On Jan. 19, we published an article on a renewed effort by some legislators in New Jersey to legally redefine marriage. The article referenced a statement issued by New Jersey bishops in 2009, when such a legislative redefinition was first attempted in the state.
On Jan. 20, the Catholic bishops of New Jersey issued a new statement on the defense of marriage. We would like to present that statement in its entirety here.
A Statement by the Catholic Bishops of New Jersey on Marriage as a Union of One Man and One Woman
January 20, 2012
Marriage as a union of a man and a woman has its roots in natural law. Throughout all of human history marriage has been held to be a union of man and woman. Marriage as a union of man and woman existed long before any nation, religion or law was established. Marriage which unites mothers and fathers in the work of childrearing is the foundation of the family, and the family is the basic unit of society.
Sadly, the institution of marriage is being challenged by a society so concerned with individual freedom that some view marriage as a temporary or disposable convenience. Now, there is even an attempt in the New Jersey Legislature to pass a law that would change the very definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
As citizens, we must protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Same-sex unions may represent a new and a different type of institution, but it is not marriage and should not be treated as marriage.
What can you do to help protect marriage? Today, we ask all people of good will to do three simple things. First, pray for all married couples and all families. Second, reflect on this important question, “How can I help my family and the families I touch to grow in hope, love, peace and joy.” Third, we ask everyone to reach out to your neighbors, your legislators and the governor with a simple message: “Preserve the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.”
To help everyone understand why marriage can only be a union between one man and one woman, we offer the following facts:
Why should citizens care about the state’s definition of marriage?
Citizens must care about the government’s treatment of marriage because civil authorities are charged with protecting children and the common good, and marriage is indispensable to both purposes. Citizens have the right and the responsibility to hold civil authorities accountable for their stewardship of the institution of marriage. Citizens also have the responsibility to oppose laws and policies that unjustly target people as bigots or that subject people to charges of unlawful discrimination simply because they believe and teach that marriage is the union of man and a woman.
Why should two individuals of the same sex be treated any differently than married couples who cannot conceive children?
Marriage benefits society by bringing men and women, the two complementary “halves” of the human race, together. Regardless of whether they can conceive children, a man and a woman united in marriage reinforce the importance of this ideal. By contrast, if the government insists that same-sex unions are “equal” to unions of a man and a woman, the government will be teaching not only that mothers and fathers are no longer necessary for children, but also that uniting the sexes is no longer an important ideal. Persons of same-sex orientation have the right to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone by altering the civil law.
Don’t single parents make a valuable contribution to family life? If so, why should same-sex partners not be viewed the same way?
The stable, lifelong, loving relationship of a mother and father, found only in marriage, provides the ideal conditions for raising and socializing children. Marriage represents the way we teach and reinforce this ideal.
Of course, some children are raised in situations other than the traditional two-parent family, and responsible, loving, single parents and other family members make important and valuable contributions to the welfare of these children. But supporting single-parent families, as a just and compassionate society must do, is far different than deliberately creating motherless and fatherless families and holding them out to be the same as marriages.
But isn’t prohibiting same-sex “marriage” unjust discrimination?
No. We must always remember that every person has an inherent dignity. Like all other human beings, our homosexual brothers and sisters are beloved children of God. As a result, the Catholic Church affirms that they “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in this regard should be avoided” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358].
Clearly, the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended, and everyone must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression or violence against homosexual persons.
But it is not “unjust discrimination” to treat different things differently. Same-sex unions are not, in fact, the same thing as the union of one man and one woman in marriage. One type of union may ever generate children; the other may never; one type of union respects and expresses the inherent complementarity of man and woman; the other does not. Therefore, treating one type of union as “marriage” and the other not is not only permitted, but required. Indeed, it is treating this differentiation as bigotry that constitutes an injustice.
Is same-sex “marriage” a civil right?
Same-sex “marriage” is not a civil right. A strong desire does not make a civil right. Every man and every woman has a right to enter into marriage, but marriage as an institution can only be between a man and a woman. Governments do not have the power to define marriage otherwise, because it is a permanent human institution that does not owe its existence to governments.
