The
continuing interventions of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in the
debate on the possible redefinition of marriage in our country are obviously,
but not solely, because of our faith convictions. We are motivated as well by
our responsibilities as citizens to promote and defend the fundamental rights
and freedoms of all persons while respecting the natural order.
Prior
to its being a religious institution, marriage is a natural institution. The
cultural, social, legal and religious recognition it has enjoyed throughout the
centuries of human history is proof that it constitutes a fundamental good for
society. Its historical definition clearly reflects the unique service rendered
to society by the men and women committed to marriage.
It
is therefore not surprising from this perspective that on 8 June 1999 the
Parliament of Canada stated its firm intention to preserve the conjugal union
as a societal norm. The motion as adopted, with 216 in favour and 55 opposed,
stipulated:
That, in the
opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent
court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one
man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take
all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to
preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.
Similarly,
the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, which represents the spiritual
leadership of some 13 million Canadian Catholics, has repeatedly reaffirmed its
conviction which it considers to be an obvious fact: “Marriage is a loving,
life-giving partnership between a man and a woman which is essential to the
survival of society. Its purpose is the good of the couple and the procreation
and education of children. Marriage as the union between a man and a woman is a
unique and irreplaceable institution that merits government protection and
social recognition” (letter from Most Reverend Brendan M. O’Brien, President of
the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, to Prime Minister Paul Martin, 15
February 2005).
The
Catholic Church teaches that marriage is both a vocation and a sacrament, a
celebration of that sacred commitment and bond between a man and a woman which
is at the heart of family life, as it gives basic form and shape to the
over-all responsibility for raising and educating each new generation of
citizens for the common good of society.
Six
years have passed since the Parliament of Canada officially declared its
intention to uphold the heterosexual definition of marriage. Today, we are told
that attitudes have evolved and, so as to respect the rights of the Canadian
homosexual minority, it is necessary to give to persons of the same sex the
right to marry. To defend this point of view, mention is made of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the court judgments rendered in seven
provinces and one territory, and the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of
Canada on the marriage reference (9 December 2004).
We would
question this interpretation of the Charter, and instead recall a fundamental
principle basic to the development of legislation, if it is to be just and
thereby merit the support and respect of all citizens.
Laws
are established to respect the social order. However, a particular social order
is valid only if it respects the order inscribed in nature. Once laws contradict
this natural order, they become unjust. They then risk creating division and
dissension, and so breed social disorder.
The
preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms affirms
that “Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and
the rule of law.”
This
is a recognition of a higher law, with the Charter then proceeding to specify
what rights are due to human beings and how these are protected. It thus does
not stem from the will of individuals, judges or governments. Its source is
found in the nature of human beings. This is why we refer to natural law, a law
whose components are more universal and immutable than particular social and
cultural realities that change with time. The right to marriage – which the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 16) recognizes as pertaining to a man and
a woman – is based on natural law and does not change with changing
mentalities.
States
have a responsibility to legislate in order to promote the exercise of the
natural rights of their citizens; the laws and regulations established in this
way form positive law. But the evolution of positive law represents progress
for civilization insofar as it conforms to the natural law. Similarly, a sound
interpretation of the Charter requires this reference to natural law – which
the Supreme Court of Canada omitted in its opinion on the marriage reference.
It
is clear that “the primacy of the law to which the Charter refers in its
preamble and its mention of the supremacy of God is the primacy of natural law
over positive law. As stated by Cicero, the great philosopher and jurist who
explored the principles of our Western notion of law: ‘True law is right reason
in agreement with nature.’ But when the primacy of natural law is rejected, we
are generally faced with an arbitrary and often totalitarian regime” (Gérard
Lévesque, “Une erreur flagrante”, private manuscript [CCCB
translation]).
The
change proposed by Bill C-38 affects the most fundamental institution and some
of the most basic values of society: marriage and the family. These are
realities present in the history of humanity before any form of state or law.
