Proponents of same-sex marriage often claim that conservatives and Catholics especially are hypocrites because Jesus loves and forgives everyone, so if we don’t recognize same-sex couples as being equivalent to heterosexuals, we are not properly emulating Jesus. Mainline Protestants and sadly, dissident Catholics, have largely embraced homosexuality based on this flawed logic. There is also a notion that in order to evangelize, we must walk among the lowly and the downtrodden and be one with them. This is only partly true.

“Marriage of the Virgin,” by Rosso Fiorentino, 1523

Jesus spent his public ministry walking, preaching, and healing amongst the poor and the sick. However, the words he gave us are not merely a commentary on the world constrained by the circumstances of that time. The fashions and follies of the world are constantly changing but Jesus was and is the living and eternal word of God made flesh. Jesus did not seek popularity or approval or fame, but spoke the truth. As Christians, we are not called to bring the brokenness of world into the Gospel and to reinterpret it according to our wishes, but rather, we are called to bring the Gospel out into the world which desperately needs to hear it.

Critics often argue that the only references to homosexuality are in the Old Testament, but ironically, the scripture reading from this past Sunday reinforces the traditional definition of marriage when the Apostles wrote to the early Christians, “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from…unlawful marriage.” In this context, the “law” in question is the Law of Moses. It being the Easter Season, the reading is from the New Testament and is in perfect continuity with the many statements made by Jesus regarding adultery and marriage.

When Jesus speaks of man and woman being “joined in one flesh,” this is literally true, for in the act of procreation, man and woman are joined together in body and soul to participate in the creation of a new life. One cannot be pro-life and also support same-sex marriage, because the two concepts are so profoundly inseparable. Every child is the living and breathing expression of the sacred union of man and woman. We cannot separate marriage from procreation without separating procreation from life. Marriage in God’s plan is the source of life. The forces at work in Delaware, Rhode Island, and elsewhere are proudly and happily urging the destruction not just of marriage, but of the sacredness of life itself.

Campbell said earlier in the day that Hale was not fired because of her sexual orientation but because her “quasi-spousal relationship” with another woman violates the church’s moral teaching. He said Hale violated a teacher contract and Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus policy that prohibits immoral behavior and requires employees to follow general church tenets.

In an exclusive interview with The Dispatch, the bishop said diocesan officials “don’t necessarily go looking for things like that,” but Hale’s decision to name her partner in her mother’s obituary made the relationship public and initiated the termination process.

As bishop, he said, he has a “fundamental responsibility” to maintain the Catholic identity of the institutions under his purview.

“We do this in an atmosphere of care, of calm consideration, but yet out of the realization that at particular times we have to make particular decisions,” he said. “And they are difficult sometimes, but they do flow from what we believe, who we are and how we are to live.”

His Excellency, The Most Rev. Frederick Campbell, Bishop of Columbus (Catholic News Agency File Photo)

Unfortunately this is not the last word on the matter. According to the Columbus NBC affiliate, WCMH Channel 4, Hale’s attorney has formally filed a criminal complaint against the Diocese of Columbus which carries a possible penalty of up to six months in jail and has no exemption for religious organizations. That Bishop Campbell waited until now to speak publicly on the matter is evidence of how agonizing and heartbreaking this must be for him to see a former employee now lashing out against the Church.

In a bizarre side-story, an angry parent was escorted from a charity dinner with the Bishop after an outburst this past weekend. WCMH Channel 4 reports that John Petrucci supports Hale’s dismissal but was concerned about the violent threats that have been directed at Bishop Watterson High School. In response to the confrontation, a spokesman for the Diocese issued the following statement:

“During last evening’s dinner for diocesan ‘Bishop Annual Appeal’ contributors, an attendee, immediately prior to Bishop Campbell’s address, abruptly stood and began speaking regarding Carla Hale in a manner that was not understood or heard by many in attendance. While speaking, he began moving toward the Bishop in a way that concerned many in the audience.  Several attendees thought it necessary to intervene on the Bishop’s behalf, asked the man to leave, and escorted him from the event.  No extraordinary force was either required or applied in this process.

