WASHINGTON — At the heart of the national debate on same-sex “marriage” and unions is a fundamental disagreement on the nature of marriage, said a participant in a recent discussion at Harvard Law School.
Arguments in favor of redefining marriage are simply “wrong about what marriage is,” explained debater Sherif Girgis.
He added that enshrining same-sex “marriage” in law “would be harmful for the common good, and in particular for the common goods that get government involved in marriage in the first place.”
Girgis is a law student at Yale Law School as well as a Ph.D. candidate at Princeton University. He recently co-authored the book What Is Marriage with professor Robert George of Princeton University and Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation.
Challenging him in the debate was professor Andrew Koppelman, who teaches law and politics at Northwestern University.
The discussion, sponsored by the Harvard Federalist Society, was held at Harvard Law School on Jan. 31 and aired on C-SPAN on Feb. 19.
Koppelman presented arguments in favor same-sex “marriage” and criticized Girgis’ book for being “so novel and esoteric,” joking that the audience of Harvard Law students was “still trying to get it.”
He added that “marriage is not essentially anything,” saying that social norms by nature “evolve” and that marriage is no different.
Girgis, however, observed that nearly every government and society throughout history have been involved in regulating marriage.
Governments typically do not regulate intimate relationships such as friendships, he noted. Marriage is an exception, he said, because it is an institution that offers key services to society, namely the provision, care and education of a new generation of citizens.
It is because of “the social need to promote those stabilizing norms” that governments oversee marriage, he explained.
Girgis also warned of the social harm that would follow a redefinition of marriage, saying that, in debates on this topic, people should be aware of the “implications for the future, and for future marriages in particular.”
While no-fault divorce was hailed as an acceptable and harmless way of ending high-conflict marriages, the author said, “it changed people’s understanding of what they were getting into” and resulted in an end to many medium-conflict unions.
The causalities of this arrangement were children who experienced split homes or were raised with an absent parent, he said.
The normalization of same-sex unions “teaches that mothers and fathers are replaceable in terms of parenting” and will likely lead to an increase in children who do not know at least one of their biological parents, he observed.
Girgis critiqued “the main vision of marriage” espoused within society that defines marriage as primarily an emotional union.
He explained that while it is consistent for that view to accept same-sex partnerships as marriage, that view is unable to explain “less controversial features that we all agree set marriage from other bonds,” such as monogamy and exclusivity.
Furthermore, he said, in making emotion the determining characteristic of marriage, there is no reason for it to require a “pledge of permanence,” and there is no logical reason to prevent marriage from being extended to multiple partners or non-sexual partners who share an emotional bond.
Instead, Girgis suggested a definition of marriage based upon “complementarity,” the ability of spouses to bear and raise children. This definition of marriage, with the family at its core, explains other attributes associated with the institution, such as permanence, monogamy and the sexual relationship of the spouses.
He said that the common contemporary understanding of marriage “suggests that the norm of sexual complementarity is arbitrary,” but if one accepts that a man and a woman’s ability to bear children is unnecessary for the institution, “then so is permanence; so is monogamy.”
In addition, Girgis commented on the position of wanting to redefine marriage as a way to combat unjust discrimination against those who have same-sex attractions.
While he agreed that injustice must be countered, he warned against using marriage to do so, cautioning that such a move would have devastatingly harmful consequences.
Rather than changing the definition of a timeless and foundational social institution, he said, “I think the answer to bullying is to fight bullying; the answer to prejudice is to affirm the equal dignity of every human being.”
Dan Burke: The Light of God in Nashville, Tennessee
Jimmy Akin: Should We Be Concerned About Pope Francis's Inaugural Mass?
Comments
Post a Comment
I watched this debate on-line. I didn’t hear any arguments from Koppelman for SSM. I think his “reasoning” basically came down to: “your arguments for DSM are not obvious enough” and “history is leaving DSM behind.”
The debate can be watched here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/310722-1
I wholeheartedly recommend Grigis, Anderson, & George’s little book “What is Marriage?”—it contains the most concise and best answer to this question I have ever seen: “Marriage is a comprehensive union of human persons”. They go on to explain what they mean by union and comprehensiveness, which gets them to the necessity of sexual complementarity—they don’t start there. Every attempt to redefine marriage attacks either comprehensiveness or union. We should read this little book enough times to understand and memorize the argument, and stick with that, making no reference to the Revelation that perfected man’s understanding. It isn’t necessary because this is a philosophical and anthropological argument that uses history as evidence of its truth—this is no vulgar conservatism (i.e. that’s the way we’ve always done it).
What is wrong with the mind of God who originated it?
Sherif, George, and Anderson are some of the brightest philosphical stars of our times. What a bombshell of an essay they wrote. Every bit of it is solid.
If marriage is “nothing” as Kopplmann insists, why all the fuss and
furor of obtaining this status by the gay community and those who
support them? Much ado about nothing??