If Bill C-38 is adopted, it will alter the nature of marriage and the family,
and further contribute to their erosion.
The
promoters of “same-sex marriage” have succeeded in excluding the whole question
of procreation from the current debate. According to them, the sole requirement
for marriage is to be the love between two persons. Yet according to its
historical definition – which also reflects objective reality – marriage is a
matter of the survival of humanity as well.
It
is for this reason that in addition to the well-being of the spouses and the
fulfillment of their love, the goal of marriage includes the procreation and
education of children. Removing one of these essential elements from the
definition of marriage results in another reality that is clearly no longer a
marriage. The anatomical complementarity which makes the engendering of new
lives possible is fundamental to the reality of marriage, not to mention
the psychological and affective complementarity, as well as the natural
mutuality, of a man and a woman.
French
psychoanalyst Tony Anatrella, an authority on the couple and the family,
addressed the issue of the ecology of this procreative relationship in an
interview in French with Zenit News Agency on 13 May 2004 [CCCB
translation]: “Realities as objective as the biological, corporal and
anthropological aspects that characterize the basis of marriage are absent from
homosexual ‘unions’ in order to provide a reasonable foundation for marriage.
These relationships are not in the nature of conjugality and by definition are
infertile. They do not represent the future of society, as does the couple
founded between a man and a woman.
“Marriage
is based on the association of two sexual identities and not on a partial
tendency. It bears witness to the sense of commitment of the couple formed by a
man and a woman in society, and society’s willingness to accord special rights
to those who commit themselves in this way to a legal relationship. Marriage
also ensures the renewal of generations as well as providing evidence of one’s
relationship with one’s parents and kin, and brings security to the adults as
well as to the children born of their sexual communion.”
It
is not discriminatory to attribute different names or different treatment to
two realities that are so fundamentally different: (1) the heterosexual union,
which has the potential to transmit life and (2) other forms of unions which do
not have this potential.
Discrimination
against Heterosexual Couples
To
want to identify these two fundamentally different realities with the same term
is contrary to justice and to common sense. It would be unjust and
discriminatory toward men and women who enter marriage in order to form a
stable and procreative union, as it fails to uphold their particular status and
to support them in a special way.
A
specialist in this area raises the following questions about the need to
preserve marriage as a heterosexual institution: “What will same-sex marriage
do to marriage as a social institution? Is the great, historic, cross-cultural
understanding of marriage as the union of husband and wife rooted only in
animus and discrimination? Or is there a real deeply rooted human need for a
social institution that specifically addresses those people whose sexual
attractions and relationships produce new life? Children need mothers and
fathers, and marriage is the way societies everywhere get that important good
for children. Same-sex marriage amounts to a declaration that marriage in
Canada is now about something else: some other adult agendas and needs” (Maggie
Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, “Responses
to the Supreme Court Opinion on the Reference Questions”, Institute for the
Study of Marriage, Law and Culture).
Seen
from this light, there is a major difference to the idea of according to
persons of the same sex the right to marriage, ostensibly in order to protect
the rights of a minority. To state this clearly, a minority does not have
specific rights simply by being a minority. It is the persons who are part of a
minority who have rights, and these rights are either absolute or
conditional.
An
example of an absolute right is the right to life; an example of a conditional
right is the right to practise medicine which is conditional to having a
medical diploma. The right to marriage is also conditional: it is reserved for
those persons who fulfil the natural conditions that are essential to this
right. Sexual complementarity is an inherent condition for marriage.
Same-sex
partners, therefore, are not entitled to this right. But this does not deny the
need to protect their true human rights, which Canada already effectively does
by protecting same-sex partners through a variety of charters and laws that
assure them of numerous social and family benefits. If there is further need to
change certain attitudes toward homosexual persons in order to eliminate all
unjust discrimination against them, this cannot be achieved by redefining a
social institution that is essentially heterosexual.
