Natural law: one woman, one man

I am writing to respond to Nicholas Wilbur’s letter to the editor titled, “Bishop’s Gay-Marriage Stance Faulty.” I respectfully submit that several of his arguments are flawed as noted below.

First, he states “no law exists that requires a child to have a mother and a father.” I would counter that natural law does. All human life is ultimately traceable to conception, which is the union of one male and one female sex cell, issuing from one man and one woman.

In the natural order, no other combination will do. Two men cannot produce the miracle of life, nor can two women. This is the truth.

Everything else is wishful thinking on the part of some; it is not in accord with reality.

Children deserve and want to know who their parents are. We see this very clearly in cases of adopted children who often go to great lengths to discover who conceived them. What they are seeking is self-knowledge that comes, in part, from knowing their roots.

Our society is not well grounded now, so it is not surprising that concern for roots is given so little consideration in the discussion about gay unions and their implication for raising children. This is an issue as the bishops have pointed out.

Second, he asks, “Whose religious rights would be infringed upon if gay people were allowed to marry?” The concern here is that the state will attempt to dictate to churches that their priests and ministers must recognize same-gender unions as legitimate and preside at same-gender weddings, or be sanctioned for refusing to do so.

Church or state supremacy has been disputed many times over the millenia, sometimes with devastating consequences. Think of Rome’s persecution of the early Christians, Henry VIII’s assault on Catholic Christianity in the 16th century, the violence perpetrated upon the Orthodox Church in the former Soviet Union, or upon Mexican Catholics in the early 20th century, and the suppression of non-state-sponsored Christianity in China now, to name just a few examples.

I am confident that the Catholic Church will claim her God-given imperative to dissent should homosexual unions become enforceable by law, but the cost of this to our society is as yet unforeseen.

Third, he refutes the bishops’ statement, “Racial indifference or sameness was never an essential factor for marriage” as a “blatant falsity.” I think this stems from minimizing the importance of the key word, “essential,” meaning in essence, at its core.

No one argues that there wasn’t discrimination against interracial couples in the United States, only that there is no authentic basis for this in natural law. Children are born normally to couples of different races.

Fourth, sexual difference is an essential component of marriage. Why? Because marriage exists for the children which may be born from it, and society requires self-transcending procreative marriages ordered to the rearing of these children in order to thrive.

Popular culture has shaped our understanding of marriage primarily as a path to self-fulfillment.

This contemporary viewpoint is selfish. It has led to pathologies in heterosexual marriage and the current question of whether to redefine the institution as we have known it so as to make it more inclusive.

Marriage and children are thought of as a right to which everyone is entitled. But that simply isn’t true.

Design argues the counterpoint. And reality ought to be the litmus test for decisions about the important social issues of our time.