Weigel on Pope Benedict's Child-Centered Marriage Speech
February 10, 2013 at 9:00 am
George Weigel reflects on how Pope Benedict sees marriage as a child-centered institution:
"The biggest losers [when marriage is redefined], though, are children, the pope argued. If children are simply a lifestyle choice in a “family” that is nothing other than a willed arrangement for mutual convenience, children lose their rightful place and their rightful dignity. Citing the chief rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, Benedict argued that children are, in this bizarre new world, no longer the subject of rights. Rather, “the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain.” The freedom to be creative, which finds its most awesome expression in procreation, has been reduced to the freedom to create myself, however I imagine myself to be.
The marriage debate is thus about more than the legal definition of marriage, although that is serious enough. It’s a debate about whether there are any givens in the human condition, or whether willfulness and self-assertion trump reality at every point. If they do, what happens to democracies built on self-evident truths?" (First Things)
27 Comments
As previously stated:
Marriage corruption supporters have declared war on self evident truths; freedoms source.
when it comes to the marriage debate, it boils down to emotions vs. facts. putting emotions over facts is not the way to make decisions. if i have a crush on a married woman, should I follow my emotions and get with her, or follow the facts and not do it because she is married and it's a horrible decision? same with the marriage debate. every argument you see from pro ssmers is based on emotions. facts, however, lie with those that support pro marriage.
Married couples ALREADY choose when and whether they'll have kids. Some choose to never have kids. It has nothing to do with same-sex marriage - and so - why suggest that allowing same-sex marriage has anything to do with it?
Re comment nr. 3
Noah Webster defined marriage this way:
“The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.”
Marriage is about more than children. It is also about a just framework for the integration of the halves of humanity (male and female) that must unite in some way for the perpetuation of the human race. It would be unjust for a man to divorce his wife when she passes childbearing age. Divorce has done much to damage the idea of marriage, but the law still recognizes in divorce settlements that women and men have different biological clocks (as in “she gave him the best years of her life”).
As for the children, Jennifer Roback Morse has repeatedly pointed out how redefining marriage legally redefines parenthood. See, for example, http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/21/redefining-parenthood-2/
So redefining marriage into a genderless institution undermines both the just expectations of women and the legal status of children.
Pope Benedict has the most profound insight on marriage and the creation of children, that I have ever read. Thanks.
Publius writes:
There was zero "redefining marriage" in that ruthblog article you posted, and as such any redefining of parental rights pertaining to that unmarried couple has nothing to do with marriage.
As for Noah Webster's definition, I don't think a 200-year-old quote from a man who was actively trying to "Christianize" the US is an objective or appropriate refernce source for 21st century policy decisions.
1)
Of course, the SCOTUS looks carefully at what words historically meant in order to understand the meaning of a law and the origins of rights.
The point of the Webster quote was to show that the traditional definition of marriage was not purely child-centric, though children are natural part of it (see Murphy v. Ramsey). What were those non-child-centric purposes of marriage: “preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes and promoting domestic felicity.” Those protections are vital to protect women from men. Men can impregnate women, but never vice versa. Women are vulnerable in ways that men are not. Therefore degendering the law is unjust to women, regardless of whether a woman actually becomes pregnant.
Perhaps you would prefer this similar explanation win Blackstone’s Commentaries: The relationship of “husband and wife” is “founded in nature, but modified by civil society: the one directing man to continue and multiply his species, the other in which that natural impulse must be confined and regulated.”
It is part and parcel of the Lambda Legal strategy to decouple the natural rights of biological parents from the law and replace them with judicial determinations of what constitutes a parent in addition to what constitutes a marriage.
Warbeagle at http://www.delawareonline.com/comments/article/20110419/NEWS01/104190347/Court-upholds-woman-s-de-facto-parental-rights comments on several novel ways this law could be used or misused:
“What this law does is basically insure that if you’re rich and involved in a child’s rearing, regardless of your relationship to the child you can sue for custody and the true parent or parents of the child will have to lawyer up…
If a guy divorces his wife, but the wife’s mother used to live with them and helped raise the child, now that mother can sue for custodial rights.”
“Now as the father of a child I have to be careful that no one else feels they have a parental right to my child. So if I go away for 3 months and leave the child with an aunt, that aunt can now turn around and try to prevent me taking my child to another state or country should my work take me there.