By
including same-sex unions in the definition of marriage, the government would
no longer recognize any particular public or social usefulness in heterosexual
civil marriage. Since the marriage contract would not differentiate between
heterosexual and homosexual unions, the message would be loud and clear: these
“marriages” are equivalent and have the same value. Why would young
heterosexual adults continue to marry and take on collective responsibilities
if the state devalues their commitment and offers no special benefit which
recognizes their essential contribution to the survival of society?
The experience
of Scandinavian countries over the past ten years that have accorded same-sex
partners rights equivalent to those of marriage should give Canadians cause for
serious reflection. These countries have seen a significant decrease in the
number of marriages and a corresponding increase in the number of children born
to unmarried parents.
The
1999 National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth conducted
by Statistics Canada and Human Resources and Development Canada clearly
demonstrates that marriage is the most stable type of union and thus the most
beneficial for children. Only 13 per cent of children born to married parents
who had not lived together before marriage experience the separation of their
parents, whereas 63 per cent of children in common-law relationships experience
family break-up. As for the children of parents who married after living
together, 25 per cent of them experience family break-up.
The
enormous social costs of divorce are now well-known; its effects (emotional
instability, depression, poverty, school dropout, delinquency, suicide, etc.)
were not foreseen when divorce was legalized. The new “gay marriage” venture is
also liable to lead to disagreeable surprises. It is astounding that the
government is prepared to create new situations which do not favour the
well-being of children. Equally astonishing, however, is that so much time has
been spent questioning how marriage may be discriminatory, but with so little
consideration given to the rights of children.
As
citizens, Canadian children have rights and needs. Entering into this world
generally as a result of the special communion of love between a man and a
woman, children have a fundamental right to know their biological parents and
to be raised by them. The difficulties experienced by adopted children or those
from broken families are known only too well.
“Across
millennia and societies, marriage has institutionalized and symbolized the
inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman,” recalls
Margaret Somerville, a lawyer and professor at McGill University. “It has
established the societal norm that in entering marriage a man and a woman take
on shared obligations to protect and nurture the children born to them. The
corollary of those adult obligations is a child’s right to know and to be
brought up by his or her biological parents, unless an exception can be
justified as in a child’s best interests. Same-sex marriage would radically
change that norm” (“What about the Children?”, Divorcing Marriage:
Unveiling the Dangers in Canada’s New Social Experiment, edited by
Daniel Cere and Douglas Farrow, Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s
University Press, ©2004, p. 63-64).
Research
in psychology and social sciences only confirms what is perceived through
common sense: children function more effectively when they grow up in the
company of their father and mother, who have different and complementary roles
in their lives. This educational complementarity and interaction are crucial to
the child’s growth process and to the development of his or her personality.
The child’s affective development, self-esteem and self-confidence are
dependent on this complementarity and interaction.
“A
child needs a man and a woman to structure itself emotionally,” confirms
psychoanalyst Tony Anatrella. “It is wrong to pretend that a child only needs
to feel loved to be fulfilled: it is still necessary to know which relational
structure a child should be placed in to develop…. A child needs the double
figure of man and woman, father and mother, in order to develop coherently” (Zenit,
13 May 2004).
The adoption
of Bill C-38 would create two categories of children: those who are assured of
the right to be brought up by their two biological parents, and those who
wilfully deprived of this right. Such discrimination is neither fair nor
desirable. Paul Nathanson, a researcher at the Faculty of Religious Studies,
McGill University, observes that this Bill “would give the state’s official endorsement
to a worldview in which the rights of adults trump the needs of children, and
those of individuals the needs of society” (“Responses to the Supreme Court
Opinion on the Reference Questions”, Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law
and Culture).
Individual
Rights or Common Good?
By redefining
marriage, the government would be going against the public interest as it has
been known for centuries, namely, the integration of the sexes in an ideal
social unit in which children are born and raised not only for their benefit
but also for that of society as a whole. Bill C-38 disregards this long-held
concern and would replace it with an interest founded solely on an intimate
personal relationship. Once this is the interest recognized by the state, marriage
as a social institution will become meaningless, since all forms of unions
between consenting adults will need to be treated equally.