In addition, same-sex “marriage” is not a civil right because same-sex couples cannot fulfill the core public purpose of marriage: bringing men and women into the only kind of union that can make new life and give children mothers and fathers.
Would maintaining the definition of marriage as a union solely of one man and one woman deny hospital visitation privileges to civil-union partners? Would defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman take away any benefits currently provided to civil-union partners by employers?
No. In New Jersey, the Civil Union Act already provides practical rights, benefits and protections for persons who choose to establish non-marital unions. As clearly stated in the Act:
“Civil-union couples shall have all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage [N.J. Statutes 37:1-31(a)].”
The act also provides that civil-union couples are entitled to the benefits and protections of “laws relating to insurance, health and pension benefits” [N.J. Statutes 37:1-32(e)]. In addition, the act prohibits an array of unlawful employment practices by employers who do not fully implement the act.
The Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) Act, signed into law by Governor Christie in December 2011 guarantees by law that all adult patients have the right to designate a representative of their choice with the power to convey specifically how the patient would like to be treated, including in the event the patient loses the capacity to express their preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments. The POLST Act even allows for a patient to authorize the patient’s representative to revoke or modify the patient’s decisions if the patient loses decision-making capacity.
Further, many organizations have approved “Advanced Directives for Health Care” that allow individuals to designate anyone they wish as a health-care decision-maker.
In short, there is no evidence for the claims that in New Jersey same-sex couples are not able to assist in making health-care decisions together with or for each other. That right is guaranteed by law.
Most Reverend John J. Meyers
Archbishop, Diocese of Newark
Most Reverend David M. O’Connell, C.M.
Bishop, Diocese of Trenton
Most Reverend Joseph A. Galante
Bishop, Diocese of Camden
Most Reverend Arthur J. Seratelli
Bishop, Diocese of Paterson
Most Reverend Paul G. Bootkoski
Bishop, Diocese of Metuchen
Most Reverend William C. Skurla
Bishop, Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic
Most Reverend Yousif B. Habash
Bishop, Our Lady of Deliverance
Syriac Catholic Diocese
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
The lengths these guys will go in promoting their homophobia is amazing to me:
“Marriage as an institution can only be between one man and one woman” Really? They seem to overlook that the marriage norm in most of the Bible is polygamy: not one man, one woman. Yet I don’t hear these guys arguing in favor of that.
“Like all other human beings, our homosexual brothers and sisters are beloved children of God. As a result, the Catholic Church affirms that they “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in this regard should be avoided” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358].” BALONEY! The Catholic Church has done all that it can to persecute gays and lesbians throughout its history from at least the 1100’s onward. Ratzinger himself said in his 1986 Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (I love that title - like gays are zoo animals needing some sort of special diet) “Homosexuality <sic>...it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” ....but they should be accepted with respect and compassion. What hypocrisy! How about this Ratzinger gem from 1992: “‘Sexual orientation’ does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination…There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account.” These guys are drowning in their own doubletalk and they don’t have the common decency to admit they just hate gay people.
“In New Jersey, the Civil Union Act already provides practical rights, benefits and protections for persons who choose to establish non-marital unions.” Aren’t these the same guys that opposed civil unions in New Jersey in 2006?.... and are doing precisely that again now opposing the proposed Civil Union Law in Colorado?
They trip over themselves to smack down gays, and to rally around the ever-present abortion question. They spend millions on advertisements, lobbyist, PACs, on these two issues, all to defend “families” they say.
But not a peep comes from them about the injustice to families of 13 million wage-earners unable to find jobs to put food on their tables. Not a whisper as greed driven companies shipped work to India and China, leaving families here with no way to fend for themselves. Dead silence from them about the injustice of after-tax income of households in the top 1% of earners growing by 275% since 2008, while income growth for the bottom fifth of earners was a mere 18%. Nothing from them about 50 million Americans, including countless children, with no health care, and even more families with no way to afford their retirement. Total silence about the wars, global warming, declining education, growing levels of poverty, etc. These are the real family-impacting issues in this country. But where do these guys put their big mouths: bashing gays. I wonder where Jesus would put his?