Likewise if I live with a girlfriend and my child, and break up with the girlfriend that girlfriend could sue for parental rights under this law even though the kid was never hers.
Instead of having to battle one person in court, I could find myself battling two or three. Suppose my ex wife has partial custody of my kid, and files for divorce and her ex husband now wants custody of my kid?“
Here are some addition discussions from Dr. Morse. http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/23/why-no-adoption-in-the-de-case/
http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/07/05/my-three-daddi...
http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/11/09/a-little-girl-...
The questions are: what is marriage? And what makes one a parent? The questions were originally related. Redefining marriage tears them apart to the disadvantage of women, children, and the less well to do, and to the advantage of men, the rich and the well lawyered. Tear apart the warp and woof of family law, and this is what you get.
Continuing the thought...
Degendered marriage commits the state to taking sides against the natural parent and in favor of the socially constructed parent.
Degendered marriage will legally redefine the primary definition of parenthood. The exceptional case, the lowest common denominator, will become the new legal norm as against the biological fact that every child ever born has a biological mother and a biological father.
Douglas Farrow in his book Nation of Bastards raises important questions about the relationship of the new and increasing intrusive state and the natural family:
Is the state the property of the citizenry? Or are citizens, with their time-honored personal associations, including marriage, now the property of the state?
Who "owns" the children, if natural parenthood had been replaced by legal parenthood?
Is the family still "the natural and fundamental group unit of society," as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims?
These questions in turn go to the questions of what is marriage, what is a mother, and what is a father?
Publius,
A quote from Noah Webster does not reflect a *traditional* value, it reflects the mindset of a religious zealot.
As far as "preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes and promoting domestic felicity" - this is beneficial when applied to same-sex couples as well.
The questions "what is marriage" and "what makes one a parent" were never related. You would be closer if you changed that to "who will have parental responsibility", which would be the husband of the mother of the child (not necessarily that child's father).
re comment nr. 9.
Webster was considered the source for the definition of words for generations. Do you really mean to say that America was gripped by religious zealotry for most of its history? And what do you mean by zealot? Was Webster shooting people or putting targeted addresses on maps?
Virtually every prominent advocate for SSM is also an advocate for "open marriage." "Open marriage" will become the new normal.
You are unable or unwilling to define either "marriage" or "parent." Once definitions become meaninglessly elastic, arguments, the law, and culture become meaningless, except as an exercise in raw political power and lawfare.
Re: Comment 10
Publius writes:
I might quibble over your use of the word "source" - I think "reference" would be a better term. Words gain their meaning through usage, not through the declaration of a reference book's author.
You can check the definition of the word "tweet" as an example of this. Merriam-Webster says that this word means "a post made on the Twitter online message service". How did that happen? Its because language IS elastic. It evolves and changes to facilitate the ideas and concepts people wish to communicate to one another.
Publius writes:
Nope. I mean to say that religious zealots have long sought to influence the culture ... as is their right.
Publius writes:
Same thing that Noah Webster meant by it:
zeal·ot
/ˈzelət/
Noun
One who is zealous; one who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his object with earnestness and ardor; especially, one who is overzealous, or carried away by his zeal; one absorbed in devotion to anything; an enthusiast; a fanatical partisan.
Noah Webster believed that America should be christianized. His dictionary was written from that mindset, and reflects that ambition. Probably why he was known as The Father of American Christian Education.
Publius writes:
I doubt the accuracy of your claim re:marriage equality advocates. Regardless of any such advocacy, there's no basis to conclude that "open marriage" is an inevitable outcome of marriage equality. You are conflating two different subjects.
Publius writes:
Not true. I would be more than happy to offer definitions of those for you.
Actually, Professor Fred Parrella and Gerald Coleman, S.S., President of St. Patrick's Seminary expressed it beautifully. (emphasis added)
And Parent:
a : one that begets or brings forth offspring
b : a person who brings up and cares for another
SearchCz denies everything about anything, then assumes same-sex marriage is a given, though SCOTUS meant opposite-sex marriage when stating marriage is a "right" . What a strategy! Add a little ambiguity in the language and his blog then has a purpose (to confuse people).