The
conjugal relationship between a man and a woman clearly constitutes an
irreplaceable good for the couple and society, both for their mutual love and
for the procreation of children. Marriage provides a stable and positive
environment for children and consequently for future generations. The right to
marriage extends well beyond the rights of two individuals; it is also
concerned with the common good.
The
state must retain the possibility of fostering, protecting and encouraging the
type of relationships that are most beneficial to it: conjugal relationships
between a man and a woman – unions whose procreative potential generates new
citizens and thus ensures our collective future. This crucial social
recognition serves the common good and does not undermine the dignity of
same-sex partners. In fact, the dignity and equality of persons are not
dependent on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or marital status, but are
based on the reality of the human person.
Freedom
of Religion, Conscience and Expression
Bill
C-38 (Article 3) purports moreover to protect religious freedom. It affirms
that “it is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to
perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.”
By
insisting on the difference between civil and religious marriage, the reality
of marriage is distorted. These are not two parallel institutions, each of
which is called “marriage”. These are two different doors giving access to one
and the same institution which is anchored in human nature: the civil door for
couples who choose to marry at city hall, and the religious door for couples
who prefer to marry in a church, synagogue, mosque or temple. In both cases, it
is a voluntary, lawful, faithful, exclusive and loving union of a man and a
woman – a relationship that has the natural potential for creating new life.
On
the other hand, what authority does the federal government effectively have for
protecting the religious freedom of those persons called upon to perform
marriages, since the solemnization of marriages comes under provincial
jurisdiction? What does the federal government intend to do to protect freedom
of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression for all Canadians?
How does it plan to ensure that:
1.
Canadians will not be compelled to act
contrary to their conscience and their religious beliefs?
2.
Leaders and members of faith groups
throughout Canada will be entirely free to teach and preach on marriage and
homosexuality in accordance with their conscience and religious beliefs?
3.
In addition to sacred places, all facilities
belonging to or rented by an organization associated with a faith group will be
protected against any obligatory use for marriage ceremonies incompatible with
the religious convictions of that faith?
4.
All officials, both civil and religious, who
preside at marriages in Canadian provinces or territories, will be protected
against the obligation to officiate when the conditions are irreconcilable with
their conscience and religious beliefs?
5.
Faith groups that do not accept the proposed
redefinition of marriage will not be penalized with respect to their charitable
status?
Religious
freedom is not limited to the freedom to perform or to refuse to perform
marriages involving same-sex partners. Religious freedom is intrinsically
linked to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. It is not a concern
only for religious authorities, but for all citizens who must be able to
express their freedoms publicly in daily life.
A
number of serious issues are emerging, including the following:
1.
What will happen to civil officials refusing
to preside at a “gay marriage”?
2.
What will happen to preachers expressing the
teachings of their religion on marriage and homosexuality if these differ from
the new social norm?
3.
What will happen to politicians proposing
legislation that recognizes the unique contribution heterosexual couples offer
to society and supports them in their procreative role?
4.
What will happen to teachers who cannot in
good conscience present “same-sex marriage” to their students as the equivalent
of natural marriage?
5.
What will happen to parents who do not
accept a school presenting their children with a vision of marriage different
than their own?
6.
What will happen to authors and publishers
who write and publish texts that present a vision of marriage inspired by moral
convictions but not in agreement with the new social norm?
Will
those who believe in the historical definition of marriage henceforth be
victims of discrimination? Should we anticipate lengthy, costly lawsuits in the
courts to defend the freedom to teach, preach and educate in accordance with
one’s faith and conscience?
The
authors of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms certainly
did not foresee such a confrontation between the different basic freedoms of
Canadian citizens. They did not intend the Charter to allow such a radical
re-engineering of our most fundamental social institutions. It is thus
reasonable to believe that it is the current interpretation of the Charter
which is distorted.
