BY THE REV. FATHER MICHAEL SCHMITZ
Director of Newman Center at UMD
One of the main reasons I am writing about this topic so much is that it isn’t actually about two people, it is about society. We know this, right? We know that we cannot change the definition of the most essential building block of society and not affect the rest of society.
Marriage is not merely a social contract between two people that is private to them; it touches all of us. We cannot even regulate light bulb use and have it affect only a few; it affects all. Marriage is truly the most basic unit of society. Do we really believe that we can redefine it and it won’t do something to every other element of society? That is short-sighted at best and foolish at worst.
Whether it affects society for good or for ill is another issue. But what is not at issue is whether it will change anything for all of us.
We don’t have to pretend to know the future or become alarmists to see a few of the consequences that will most likely come from the redefinition of marriage. All we have to do is look to our neighbors to the north, Canada.
Canada worked to redefine marriage in 2005. Since then, there have been a number of consequences to this action.
For example, the Catholic bishop of the Diocese of Calgary, Bishop Fred Henry, was charged with a hate crime when he wrote a letter to the Catholics in his diocese reiterating the church’s constant teaching that all men and women are to be treated with dignity and respect, yet marriage is reserved for one man and one woman. The charge was later dropped by the petitioner, but it highlights the threat facing the church even being able to teach on the topic of marriage if it goes against the view accepted by the culture.
Canadian sportscaster Damian Goddard was fired when he tweeted his support of traditional marriage in 2011. He didn’t attack anyone, but merely supporting a belief that marriage is best understood as between one man and one woman was enough for him to lose his job.
Even private business owners are seemingly not free to dissent from the “party line.” Among many other examples that might be mentioned:
Seven years ago, a Knights of Columbus chapter in British Columbia was fined for declining to rent its social hall to a lesbian wedding ceremony. In the year 2000, the mayor of London, Ontario, was fined for failing to proclaim a Gay Pride day.
Even in the United States, there have already been serious consequences. Because the Catholic Church believes that every child deserves a mother and a father, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to close its adoption services. The organization had been helping orphans for more than 100 years, but because they wouldn’t place children with same-sex couples, they were essentially forced to not help any children find parents.
A photographer in New Mexico was fined more than $6,000 in 2009 for refusing to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony.
Perhaps the most disturbing consequence comes with regard to education. In Ontario, the Toronto school board has adopted a policy of educating children about the positive value of same-sex marriage, with no opt-out option for parents. Similarly, in Massachusetts, after same-sex marriage was legalized some children as young as second grade have been taught about it in class, while courts have ruled parents had no right to prior notice or to opt out. Apparently, redefining marriage will always affect the rest of the culture.
And if a teacher refuses to teach this? What is the consequence? What if a parent tries to remove a child and, while teaching the inherent goodness of all people, still teaches that some actions are not good? Will the teacher lose a job? Will the parent have a child taken away? This may seem extreme, but it is not farfetched.
This is why we must be very careful about redefining marriage as a society. It is never about some people and not others. It is about all of us. While we are called to love (to actively will the good of the other), we must first discern the good. All people are worthy to be loved, but redefining marriage is not necessarily an act of love.
“You may put out of your head any idea of ‘not having a claim’ on any help I can give. Every human being, still more every Christian, has an absolute claim on me for any service I can render them without neglecting other duties.”
~C.S. Lewis
Father Michael Schmitz is director of youth and young adult ministry for the diocese, and he leads the Newman Center at the University of Minnesota Duluth. Reach him at mschmitz@dioceseduluth.org.
Comments (18)
Add commentDispatch hypocrisy
It's interesting that the Dispatch stops open forum emails a week before the election but allows "Opinions" like Father Schmitz to be published days before the election.Most of his Canadian "examples" deal with discrimination and not with gay marriage. His examples failed to pass the "truth test" on a Twin Cities news station .More fear mongering without a chance to write a letter against his article prior to Tuesdays election ? Clever? No .Deceitful? Yes .
Don't confuse the Dispatch with an organization that's
required to uphold any particular standards of fairness or journalistic ethics (under new regime), tdejonghe. The paper's owners are obviously practicing what they want to preach.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Eyolf.