Check out this labyrinth of sentences:
"Married couples ALREADY choose when and whether they'll have kids. Some choose to never have kids. It has nothing to do with same-sex marriage - and so - why suggest that allowing same-sex marriage has anything to do with it?"
1. Married couples don't always choose to engender children (by the way: kids are baby goats). That's the principal point regarding regulating marriage - engendering by accident. Some married couples are same-sex and therefore don't need this regulation.
2. Married couples (all kinds) might decide to adopt (have children).
3. Some married couples might be infertile at the time they would like purposefully to engender a child. They might recover fertility, later, or never - but still would offer a mother and dad figure if they were to adopt.
4. That's right - opposite-sex couples not wanting children has nothing to do with the concept of same-sex marriage. But you hit right on the point: same-sex marriage does not have to be regulated by the State. But opposite-sex relationships do (whether as a marriage or not) need to be regulated by the State, in case they engender a child, willingly or not. You, yourself - one of those babies.
So Mr. SearchCz, you have answered yourself, unwillingly, unknowingly
In conclusion, same-sex partnerships are irrelevant to civil marriage. They must develop their own category, accordingly. Problem solved.
Publius writes:
The definition of marriage SearchCz proposes raises many more questions than it answers.
Does he really mean to outlaw divorce?
Does he really mean to exclude the very common gay practice of “open relationships?”
See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0 and
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/
Does he really mean that a married couple can have no private spaces at all for their marriage to be legally valid? Not even separate checking accounts? This sounds more like a Hallmark Card than a legal definition.
Why use a lengthy definition from one religion (and one not necessarily recognized by their co-religionists) and not from another religion? Why is SearchCz advocating the definition from one set of denominational clerics when he opposes the non-denominational, albeit Christian, Webster? And why exclude Islamic marriage customs?
Why insist on this definition rather than centuries of legal precedent going back to English Common Law and widely used dictionaries and the language of the Supreme Court itself in Murphy v. Ramsey? Does SearchCz consider that opinion to be zealotry? It is certainly in line with Webster.
As for "parent," making a non-adoptive, non-biological caretaker a legal parent (as happened in Delaware under pressure from the gay lobby) raises the possibility of all sorts of legal mischief and the unwarranted expansion of intrusive state power, as noted in my previous posts. The problem arises from an ill-guided and novel redefinition of parent, a definition that Lambda Legal pushes. It can now trip up heterosexuals as well.
As for begetting, the unnatural surrogacy industry, fueled by gays (see http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_link_between_rented_wombs_and_gay_marriage) leads to the exploitation of poor women, reducing them to “easy bake oven[s] except with no legal rights to the cupcake.”
In short, when we discard natural law, tradition, previous legal precedent, previous definitions, and popular sovereignty, we embark on a course of cultural anarchy fueled by the lawfare of a very well-funded minority that will work to the advantage of men, the rich, and the well lawyered and to the disadvantage of women, children, and the less affluent.
SearchCz: Very confusing indentation of your paragraphs. Another laberinth. . .
Sorry, typo: labyrinth (a maze). Only quotes of what "Publius writes"
The definition of marriage SearchCz proposes raises many more questions than it answers.
Does he really mean to outlaw divorce?
Does he really mean to exclude the very common gay practice of “open relationships?”
See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0 and
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/
Does he really mean that a married couple can have no private spaces at all for their marriage to be legally valid? Not even separate checking accounts? This sounds more like a Hallmark Card than a legal definition.
Why use a lengthy definition from one religion (and one not necessarily recognized by their co-religionists) and not from another religion? Why is SearchCz advocating the definition from one set of denominational clerics when he opposes the non-denominational, albeit Christian, Webster? And why exclude Islamic marriage?
Why insist on this definition rather than centuries of legal precedent going back to English Common Law and widely used dictionaries and the language of the Supreme Court itself in Murphy v. Ramsey? Does SearchCz consider that opinion to be zealotry? It is certainly in line with Webster.
As for parent, making a non-adoptive, non-biological caretaker a legal parent raises the possibility of all sorts of legal mischief and the unwarranted expansion of intrusive state power, as noted in my previous posts.
As for begetting, the unnatural surrogacy industry, fueled by gays (see http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_link_between_rented_wombs_and_gay_marriage) leads to the exploitation of poor women, reducing them to “easy bake oven[s] except with no legal rights to the cupcake.”