Stating that something like marriage equality cannot exist simply because it hasn’t in the past is not a valid argument. My partner and I have been together for more than 22 years. We’re both professionals who work very hard and pay more than our fair share of taxes and we want the same rights and freedoms that many heterosexuals take for granted. We don’t want “special rights,” we want equal rights.
Let me cut to the point: this article does nothing more than point out all of the reasons why marriage equality must be made the law of the land. It’s not enough to say any longer that marriage should remain as it is because that’s the way it’s always been. That’s the same argument that was used to keep slaves from being freed and keeping women from having the right to vote. “Why change it? It’s been like this forever.” The world is ever-changing and ever-evolving. You can fight it as much as you like but in spite of all of your petulant foot stomping and bigoted attacks on the LGBT community, marriage equality is inevitable. I look forward to that day. On that day my man and I can finally tie the knot and our two adopted children and we can finally become a proper family. You heard it here: a family.
well, the Pope said two things, as I read it…First, Benedict XVI did say that the church bishops should make rational arguments in the public forum using the language of the natural law….so the bishops are doing that in this statement. Second, Benedict also encouraged the teaching of the Judeo-Christian values and the articulation of the Christian vision of man. I am not sure this statement by the New Jersey bishops, or Dolan’s recent statement at Fordham(?)overtly qualify for that.
This document by the bishops is clearly and carefully reasoned, but it leaves me flat. Let’s all ratchet it up a few notches! ty.
I read Cardinal-designate Dolan’s speech on the same topic. He also takes the Natural Law approach. Does the Pope? Does the Pope? I’ll look carefully for the Pope’s view and report back here….hasta.
So, are the bishops OK with civil unions?
If so, it seems like the argument is all about a name.
One of the subjects no longer taught after Vatican II is Moral Theology. After all, how can a civil service of “Presiders”, many of whom are homosexual themselves, whether by orientation or action, teach with any authority on matters of morality? Homosexual activity has been declared an “abomination” for 5,760 of Judaeo-Catholicism. In the Catholic Catechism (1992), #2357 declares that under no circumstances may homosexual activity be allowed. Which puts the lie of course to civil unions. How can they be allowed? Did no one see pseudogamous “marriage” following on that? We have passed the point of no return and the feckless leadership of the hierarchs, many of whom are homosexual themselves, will not be able to turn the tide. How long does anyone think God will tolerate all this immorality? What is the one message Our Lady brings whenever she appears in an approved apparition? CONVERSION. If people do not convert and amend their lives, there will be a war worse than this one. Our Lady at Fatima, 1917. Our Lady at Akita, Japan 1973-Fire will come from the sky. The survivors of this calamity will wish they had died.
Very nice. Two points I would like to make: 1) the Government does have the power to redefine marriage…it doesn’t have the authority to do so.
The arguments presented in this document, as carefully reasoned as they are, are secular in nature. Nothing more than an appeal to Natural Law…which isn’t written down anywhere (other than the human heart) and which nowadays seems so horribly obscured by many factors, sinful factors, that there is no agreement within the public forum. One would think that if the collective of Catholic bishops were to issue a document it would reflect a religious point of view. That this document DOES NOT reflect a religious point of view weakens it, and turns it into a pathetic attempt to lobby against a proposed legislation. In fact, that’s what this document is. 2) I wish that for once in my life our dear bishops would understand the seriousness of the situation into which they have allowed the Faith to degenerate. The sheep are the ones who have the political power in a democracy. The sheep are the ones who need to have the proper understanding of the moral life. The sheep are the ones - not legislators - that need to be mobilized. NO ONE from diocesan headquarters has CONTACTED ME! This document is not addressed to the sheep. Who in fact IS this document addressed to?? The answer to the problem is with the sheep, not the legislators. Contact the sheep.
“non-marital civil unions act” Militant gays have rejected “civil unions” and are demanding to force, by law, all citizens to recognize and acknowledge their practice of LUST as love. If it were the practice of love, the gay partners would willingly allow other citizens freedom.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.