“Bishop Campbell is aware of the passions that have surrounded the Carla Hale issue and is deeply concerned about the anxiety and alarm it has created within our community.  He encourages all on either side of this subject to maintain civility and calm while the grievance process in this case moves forward.”

Given the threats that Petrucci is rightly concerned about, it is understandable that some in the audience may have thought he was a supporter of Hale. The attack on Belgian Archbishop Leonard is one recent example of the anger and hatred that is directed against the Catholic Church. The hacker group “Anonymous” has also issued threats against employees of the diocese. There will surely be worse to come for any who have the courage to defend the truth. Petrucci’s outburst illustrates how easily emotions and passions can overwhelm reason and good judgment. We must choose our words and our actions carefully.

Bishop Campbell and all who share his steadfastness will be called uncompassionate, intolerant, and hypocritical for holding fast to unpopular beliefs. However, we must remember that that love and compassion demand that we make sacrifices for the good of others. Carla Hale’s supporters who call for the Church to violate eternal truths have forgotten that compassion is not just about giving unconditionally, but that sometimes correction is needed when we go astray. The Bishop’s crozier is a reminder of this sacred duty not only to keep his sheep in the fold, but also as a rod to defend from wolves when the time comes.

Until these most recent development, the media coverage of this story has been entirely focused on Carla Hale’s supporters. However, members of the public who support Bishop Campbell and the Dioceses for upholding the Catholic faith have quietly begun to mobilize. A group of parents and students of Bishop Watterson High School has started a petition to offer prayers and encouragement to the Bishop and the Diocese. In the tribulations that lie ahead, they will need our help and our sacrifices.

In a statement that should come as a shock to exactly nobody who understands the real agenda behind gay marriage, lesbian author, journalist and gay rights activist Masha Gessen lays out the real plan behind the push for “marriage equality” (emphasis added):

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.…(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. 

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

It’s a pretty shocking claim. Shocking not because of what she says – that much is obvious – but because of the rare honesty of someone willing to say it.

Because of that, it will be drowned out. It will be denied. If Gessen isn’t disowned by her movement, she will be marginalized or ignored.

We’ve seen this kind of thing before. Are you aware that pro-abortion feminists like Camile Paglia, Judith Arcana, Naomi Wolf,and others have admitted, frankly, that abortion is the taking of a human life? Many are not. Their openness works against linguistic obfuscation that drives the pro-abortion movement, just as Gosnell’s trial throws the reality of abortion into stark relief.

Allow me to quote from them (with my added emphasis) and see if you’ve heard any of this in mainstream abortion debates.

Of the three, Paglia was perhaps the most blunt, when she wrote:

I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.

Arcana, herself an abortionist, was similarly honest:

I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.

Wolf, though she tried to lessen the impact of her statement with the nuance of appeals to emotion and necessary evils was also quite direct:

War is legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Letting the dying die in peace is often legal and sometimes even necessary. Abortion should be legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the foetus, in its full humanity, must die.

Wolf’s statement was made in 1995. Arcana’s in 1999. Paglia’s in 2008. If you search the Internet, you can find more such statements over the years.

But has this changed the debate about abortion? No. Have the majority of abortion supporters been equally honest about just what it is that they are advocating for – the taking of human life? Absolutely not. We’re still, 40 years later, arguing with people about whether or not an unborn child is even a human being. We can’t even get the media to cover Kermit Gosnell’s demonic practices, despite the fact that he is responsible for the deaths of more people than any serial killer in history.

And so it will be with gay marriage. The fact that any in the movement are willing to admit their true agenda signals, as it did with abortion supporters before them, that they sense victory on the horizon. Things have reached a tipping point where public support for gay marriage has outweighed reason or critical thought.

If enough people support their cause, what difference does it make if people know the truth? In the view of people like Gessen, the cat is already out of the bag.

But to my mind, truth matters. In my view, the more people who know what is really at stake, the better. Let’s not let the deception stand.

Spread the word.

“He created them male and female and blessed them.” Genesis 5:2

Tax returns are due next week, which is a potent reminder of just what is at stake. One of the many arguments in favor of same-sex marriage is that gay and lesbian couples should enjoy the same tax benefits as heterosexuals. Homosexuals should be careful what they wish for, because for many dual-income households, taxes are actually higher than if they were single. The big tax savings for married couples is from having children.