It would surprise me if many young people (at the Newman Center, or diocese-wide) are buying the fear-mongering of Mr. Schmitz. As a demographic, that age group is far more open to same-sex marriage (and, generally less likely to be duped by this junk-"evidence". They'd google it, find it discredited, and move on.) Some recent Gallup poll numbers: (http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/05/14/president-obama-e...
Interesting use of the C.S. Lewis quote at the end of Mr. Schmitz's letter. Another oft-used quote that some readers might offer as a retort is : "Don't call us, we'll call you" (if we feel the need for your brand of Catholic views imposed on our State's constitution). By the way, C.S. Lewis was a member of the Church of England, not a Catholic. His views on marriage (Christian vs. state) might not jive with those of Mr. Schmitz.
Michael Schmitz is his Citizen Name...
Civil Rights applies to All Citizens...
Separation of Church And State...
Using the Bible for your "cause"- Owning a Canadian
From James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
Below is a brilliant and humorous response to the notion that the bible is the ultimate justification for any conflicting viewpoint in this day and age.
Owning A Canadian
On her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a U.S. man, and posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.
Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.
Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses.
Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary
that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to
stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can
help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
P.S. It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian.
"All people are worthy to be
"All people are worthy to be loved", except those darn gay people. Nice attitude, Father.
Motley...NOvember 6, 2012...
Is when a State, takes a stand, and affirms Civil Rights...
Minnesota is this State...
The Time is Now...
October 1959...
Paul Gazelka...
Michael Van Geest...
Both Born in the Same Month and Year...
October 1959...
Family people...
Married to my spouse for 29 years now...
Very different political views...
And that's America...
I have NO desire for public office...
I cherish my living each day as a Christian...
That is open to interpretation...
I cherish Thomas Jefferson and his vision of America...
Which has endured for over 200 years...
I DO NOT promote an adversion to Paul or his views...
He's entitled as an American Citizen to those views...
I respectfully disagree with his view on the Civil Rights Limitation in the State of Minnesota Constitution...
Marriage is a Civil Right, and is to be applied to All Citizens of the State of Minnesota...
And MORE, to the Citizens of the United States of America...
Minnesota guy gets it right for 2012
Thanks, BOB DYLAN
"The Times They Are A-Changin'"
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin"
VOTE NO-NO
Me thinks the faculty at St.
Me thinks the faculty at St. Scholastica doesn't support Schmitz's view.
Said it before....
If it's a church issue, we don't need an amendment about it. If your church allows gay marriage, and you don't agree with it, then switch churches.
This goes completely against the separation of church and state.
Eyolf can't find the Bishop Henry's letter, but he assumes he..
...knows what's in it from a third party. Tsk, tsk. Did you notice the petitioner dropped the charges? He said he just did it for the "publicity". Very nice. Now harassment is justified on PR grounds. But that's what happens when gay marriage is legalized, people who do not agree with it or who dare to speak out against it are persecuted relentlessly. And this persecution has EVERYTHING to do with gay marriage, because the concept is such an absurdity, it takes repressive tactics to assure that people who disagree with it cannot SPEAK about it lest the majority come to the conclusion that it really ISN'T the same thing as natural marriage and shouldn't be treated as if it were.
A comment
The people who are against marriage equality are on the wrong side of history.
These countries have marriage equality, some for decades.
America is not leading on this issue, but is instead far behind.
Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Fell free to move there
and marry the woman of your choice, southie.
Southie
1939 -- 1943 Germany pretty much took over all of Europe We as U.S.A. citizens did not give in to Germany. We fought and Won Because it is right. Just as we will with the VOTE YES It is RIGHT.
NO is GOOD, YES is BAD...
Has to do with the wording of the Amendment...
And Pickle...I respectfully agree and disagree...
Adolph was defeated...
Freedom won...
Ey...The Younger Generation is going to Vote and ...
Make a difference...
A positive change for Civil Rights is coming and the United States of America will be better for it...
NO is okay this time, due to the wording of the Amendment...
NOvember 6, 2012 is the date and time of positive change...