Murphy: State shouldn't redefine marriage

William F. Murphy is bishop of the Diocese of Rockville Centre. A version of this piece appeared in The Long Island Catholic newspaper.

Over these past few weeks, the media informed us of several important social issues that the governor and legislature in Albany must address before recess. One is what is being called "same-sex marriage."

No one in the Catholic Church can legitimately use the fact of a person's being homosexual as a justification for any words or actions that would unjustly discriminate against that person, or treat that person in ways that offend or compromise the human rights and dignity of that person as an individual or as a member of any group.

Where, then, is the problem? The problem is with the desire of some in our society who wish to create a law that would redefine marriage to include committed relations based on the sexual attraction of two persons of the same sex.

What is wrong with that? Marriage is a reality with a very specific content. It has meant, from the beginning of recorded history, the commitment of a man and a woman to one another as the basis of a permanent union open to the procreation of children.

The state recognized it had a stake in recognizing and encouraging stable marriages, and as a result, political society made rules and gave benefits to a man and a woman who wished to enter marriage. The state wanted marriages to succeed and to be a force for the good of the society, the nation and the state.

Throughout time, as today, there were all sorts of relationships and partnerships based on a number of factors, including homosexual attraction as well as heterosexual attraction. Most were casual. Many were not. But the state saw no reason to regulate these, because they had no permanent role to play for the good of society.

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the problem with homosexual acts is that first and foremost, they go against the normal teleology of the body. "God created them male and female" (Genesis 5:2). Therefore, the intention of God in creating the man and the woman included his intention that they be complementary sexually. This was seen as normative and binding. Even more, Jesus saw marriage as permanent -- as permanent as his love for his church.

Our society today looks on almost any sexual activity as a private matter between consenting adults. The sexual mores of people is not considered a matter of interest to the state. Nor are any such acts considered good or bad for the state. Why then is the state deciding -- rather arbitrarily -- that it has to redefine marriage to include one type of sexual activity that has no bearing on the good of the state, and no element that in and of itself is of any interest to the state? How can the state or any other group justify redefining a social phenomenon -- marriage -- in ways that contradict the structure of such a relationship and that cannot replicate the content of what the word "marriage" means? Why doesn't the state simply leave it all alone?

The answer is simple: A small group of people feels they are being disenfranchised unless the state approves of their private sexual relationships and gives them a label that they wish to have. That's all. There is nothing more than that. A small group of people wants to call themselves married. Therefore we all have to pretend that words have no meanings, pretend that one kind of sexual relation -- namely, homosexual -- must be arbitrarily given a title to which it has no natural claim, and pretend that homosexual partners are the same as heterosexual married persons. And that is what this game is all about: Let's pretend!

Will this destroy our society? I doubt it. Will it be another step in a downward spiral that relativizes all reality and compromises any and every truth? You bet it will. A long time ago, a wise cardinal said to me, "The Church through God's grace can forgive any sin, but not even God can forgive calling darkness light."