It is beyond comprehension that such highly educated persons (as Prof. Koppelmann for example) cannot see that their subjective, transparent arguments clearly undermine and negate their very own position(s). Firstly, his joking comments do not produce a relaxed atmosphere but rather have almost become de rigueur for those neo-liberal pundits who while prentending that they hold a superior position to that of the person debating them, it is a puerile attempt to deflect attention from their own lack of facts. Another indication is their directing allegedly debate-stopping terms at their opponent while in reality, these bits of verbiage mmore accurately apply to their own position. Thus “novel” and “esoteric” hardly describe society’s long-standing beliefs re. marriage. Since these mean “orignal or not seen before” and “confined to being understood by just a few”, they clealy apply to Koppelmanns’view and definitely not Girgis’.
I wish that Grigis,. in this piece, pointed out that primative cultures had ” marriages ” of a permanent nature. This shows that marriage between a man and a woman comes from Natural Law. In fact, these cultures were not friendly to people who broke the morale code - usually death. Not that I’m saying that we should go back the the death penalty but it shows the value that these cultures placed on marriage.
Who is/are the “Humpty-Dumpty(s)” in the ongoing debate?
When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master - that’s all.”
Quote from “Through the Looking Glass.”
All of the above comments are well written and thought provoking. They are reflective of the intelligent, open mindedness of the citizens of this country who sincerely look beyond the “trends of today,” in consideration of the benefits of our society and country, our youth. Girgis had many fine points, well adressed by Jim Sekerak. I also agree that interjecting the “Natural Law” principal is of great importance, too.
I can only hope that those who disagree with the truths of natural law and God’s institution of marriage can be respectful and courteous as well as think for themselves instead of what appears to be today’s “popular opinion.”
Not only would same-sex “marriage” harm society, but for Catholics, sanctioning same-sex marriage or unions would be an act of disrespect to gays, as if saying they “deserve” something that God does not condone - something that can never lead to true happiness because it is against the natural law. This would harm gays, putting them into a legal hole which they will wrongly consider as a form of “freedom”. Pretend marriages are an insult to human dignity - especially for gays. Catholics do not want to be a part of imposing below-standard or unGodly fake happiness on anyone. What those outside the Church see as “rights”, the Church sees as restrictions which deny someone the opportunity to be in God’s grace and to make their life acceptable to God. The Church is against establishing a “right” that denies gays freedom.
I humbly feel that highly educated person like Koppelmanncan afford to ignore the value of love, its permanence, its unconditionality and its chasteness and plead for temporary arrangements and unions of any category of living beings on the basis of emotions discarding the thousands of years old culture of marriage of a man and a woman.Even if religion is taken away from marriage, it cannot be argued that marriage is only between a man and a woman.Of course if we want to run with no let and hindrance satisfying our emotions specially sexual, will there be any peace on earth ?
It is not understood why comments against the homosexual culture is not favoured by a catholic media. We should not accuse anyone or condemn any one. It is agreed. But a spade is a spade. The Catholic Church does not mince words to say that a sin is a sin.
Posted by Shamrock:
“If marriage is “nothing” as Kopplmann insists, why all the fuss and
furor of obtaining this status by the gay community and those who
support them? Much ado about nothing??”
Oh, marriage is something. It is an opportunity for same-sex “marriage” activists to force their views on all of society. That includes any Church which refuses to “marry” same-sex couples. Civil marriage alone will not be “marriage equality.”
If same-sex marriage were to be recognized as a fundamental right by Supreme Court, the activists would then target churches. Churches which continue to refuse to marry homosexuals would be targeted to coerce a change, or to punish those who do not change. A church’s 501(c)(3) status would be the first target for leverage or punishment. They won’t sit by while “bigots” who “discriminate” have tax-exempt status.
“teaches that mothers and fathers are replaceable in terms of parenting” First of all,when hetrosexual parents divorce,the biological parent will be replaced by another person;hence,‘step’-parent.Second,like ACA (Obamacare)it is a losing arguement because it will come to pass in due time.As more states embrace same-sex couples to having the same rights as hetrosexual couples,it will be a sign that our country is evolving to become a more civilized country.
It is not a complicated issue; if same sex couples can marry, then those states that permit teens to marry with parental permission, will be permitting “legal” pedophilia. Is that the slippery slope that we can look forward to?
Homosexuals appear to want only the benefits of matrimony without the responsibilities and complications of child-bearing and child-rearing.
They want the death and health insurance benefits, along with the sanctioning of their illicit behavior.
There is no compelling governmental or societal reason to sanction homosexual marriage. In fact, it will make for less taxes due to the reduced liability for homosexuals who normally would file as single taxpayers.
Can’t wait for the Supreme Court decision that is coming in the month ahead.
I like the comment from Jack on Natural Law, which we know is God’s Order for all things.
@Ann - who wrote for SSM ‘parents’, “when hetrosexual parents divorce, the biological parent will be replaced by another person; hence,‘step’-parent.” No. The child still has a father and mother, even if the parents are legally separated. My step parent is never my real parent. In addition, abuse of children by step-parents and live-in lovers is much higher than by natural parents. Do we now want to institutionalize this?
Ann also writes, “like ACA (Obamacare)it is a losing arguement because it will come to pass in due time.” That is no argument. You are saying, “Give up because you are going to lose anyway.” Oh, yeah? As Yogi Berra said, “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings.”
