’s announcement, then-Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien of Baltimore privately wrote to him asking that he not promote the redefinition of marriage. O’Malley told the archbishop he was “sworn to uphold the law without partiality or prejudice.” The archbishop’s letter and O’Malley’s response were later released to the media.

The archbishop, now cardinal-designate, is currently apostolic administrator of the Baltimore Archdiocese; last August he was appointed pro-grand master of the Equestrian Order (Knights) of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem, based in Rome.

He told The Catholic Review he thought it was “arrogant” to dismiss traditional marriage, and that some Maryland delegates view traditional marriage as “old-fashioned.”

“Because they have friends who might be gay,” he said, “they think it’s all right to question this whole thing and to vote for an overturn (of the definition of marriage).”

Should Maryland lawmakers vote to legalize same-sex marriage, opponents have promised to take the issue to voters through a referendum.

In New Jersey, leaders in the Democratic-controlled legislature have made a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in that state a top priority. However, Gov. Chris Christie has vowed to veto such a bill if it passes, saying he wants the issue to be placed on the ballot.

The state’s Catholic bishops said in a Jan. 20 statement that traditional marriage “has its roots in natural law.”

“As citizens, we must protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” they said. “Same sex unions may represent a new and a different type of institution – but it is not marriage and should not be treated as marriage.”

The bishops said the state’s Civil Union Act, signed into law in December 2006, “already provides practical rights, benefits and protections for persons who choose to establish nonmarital unions.”

At a town hall meeting, Christie said the issue of “whether or not to redefine hundreds of years of societal and religious traditions, should not be decided by 121 people in the statehouse in Trenton. … The institution of marriage is too serious to be treated like a political football.”

On a 4-3 vote, a Washington state Senate committee Jan. 26 passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage and sent it to the full Senate. Gov. Christine Gregoire, who also is Catholic, has pledged to sign this bill into law.

In a Jan. 23 testimony before a Senate committee, Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain urged lawmakers to oppose the measure.

He said the bill has “elicited strong emotions on both sides” and hoped the voice of Catholic bishops in the state “contributes significantly to the discussion of a matter that has serious long-range implications for our state and society at large.”

Archbishop Sartain said bishops oppose the bill “based on the grave challenge this legislation poses to the common good. By attempting to redefine marriage, it ignores the origin, purpose and value of marriage to individuals, families and society.”

He noted that “not everyone holds our faith and beliefs, but the universal principles that form the basis for our position are readily discernible by all people. They transcend any particular society, government, or religious community; in fact, they are built into human life itself.”

In Colorado, proposals to legalize same-sex civil unions are expected to be put forth in the new legislative session.

The Colorado Catholic Conference, in a statement posted on its website, said that the “major flaw with civil union legislation is that in its language and practical effect it creates an alternative, parallel structure to marriage using explicitly spousal language.”

The statement also noted the state’s constitution defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. “It does little good to protect marriage in our state constitution, on the one hand, and legally recognize other unions, such as civil unions, that compete with it for equality. Civil unions are essentially marriage under another name and all implications of these types of unions have not been fully discerned or discussed.”

“To be clear, in opposing civil unions we have no desire to deny anyone his or her fundamental civil rights,” the statement said, adding that “nearly every benefit being sought by” civil union legislation “or any legislation that seeks to redefine marriage … is already legally available to Coloradans.”

SEATTLE (CNS) – Legislation introduced by lawmakers in Washington state that would redefine marriage to allow same-sex marriage “is not in the public interest,” said the bishops of the state’s three Catholic dioceses.
“Marriage in faith and societal traditions is acknowledged as the foundation of civilization. It has long been recognized that the stability of society depends on the stability of family life in which a man and a woman conceive and nurture new life,” the bishops said.

by Mark Pattison,

WASHINGTON (CNS) – A letter signed by more than three dozen U.S. religious leaders objects to the specter of religious groups being forced to treat same-sex unions “as if they were marriage.”

“Altering the civil definition of ‘marriage’ does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once,” said the letter, “Marriage and Religious Freedom: Fundamental Goods That Stand or Fall Together,” released Jan. 12.