Barring infertility, heterosexuals have the advantage that they can make one child after another whenever they please whereas same-sex couples must go through the lengthy and expensive process of adoption or surrogacy. If marriage is a basic right, any law discriminating in favor of heterosexual marriage would violate that right. On these grounds, any tax benefit for children would have to be unconstitutional because it would unfairly punish same-sex couples.

This is not a slippery slope. This is not even just another argument that same-sex marriage proponents are already using. This is being proposed as a law in California now. Before Hollingsworth v. Perry (Proposition 8) has even been decided, the liberals have already moved on to the next battle. No matter how strenuously proponents of same-sex marriage deny it, marriage is about having children, and the law must recognize this fact one way or the other.

Children are the reason marriage exists. It is through the act of procreation that a man and woman are joined in both body and soul to participate in the miracle of new life. We may be labeled as bigots and intolerant for defending this truth, but any law which recognizes “equality” of same-sex couples will have to contend with this basic fact of our existence. Once marriage is redefined as a right, any distinction of that right will violate the principle of equality which is so bitterly sought today.

Alfred Kinsey, the famous (or infamous) sexologist, estimated that 10% of the American population is homosexual. A 2011 Gallup poll found that Americans believe that as much as 25% of the population is homosexual. According to the findings (emphasis added):

There is little reliable evidence about what percentage of the U.S. population is in reality gay or lesbian, due to few representative surveys asking about sexual orientation, complexities surrounding the groups and definitions involved, and the probability that some gay and lesbian individuals may not choose to identify themselves as such. Demographer Gary Gates last month released a review of population-based surveys on the topic, estimating that 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, with bisexuals making up a slight majority of that figure. Gates also disputes the well-circulated statistic that “10% of the males are more or less exclusively homosexual.”

Americans’ current collective estimate — which is substantially higher than Gates suggests — is likely driven more by perceptions and exposure than by scientific measurement or reality.

In addition to the far lower demographic estimates of the homosexual population in America, the US Census Bureau data indicates that “same-sex partner households made up less than 1 percent of all households in both 2000 and 2010.”

Why does this matter?

Simply put, the fight over same sex marriage is about far more than just tax benefits or visitation rights. It’s about attaining societal legitimacy for behavior that was once considered deviant — and statistically, still is. Further, it’s about silencing those who oppose their agenda, the 1st Amendment be damned.

Advocates for same-sex marriage are often loathe to admit that their push for legitimacy would open the door for the State to sanction other forms of sexual behavior now considered deviant. Whether they don’t want to acknowledge this “slippery slope” in a way that would weaken their case or sincerely disbelieve it, the handwriting is already on the wall.

Today, I came across two stories that I believe are bellwethers of what is to come.

In California, there is a legislative push to federalize a state law that prohibits counseling someone in an attempt to change their sexual orientation. The kicker? In this law, pedophilia is classified as a “sexual orientation.” And sexual orientation is a protected category under anti-discrimination laws.

Under the bill’s language, a mental health counselor could be sanctioned if there was an attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change his behavior or speak negatively about their behavior as it relates to sexuality.

The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.”

The text of the legislation doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy. Instead, it prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation.

“Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation,” the bill says.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.

“This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It’s not just the orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”

Even as I write this, I see that another facet of this story is playing out in the Virginia Gubenatorial race. It’s hard to believe.

I also came across a story from 2010, in which a Columbia University professor was charged for having an incestuous relationship with his 24-year old daughter — a relationship that lasted 3 years. His attorney offered a predictable defense:

He told ABCNews.com: ‘Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so.

‘At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.

‘It’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?

‘We have to figure out why some behaviour is tolerated and some is not.’

And further:

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Galluzzo questioned if prosecuting incest was “intellectually consistent” with the repeal of anti-sodomy laws that resulted from Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. “What goes on between consenting adults in private should not be legislated,” he said. “That is not the proper domain of our law.”

Galluzzo continued: “If we assume for a moment that both parties [involved in incest] are consenting, then why are we prosecuting this?”