Pablito ,
I follow Church teaching on marriage, but I think your comments are pretty confusing.
Come on, Catholics—it’s time to stop pretending you don’t understand the difference between civil law and the laws of your homophobic church, which laws should apply only to those who still choose to be its members. Civil marriage does not require you to confer your sacrament of matrimony on anyone you decide is out of your club. Beyond that, it’s none of your business.
Equal protection under civil law is the issue and the only issue.
@ Tenui: I was being facitious! Of course marriage is a great sacrament
joining together a man and a woman and only death can put asunder. I
was mocking the words by Koppleman. It was he who said marriage is nothing…speaking as he does for the gay community. I only meant to ask the question why do they so actively pursue something (marriage)with such vehemence if indeed, in their eyes, it is nothing. The answer, of course, is that it is everthing to them as it is the way they will destroy the one solid force, the Church,who prevents their desie for a perverted *lifestyle* acceptable to all.
Note that, in the beginning, the homosexual life style only asked to be
granted acceptance, as in “just another lifestyle”. To be left in peace to be who they chose to be. Tolerance, in other words. That allowed them entrance into our educational systems where sex education for our youngest now includes the iformation, freely spoken, that homosexuality is simply “another life syle, another kind of family”, where Johnnie has two mommies or two daddies, whatever! From there,they sought legal rights from the courts for civil union(s) which would grant them same legal rights as a married couple(s). Satisfied now? NO! Today it has progressed to where they wish to be granted legal marriage status. Where do we go from here? I agree with you that the desired end result will not happen until the Church has been totally destroyed. The Church presents their final obstacle to what they see as their rightful place in this mad society.
Come on, Susan Lersch—it’s time to quit pretending you don’t understand the difference between natural marriage and the sacrament of matrimony. The sacrament of marriage is none of YOUR business but natural marriage is everyone’s business.
Shamrock, I didn’t mean to suggest that you supported Koppelman’s point in any way. I just used your post to segue to my point.
Oh, you’re quite right that they asked for very little at first. All they asked for was tolerance, in it’s true sense. Eventually, even the definition of tolerance was incrementally ratcheted upward until it had gone from just putting up with something, to total agreement.
Of course, every SSM activist would vehemently deny that churches have any reason for concern. That’s what they say now. They never show their hand. Why would they when deceit has worked so well?
Shamrock, also, aren’t leftists always claiming to be on the side of science? How do they support their claim that “all a child needs is two loving parents,” considering the incalculable differences between men and women? Is it not fair to assume that men and women have evolved in such a way because such differences play a very significant role in the proper raising of children?
It gives this author considerable unease to see how swiftly and, for the most part, thoughtlessly, our culture is rushing toward a monumental change in our understanding of a basic social institution that has served civilization well for many thousands of years. We notice that whenever new “human rights” are being forged, it is the supposed “rights” of big, powerful, important, articulate people that are being pushed. We do not hear of the impact on the small, the weak, the vulnerable, the voiceless, the unborn, the children. We don’t hear of their rights at all. I think this is a distinction between man-made rights and rights ordained by God—God never leaves the little people out. Many claim that if we raise question about our culture’s headlong thrust to embrace gay marriage, that we are being hateful. I believe these questions and doubts are a way of showing love and care for children and their needs. I believe God’s ordination of marriage as traditionally constituted is all about love, certainly not hatred. I believe it is about providing a specially set apart nest to nurture, protect and edify His new creation. I believe it may have something to do with His knowledge that children fundamentally need both a mommy and a daddy. Another fear I have is that houses of worship will be pressured unduly to alter their entire theology around moral, sexual, family and marital matters to accommodate this new cultural wave. They will be pressured to solemnize such relationships in marriage, even when there is no scriptural or liturgical basis for doing so. What church even has a formula for a ceremony to establish an institution so fundamental to our society, that is more than 20 years old? It certainly cannot be found in sacred scripture. Within 20 years gay marriage will no longer be good enough to dignify loving living arrangements. We will need to solemnize various other relationships.
Mr. Thomas B. Collins:
Disregard the allegations of hatred. Those allegations are a political tactic intended to quash dissent, and subtly suggest to the uninformed and weak of mind that they ought to support the redefinition of marriage.
God created Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve ! You don’t debate dogma. You choose to be a sodomite you live with that choice but do not expect normal folks to condone your disgusting behavior.
I still don’t understand how marriage is ruined by more people getting married. I just don’t see the case. You still have a marriage or can get a marriage. How is that destroying an institution? Nobody is making your church marry same-sex couples. You still get to call gays immoral in the town square.
“In fact, these cultures were not friendly to people who broke the morale code - usually death. Not that I’m saying that we should go back the the death penalty but it shows the value that these cultures placed on marriage.”
And this is an affirming example of how people react to homosexuality? Death penalty?
Not in any way Christian or even with catholicism
Take government out of the business of marriage and that will solve the whole problem.
@Raziel,How can you take government out when issues like divorce settlements, abandonment, child custody, inheritance are part and parcel of marriage?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.