Father Thomas Reese on same sex marriage
Jesuit priest Thomas J. Reese, Senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center and former editor of the Catholic weekly magazine America, has thoughts on the California Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage and the efforts to put the issue on the ballot:
The California Supreme Court, like the Massachusetts Supreme Court, has ruled that the state constitution requires that the state recognize same-sex marriages. The court specifically said that churches would not be required to perform such weddings.Many, even some who support gay marriage, believe that this was an unwise decision on the part of the court. California already allowed domestic partnerships with most of the rights of married couples. By rejecting what had been a political compromise, the court has made it inevitable that a state constitutional amendment will be put on the ballot in California. The amendment will not only overturn the decision but may also eliminate domestic partnerships.
I agree with those who believe that the California Supreme Court’s decision was unwise, but I would oppose a constitutional amendment that would forbid gay marriages. I believe that this issue should be dealt with by state legislatures, not by the courts or referendums.
Homosexual relationships exist in American society in not insignificant numbers. Even if you consider such relationships immoral, it can be argued that the state has an interest in encouraging these relationships to be stable and long term rather than multiple and short term. State legislatures are used to coming up with compromises that are acceptable to most of the people. They can also return to legislation to adjust it based on experience and future circumstances.
Some argue that gay marriage is a threat to marriage as a heterosexual institution. I have never understood this argument. In an apartment building filled with unmarried couples, both gay and hetero, if all the gay couples got married, it would seem to me that their example would inspire the heterosexuals to think about marriage. I would prefer to reserve the word “marriage” to heterosexuals, but I don’t think it is worth fighting over.
I think it is foolish for churches to expend their political capital opposing the legalization of gay marriage. There are many other issues of greater importance: abortion, hunger, global warming, peace, health care, etc. Pro-life churches and organizations should especially be suspicious when gay marriage is given more prominence as an issue than abortion. Money and resources that would have gone to pro-life work are being siphoned off to oppose gay marriage.
Read it all here. As you might expect, these comments have not been well received by more conservative Catholics such as Richard Neuhaus.
I appreciate the essential "realism" of Father Thomas Reese' position on gay marriage. He's going a long way.
However he has missed an important part of the record on this decision. He writes: I believe that this issue should be dealt with by state legislatures, not by the courts or referendums.
But this issue was dealt with by the state legislature which voted in 2005 in favor of legalizing gay marriage. The Governor vetoed the measure in deference to the pending court case. When the decision came down, Schwartzenegger stuck to his position, saying he also wouldn't try to amend the Constitution to overturn it. The legislative route was used, until the matter was thrust on the court.
Jan Adams
Posted by janinsanfran![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 2, 2008 1:06 PM