These are the fruits of the push for homosexual legitimacy. This is the fallout of the ongoing same-sex marriage debate. Normal sexual relationships become one option in a panoply of accepted “lifestyles.” Normal, natural, traditional marriage becomes marginalized as other kinds of relationships are recognized by the state. Marriage, and the sexual intimacy that is truly proper only to marriage, get twisted into something unrecognizable.

I have written about this here before, but it bears repeating: there is no logical way, absolutely none, to divorce sex from procreation and preserve the integrity of marriage. Further, there is no way to divorce sex from procreation and keep deviant sexual behaviors classified as, well, deviant. Sex has two polar aspects that exist in balance as they relate to each other. These are the natural biological end of sex (namely, children) and the (sometimes, but not always) unifying love and pleasure that is shared by its participants. The Christian conception fuses both, making it both immanent and sublime, always balancing the raw, unimaginable power of creating life against the raw, incredible intimacy of true conjugal love.

Try to have one without the other and everything goes sideways. Sex, when it is about ONLY procreation, objectifies men and women and turns them into breeders. Sex, when it is only about pleasure and intimacy makes any form of sexual gratification between consenting individuals a legitimate means to that end. Same sex, multi-partner, non-procreative (ie., sodomy), self-gratification, etc. It’s all on the table if it’s just about how good it feels.

Contraception shattered sex into its component pieces. It was only a matter of time before sexually conservative people over-emphasized making babies, and sexually “liberated” people over-emphasized the pursuit of maximum gratification, in whatever sort of relationships they felt like engaging in.

We no longer can make a natural law argument (or a pragmatic one, for that matter) that sex belongs in marriage and marriage is about kids and family when so many married couples stopped having kids and building families. This door may only be cracked open now, but it’s going to get kicked open soon. And the consequences are not going to be pretty.

UPDATE: 4/4/2013 @ 4:46PM

In the interest of accuracy, when I wrote this post, I said that “In this law, pedophilia is classified as a “sexual orientation.” And sexual orientation is a protected category under anti-discrimination laws.” This was a misstatement of fact.

In actuality, the word “pedophilia” never appears in the bill, California SB 1172. Instead, it defines sexual change efforts as follows:

“(b) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

The ambiguity of the definition would cover any inclination considered to be a sexual orientation. Concerned about the implications of such broad language in situations such as pedophiles going in for psychiatric counseling, it has been alleged, but I have been unable to verify, that an attempt to amend the bill and add specificity was attempted.

Considering that there have been recent attempts by some groups to push the American Psychological Association to de-stigmatize pedophilia and de-classify it as a disorder, a cause for concern in this legislation still exists.

Last night as my wife and I were getting dinner ready, our oldest daughter, a sophomore in high school, dropped the question: “So, what do you guys think of gay marriage?”

I tried to downplay the shock and delight I felt that she actually initiated such a substantive discussion with us,  and decided to see what she was thinking. I deployed the old technique of answering a question with a question, and I turned it back around on her.

“Well, what do you think about gay marriage?”

“I think…” she began, “that Catholics are partially right and partially wrong about it. They’re right because it’s immoral, and people aren’t supposed to do that. But I don’t think they should be able to make laws telling people that they can’t be with who they want to be with. It’s wrong but it’s their choice.”

Considering the fact that we’ve never discussed this issue, I thought that was a pretty decent answer. These are difficult concepts to fully grasp at any age, let alone in high school. My daughter attends a Catholic school with a pretty solid reputation for orthodoxy, so she’s in an interesting environment to explore these issues. As anyone who has ever been to Catholic school knows, even if the administration and faculty are good, the other students come from many different backgrounds, and not everyone is going to agree. In other words — a pretty good place to begin learning to think for yourself amidst differing opinions.

So we talked about the issues. We talked about how in the history of Christendom, there were Catholic confessional states that both espoused the divinely revealed religion and outlawed sinful behavior. That there were, and still are, many Catholics who believe that this is the ideal form of government. We talked about how this nation was not founded upon that sort of governing principle. That here, our government was founded on the idea of liberty as everyone’s fundamental right, and how because of this, our system of laws don’t allow us to be as restrictive in legislating morality as, say, a Catholic monarch of France.