Risk
of an Irrevocable Rupture
Because
the relationship of a man and a woman in marriage is the most stable basis of
the family, and because the family is a vital unit for society, there are great
risks in playing with the definition of marriage and the family.
Bill C-38
constitutes, purely and simply, a rejection of the conjugal meaning of
marriage, a phenomenon more pronounced over the past two generations which is
progressively eroding the institution of matrimony. “The pattern of this
erosion is reflected in the movement of the main social indicators relevant to
marriage: higher divorce rates, rising cohabitation rates, higher rates of
unwed child-bearing, lower marriage rates, declining birth rates, declines in
marital satisfaction, and declining well-being among children. Law and public
policy have been channelling marriage away from its distinctively conjugal
goals of sex-bridging, generativity, care-giving, and connecting children to
their mothers and fathers….
“The
current project to strip marriage of its conjugal meaning is right in synch
with these trends. Driven by a moral and ideological enthusiasm, it overlooks
their real human costs. And it leaves unanswered far too many questions. How
will Canadian society fare when it is no longer able to offer any special
recognition in law or public policy to a form of life so central to human
experience and, indeed, to human reproduction? Will the transformation of
marriage into a close-relationships regime continue to erode its social
significance for future generations? Will marriage continue to decline as a
centre of gravity for women and men seeking to form a stable life together? Will
these men and women have the social and cultural supports they need to help
bring children into this world and to rear a family? Will the reconstitution of
marriage ratify a reproductive revolution that will kill any public commitment
to maintaining relationships between children and their natural parents? Will
it set in motion new developments that will open the way for further
deregulations of marriage and parenthood?” (Daniel Cere, Conclusion, Divorcing
Marriage, p. 176).
That
there are so many questions should be sufficient to curb the government’s
eagerness to move forward with the radical social experiment of “marriage”
involving persons of the same sex. The fundamental institutions of society do
not have infinite flexibility. There comes a time when, confronted by radical
upheaval, a rupture occurs. This is a critical threshold in our social and
cultural evolution with regards to marriage; there must be serious reflections
about crossing this threshold.
The
proposed redefinition does not foster the evolution of marriage, but breaks
irrevocably with human history as well as with the very nature of marriage. The
adoption of Bill C-38 will cause irreparable damage to the basic fabric of
human coexistence – the family founded on marriage – and result in a deeply
wounded society.
The
family cannot be reduced to a private affective experience, nor can individual
rights be confused with those that are at the heart of the family, founded on a
marriage between a man and a woman. Two grave wrongs for Canadian society would
result from this Bill: the elimination of the public interest in protecting and
promoting the institution of marriage for the benefit of the state, and the
imposition of an “orthodoxy” that runs counter to freedom of conscience and
religion.
If
it is to defend the common good, how can our country’s legitimate authority
seriously contemplate redefining a human institution that is so fundamental and
vital for the stability of families and the future of society? How can it wish
to impose on Canadian society a norm contrary to natural law?
We
ask the government to abandon its plan to redefine marriage and to commit
itself to promoting a culture that encourages and fosters marriage as a
fundamental institution which provides the norm for society.
“There
is something wrong … with the idea that any society can endure without public
support for heterosexual bonding. Every society has maintained the culture
mechanisms that provide it…. The culture of marriage must encourage at least
five things: (a) the bonding between men and women that ensures their
cooperation for the common good; (b) the birth and rearing of children, at
least to the extent necessary for perpetuating society; (c) bonding between men
and children so that men are likely to become active participants in family
life; (d) some healthy form of masculine identity … and (e) the transformation
of adolescents into sexually responsible adults – that is, young men and women
who are ready for marriage and the beginning of a new cycle” (Katherine Young
and Paul Nathanson, “The Future of an Experiment”, Divorcing Marriage,
p. 47-48).
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
Ottawa, 18 May 2005