In short, when we discard natural law, tradition, previous legal precedent, previous definitions, and popular sovereignty, we embark on a course of cultural and linguistic anarchy fueled by the lawfare of a very well-funded minority that will work to the advantage of men, the rich, and the well lawyered and to the disadvantage of women, children, and the less affluent.
For Little Man:
Publius writes:
The relationships of husband to husband, and of wife to wife, is also founded in nature. If thats the prerequisite for being woven into the fabric of civil society, let's get on with it.
Publius writes:
Thank you for proving my point, by clearly stating that this legal problem exists for a guy who might divorce his wife. This is a problem caused by the divorce of opposite-sex couples, not by the marriages of same-sex couples! It is a symptom of the status-quo definition of marriage.
Little Man writes:
Citation please .... any example will do.
re comment 17
What it proves is that once a state’s family law is changed from previous understandings of natural law to something new to conform to the demands of Lambda Legal, all people, including unsuspecting heterosexuals, are affected negatively in surprising ways. In short Lambda legal has created a new problem for opposite-sex couples. And Lambda Legal pushes the redefinition of parent in order to make SSM resemble naturally procreative marriage.
The lack of a bride makes all of the male-only scenarios non-marital for there is no husband where there is no wife.
Take the lone male individual. He is not a husband without a wife making him so. Add another male individual, add a room full of male individuals, and the deficit remains.
So the SSMer asserts, without sound argumentation, that the mere addition of more of the same makes the difference.
Sex difference makes the difference. SSMers acknowledge sex difference is highly significant to SSM -- in the exclusion of the addition of difference rather than in its inclusion.
SSM means the specious substitution for marriage.
At best, and that is not much, really, the SSM idea is for a type of relationship that is metaphorically marital -- it is in some superficial ways "like" the union of husband and wife. It is derivative. It is mimicry. But it lacks the core of the type of relationship that is different from other two-sexed scenarios -- and fundamentally different from one-sex-short scenarios.
The force of pro-SSM assertion does not provide the force of sound argumentation. Quite the contrary. Search demonstrated that above.
re: comment 18
After accusing me of denying "everything", you cite something that I did not deny. I can't really comment on the article you linked to because the link is invalid.
It does appear that the law you reference is in force in a state where same-sex marriage is not an option, correct? Making it reasonable to conclude that this problem is not caused by same-sex marriage. Yes?
The "problem" isn’t simply SSM. The underlying problem is a radical ideology of gender and parenthood pushed by Lambda Legal and its allies that rejects natural law, tradition, long-standing precedent, and democracy. Lambda Legal pushes for making non-adoptive, non-biological parents into legal parents. It is an attempt to make the children the property of state by replacing natural parenthood with legal parenthood. Who "owns" the children, if natural parenthood had been replaced by new presumptions of legal parenthood? Answer: the people who can afford the best lawyers and lobbyists. It is about increasing state power by destroying natural law and redefining institutions and presumptions that pre-date the state.
re: 20.
Little Man writes:
Make that "The problem simply isn't SSM." and I'm in agreement.
In states with ssm judges and legislatures can make the mistake of arbitrarily assigning parentage to non-biological, non-adoptive parents. With ssm this mistake *must* occur in order to attempt to create legal parity between marriages and same-sex partnerships.
Another way to say it: "SSM is part of the problem."
SearchCz: still don't have our eyeglasses?
You should be referring to comment #23
Separately, i agree with Publius, not you:
"The "problem" isn’t simply SSM."
In my opinion, the problem is lack of logic. One cannot debate someone who doesn't recognize 2+2=4
So, you don't remember where you've denied everything of anything?. . . Now your memory is going.
You can drop me from your responses. Publius and Chairm have obviously taken a toll on your faculties. Take a rest, and come back. Thanks for trying. You are smart, and you'll see the reality, though now you are blinded by bias.
SSM is the culmination of the problem and, as such, is the battle cry of the anti-marriage crowd. For most of that crowd, the gay stuff is superfluous. The gay emphasis adds a bizarre assertion that gay identity politics must become superior to marriage and to justice and to the principles of good governance. It is a poisonous brew, actually, the SSM thing is just the latest flavoring.