The Elephant in the Room
“As a Party, we believe in the importance of traditional marriage between a man and a woman and remain committed to finding common ground to champion the family’s role in society.”
Rainbows came out of the corporate woodwork last week to celebrate the Supreme Court’s opinion and de facto acceptance of same-sex marriage (SSM) as a Constitutional guarantee.
The reactions across my Washington network of colleagues, friends and acquaintances were fairly split but highly predictable. Catholic and Christian friends were shocked and dismayed and Republican and libertarian friends were excited to put this civil rights violation to death.
You see, the issue confronting the Republican party is not something new. Yes, it has been brushed under the rug for some time. Whether as a result of tradition, party elders, or — some might say—latent bigotry, the Republican party has strongly remained the party of one man and one woman.
However, champions of this new “social justice” are emerging as the old power-brokers pass on their torch. Earlier this year more than 300 top Republicans called on the Supreme Court to do exactly what they did last week: recognize same-sex marriage.
Can you blame them? The rate at which the SSM lobby has ascended to power is astounding. It absolutely has the power of the civil rights movement. Plus, aside gender issues, SSM is one of the most nuclear issues confronting Republican politicians running for re-election. Taking a stance is highly polarizing.
There is something deeper under the surface, though. More than just pandering and politics. For all of the establishment vs. tea party vs. culture warrior nomenclature, there is an intense yearning at the base of our party for this “human right” to be affixed to our party platform.
Why? It always comes back to our own families and personal experiences. Republicans are no less affected by the secular encroachment.
As a dying Christian nation, skyrocketing divorce rates and rampant use of contraception have made our realities incompatible with traditional marriage, leaving only an unsubstantiated and inexplicable disdain for homosexuality. As troubled families have watered down the meaning behind marriage, so too have they succumbed to a hypocrisy in defending it. Most Republicans simply cannot hide behind “traditional marriage” any longer.
This deteriorated husk of what was once “marriage” is now a stolen and splintered understanding of the first sacrament, the “primordial sacrament,” which is defined by three main characteristics: fidelity, indissolubility and fertility:
“Conjugal love…aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.”
Miss any of these three and you bring the original definition to an abrupt halt, something the majority on the Right are unwilling to admit. We have systematically destroyed the natural definition of marriage by selfishly pursuing sexual gratification at all levels.
Sex before marriage (fidelity)? Yes please. Multiple marriages (indissolubility)? Probably. Birth control (fertility)? Absolutely.
The definition of marriage is defunct.
It comes as no surprise to me that homosexual couples want to “be married.” If “being married” means monogamously having sex with someone for financial benefits until a no-fault divorce, then why can we not afford same-sex couples that same right to be miserable? I support that.
If this seems like an attack on bigoted heterosexuals on the right, it absolutely is. I grow tired of my Christian brothers moaning over the decision of the Courts when the writing has been on the walls for decades… in our hand.
A definition that is not practiced cannot be defended. And we are victims of our own infidelities.
As for the party, I see Republicans holding course on this issue for another couple years, conditional on the electoral effect of a pro-family platform. If we lose dramatically over SSM in 2016, it will mark the end of traditional marriage on the party platform.
Avid Catholics and Christians will of course persist in this battle and try to retain some semblance of dignity in a party which is very clearly on course for a new definition of marriage. Their success, however, will be marked by the manner in which they present their arguments.
Commitment to the original definition of marriage is not enough. We need to live out the true definition and show others that it is possible to preserve one indissoluble marriage, be faithful to it and be open to the fruits of children.
In closing, watch Fr. Barron’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision:
Napoleon: “I will crush the Roman Catholic Church.”
Ercole Cardinal Consalvi: “If in 1,800 years we clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you’ll be able to do it?”