We talked about the concept of liberty itself, and how it flows out of free will. God is, in a sense, the ultimate libertarian. Although He gives us very clear rules to live by, and makes the consequences for breaking them known, He also loves us so much, respects the free will He has given us to such a radical degree, that He allows us to make our own choices. He wants us to choose Him, but He gives us the freedom to choose Hell instead.

That’s pretty astonishing when you think about it.

This is why I have come to believe so strongly that freedom, not government, is the only path toward this nation’s restoration. Let people have liberty, and demand that they be responsible with it. Liberty does not absolve us of the consequences of our actions, it makes us accountable for them. If we choose poorly, we have to live with the outcome of those decisions. If we hurt others, we will have to contend with the law. But the panoply of options at our disposal, from whether or not to wear a seatbelt to what substances we can ingest to the size of our sodas to the decision of whether to homeschool should belong to us, not the government.

This is not the current prevailing view in America. The more the government takes away our right to choose for ourselves, the less likely it is that we will think for ourselves. Failing to exercise of our free will will cause it to atrophy, along with the intellect that informs it.

Am I advocating getting government out of the marriage business? I’m still undecided. I recognize that there is a certain danger in the non-governmental approach. My marriage confers with it certain rights and responsibilities, and under the laws of the United States,  certain benefits. From tax breaks and child credits to custody, visitation, and survivorship rights, being married affords me social incentives and assistance that I would not otherwise receive. And despite my libertarian inclinations, I think this is a good thing. The State does have a compelling interest in ensuring the growth of its future citizenry. In most of the Western world (and no small portion of the East) fertility is at below replacement levels. Providing tax and legal incentives for marriage is, for the time being, a positive example of government intervention. Give men and women a reason to have children and take care of them together as husband and wife, and you’re more likely to have stable families. Common sense applies.

And yet, my marriage is not made real because I was issued a piece of paper by the courthouse, but because I made solemn vows to my wife before God. Our union is inherently, naturally capable of producing and nurturing children: those tiny, cute, sometimes stinky and often whiny building blocks of society.  If the government were to be prohibited from defining marriage at all, it might keep them from turning it into little more than a societal contract between two consenting adults of whatever gender who want to provide sexual pleasure to each other in a formalized context. If the government continues to define marriage in spite of us, pretty soon they’ll force the new definition on us. Elsewhere in the world, this is already happening.

So while I see the appeal of traditional, natural marriage protected and promoted by civil law, I remain concerned that the government is overreaching. It never stops at the inch when it can take the mile. I worry that the negative impact of allowing our government to have a say in marriage may soon outweigh the positive. When it comes down to it, I’ll take liberty for those I disagree with over government control and redefinition of what I believe in any day.

Which brings me back to the conversation with my daughter. I told her that it was very likely that she was going to hear people say, “Why can’t Catholics just leave people alone? Why do you impose your beliefs on others all the time? Can’t you be compassionate toward people who aren’t like you?”

This is, I told her, a misunderstanding of compassion. Compassion is the fruit of love, and love wills the good of the other even when they can’t see it. As a parent, just because my children want to eat candy for breakfast lunch and dinner does not mean I should let them do it. Even though they believe it would make them happy, in reality it would make them sick. What if they said to me, “Why can’t you just accept us, daddy? Don’t you love us? You’re happy eating meat and vegetables, and that’s fine for you. So let us eat the way we want and stay out of our business.”

Would any loving parent give in to that? No! That’s not love, it’s neglect, possibly even abuse. Love doesn’t mean just accepting when another does wrong and looking the other way. That’s indifference. Applied to adults, love is caring enough about another to tell them when they are in danger, whether that’s physical danger or the danger that is posed to their immortal soul.

In the end, forcing the government to release its grip on marriage may be our only hope. But giving people the freedom to do what they want is not the same thing as embracing it. We should respect the radical free will that God has given to us, but at the same time, we should recognize that God loves souls, and He wants us — all of us — to choose Him.  That means that no matter what happens, it falls back upon believers to speak to the world and tell them that love sometimes means saying “No, it’s not okay and I’m not going to lie to you and say that it is. You may be free to do it, but what you’re doing is wrong.”