“By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status – such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, health care, elder care, housing, property and taxation – will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage,” it said.

“That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries – including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others.”

Four Catholic bishops were among the 39 religious leaders signing the letter: Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Bishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of Oakland, Calif., chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage; Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman of the USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty; and Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Ind., chairman of the USCCB Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth.

Other signers included top representatives of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Assemblies of God, the Church of the Nazarene and the Salvation Army, along with a collection of smaller Protestant denominations, seven pan-Christian associations including the National Association of Evangelicals, and two representatives of Orthodox and Hasidic Judaism.

Religious employers would “face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action – no matter how modest – against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil ‘marriage’ with a member of the same sex. This is not idle speculation, as these sorts of situations have already come to pass,” the letter said. “Even where religious people and groups succeed in avoiding civil liability in cases like these, they would face other government sanctions – the targeted withdrawal of government cooperation, grants or other benefits.”

The letter cited the case of Portland, Maine, which required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex domestic partners as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds.

“There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result,” the letter said.

Because those who object to giving equality to same-sex partners have been marked as “bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists,” the letter predicted other consequences if same-sex marriage were to gain more legitimacy.

“These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil ‘marriage’ is redefined in additional jurisdictions,” it said. “Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage.”

The push to alter the definition of marriage “warrants special attention within our faith communities and throughout society as a whole,” the letter said, because such an action would have “grave consequences,” including interfering with the “religious freedom of those who continue to affirm” traditional marriage.

“The promotion and protection of marriage – the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife – is a matter of the common good and serves the well-being of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people,” the letter said.

The value of traditional marriage transcends any society or government, is “a universal good” and is the “foundational institution of all societies,” it said.

Someone in the newsroom looked at the day’s headlines and said, “Looks like another bad day for the Church!”
A glance at the rundown of news can be depressing.  President Obama has thrown his support behind legislation pending in both houses of Congress that would repeal the 15-year-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  This would allow legally married same-sex couples to take advantage of the same benefits married heterosexual couples receive under federal law.
Ironically called the Respect for Marriage Act, the legislation would end what its supporters consider illegal discrimination against legally married same-sex couples.
However, advocates for traditional marriage point out that it would open the door to redefining marriage and would eventually force states where same-sex marriage is illegal to recognize such unions.
Daniel Avila, policy adviser for marriage and family to the U.S. bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, told Catholic News Service that arguments for the repeal of DOMA on grounds that it violates basic civil rights hinge on the definition of marriage itself.
“The Church’s position, which is the position which agrees with that of other religions as well as secular organizations and groups, is that marriage is the union of man and woman,” Avila said. “You can’t take away the reference in the definition to sexual difference without then changing what marriage is.”
Thanks to Gov. Andrew Cuomo and some backdoor politics, New York already has passed its own version of “Respect for Marriage,” called the Marriage Equality Act. Last weekend, more than 400 same-sex marriage ceremonies were conducted across the state. As if to rub salt into open wounds, Cuomo kept state buildings open so that the first unions could be declared legal on the Lord’s Day.
Not to be outdone, opponents of same-sex marriages held rallies to protest the new law.  The largest one was in Manhattan where State Sen. Ruben Diaz led thousands in a demonstration in favor of traditional marriage. Of course, reading the daily newspapers in New York City, you wouldn’t even know that such rallies had taken place.  Instead, readers were subjected to page after page of same-sex wedding photos.
Others also are determined to take action.  In an interview on Currents, the daily news show seen on The NET,  the Rev. Jason J. McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, said that he has filed an appeal in state court to repeal the new same-sex marriage bill on the grounds that it was rammed through the legislative process with complete disregard for proper procedure.
“Constitutional liberties were violated,” he said. “Today we are asking the court to intervene in its rightful role as the check and balance on an out-of-control State Legislature.”
Other New Yorkers who are fed up with this secular philosophy that is infecting American society can make a difference by participating in the political process.  Had enough?  Join the New York State Catholic Conference’s legislative hotline to get better informed and involved.  Log on to www.nyscatholic.org.