Penn Jillette, an outspoken atheist and critic of the Church, has an interesting take on evangelism that we should all consider:

I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell, and that people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that well it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward, and atheists who think that people shouldn’t proselytize, ‘just leave me alone, keep your religion to yourself,’ how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible, and not tell them that? I mean if I believed beyond the shadow of a doubt that a truck was coming at you and you didn’t believe it, and that truck was bearing down on you, there’s a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.

True liberty is a little bit terrifying. Getting the government out of our lives is like riding a bike for the first time without training wheels. It means standing over an abyss with only your reason and your conscience to guide you, knowing that you might just fall. The state loves to place restrictions on us, and for some of us I think that replaces the notion that we need to speak the truth. “Well, it’s against the law, so now I don’t have to deal with it.” But that never works. You can’t pass a law that makes people good. Congress will never introduce a bill that turns hedonists into Christians. The President can pardon a criminal, but he can’t absolve sins. The Supreme Court can determine the constitutionality of laws, but it can’t overturn concupiscence.

This is a fight. A fight for souls that is rapidly intensifying. I am not opposed to good laws, but I think we should be wary how much we attempt to legislate belief and behavior, lest those precedents, once established, be turned on us.

Liberty is a noble thing, but only if we can be worthy of the responsibility that goes with it. In the words of President John Adams:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net…

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Whereas all of the other sacraments were instituted by Jesus during his ministry on earth, marriage was instituted at the beginning of the world and cannot be altered by any human law, and indeed is common to all civilizations. From a purely biological standpoint, this truth is so obvious as to be almost trivial. Procreation requires the union of man and woman. Even at the lowest level, every cell in the human body carries a special kind of DNA which can only be inherited from the mother. God’s handiwork is clear.

Balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet by Frank Bernard Dicksee, 1884.

It doesn’t stop there. The clamor for recognition of same-sex couples is only further evidence of just how important marriage is. Just as Adam yearned for a companion in the garden of Eden, people with homosexual desires still feel this yearning for companionship. Just as Eve was created as the complement to Adam, we all desire the completeness of another person with whom we can share everything. Even in the brokenness of sin, we are made in the likeness of God, and thus we all desire to love unconditionally.

However, marriage and procreation are inseparably linked. It is not enough that we love another person. In order for the sacrament of marriage to be valid, a man and a woman can not just consent to love one another forever unconditionally and to be faithful to one another. If that’s all there was to it, the debate about gay marriage would be over. The essential third component to marriage which even transcends our human mortality itself is the openness to life, which is to say, the intention to procreate if at all possible.

This openness to life elevates marriage to the divine, because in the act of procreation, we share more than just intimacy and companionship, but indeed we become co-authors with God of the very universe itself. Just as Jesus commands us as Christians to protect the unborn, the weak, the infirm, the elderly, and the outcasts of society, this respect for life also compels us to defend the means by which life comes into existence. As Jesus tells Peter when he falls asleep in the garden at Gesthemane, “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” In our depraved culture, it is easy to forget that procreation is a spiritual act as much as a physical one.

Through a respect for life and marriage, we have the power to stamp out the darkness of the Father of Lies. The 80’s pop ballad, “Love is a Battlefield” was only half right. We, the poor banished children of Eve, should open ourselves to life. We should not be fighting the battle of the sexes—which can never be won, but rather should commit ourselves to the never-ending battle against Satan and destruction in which our victory is ensured only through the Passion and Resurrection of Christ that we celebrate this week.

In our modern age, St. Joseph’s virtues of humility and chastity are confused for weakness. Our society is obsessed with power. Our political discourse is focused on making decisions for others instead of allowing people to make decisions for themselves. Every politician is a dictator in his own mind—although they would never admit it. Therefore, it should not surprise us that the liberal feminist program places men and women in competition with one another. Wealth, ambition, and violence are powerful forces, but they do not build families.

The New York Magazine article is part of a larger conversation in the media about the role of women and increasingly, it seems that the epitaph of radical feminism is being written as a Dickensian serial novel with many plot twists and no doubt a surprise ending where the long-lost rich uncle arrives to save the day. Commentators on both the left and the right are starting to agree that men and women might actually be different and that men and women are complementary pieces of a family that together form a greater and stronger whole.

Saint Joseph with the Infant Jesus, by Guido Reni, c.1635

However, there is much work to be done. The increasing rate of single motherhood is ample proof that true manliness is in a very sorry state indeed. Accordingly, the biggest problem with the New York Magazine piece is that it approaches the family from the viewpoint that men are largely passive and disinterested observers and that they feign interest in domestic matters, as though having children is like picking out curtains or matching throw pillows.

St. Joseph is described in the Gospel as a righteous man and a man of principle, but also merciful. Before he could carry out his obligations under the Law of Moses, he instead obeys the direct commandment of God to bring Mary and Jesus into his home and care for them. Even though it means he would never have children of his own, Joseph understood that the first responsibility of all men is to protect women, children, and the helpless.

On the other hand, radical feminism is based on the premise that women need to behave more like men in order to have equality, but instead of trying to reverse the entire history of mankind, why don’t we start by demanding that men behave more like men for a change? Instead of blaming women for wanting to have children and making them the victims, we should pray to St. Joseph that our society will hold men to the same standards that he did for himself.

The question of whether homosexual desires are something was born with is not the issue. The issue is whether homosexual acts—and thereby marriage—are natural. To answer that question, just ask yourself what would happen if everyone was homosexual—the human species would die out. That would strike me as unnatural.

The reality of life in this world is that we have attractions and passions that are, in varying degrees, unnatural and not the way God intended us to live. The Catholic Church would call that the consequences of original sin. I believe that gays and lesbians don’t control their attractions. What I don’t agree with is the belief that this therefore makes it natural.

It’s analogous to alcoholism. No one knows why some people seem to be wired in a way that when you have one beer it invariably leads to a case. The answer society offers is the correct one—to seek help and to live sober. Thankfully our society has mostly grown past the notion that alcohol abuse comes from a weak will and come to recognize it as an illness. It’s handled in the way it should be handled—with compassion, with respect, but with a firm belief that getting beyond the affliction is the way to live.

Unfortunately, we have not progressed as far when it comes to homosexual inclinations. The reality is that homosexual acts take a grave toll on those who commit them, the exposure to STDs being the most publicized, and including heightened chances of syphilis and hepatitis. I don’t consider this “God’s retribution”. I consider it the natural consequences of unnatural acts. The answer society has given those who struggle with homosexual affliction is tantamount to giving an alcoholic a case of beer—telling them, in effect, we won’t help you past your affliction, we’ll instead feed it.

The effects of normalizing unnatural behavior affects everyone, but the first people it affects are those who struggle with their afflictions. They really aren’t being given adequate answers by anyone, and that’s where the Catholic Church has to continue to find its voice—to articulate both the doctrine of original sin as an explanation for the disorder, and the grace poured out through the sacraments and the Gospel as the way to heal, recover and live normally.

The secular answer of “do whatever your passions tell you” is winning the argument right now, because it’s practicioners have been working at a long time, planting the cultural seeds that have put them on the verge of a political victory. If the poll numbers are right—and in spite of the bias at The Post & ABC, I imagine they’re pretty close—than even if California’s gay marriage ban is upheld by the Supreme Court, more states are going to continue to legalize the practice.

But what if the Catholic Church and its practicioners make the same sort of commitment to settle in for the long haul, to plant the seeds that will eventually lead to a restoration of the natural law. We’re losing the battle at the highest levels today, because we lost at the grass roots twenty and thirty years ago. The flip side is that the battle for the victories of thirty years’ hence is just beginning.  Save the life and soul of the individual gay person. From there save the culture, and eventually let that settle into law.

Dan Flaherty is the author of Fulcrum, an Irish Catholic novel set in postwar Boston with a traditional Democratic mayoral campaign at its heart, and he is the editor-in-chief of TheSportsNotebook.com

Though published more than two centuries ago, Madison’s words have been proven true time and time again.

Indeed, if we really were a society build on love and charity there would be little need for many government-run programs.

Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in.

To be sure, churches, non profits and local charities have helped and continue to help those in need. But over the past fifty years, our country has grown in size and stature, and so have our problems, especially our moral failings. Fortunately, many of those problems have been ameliorated by effective state-run initiatives.

But many have not. And many programs have only worsened the situation.

Here’s what I mean.

Most Americans support the idea behind Social Security. They may disagree about the most effective way to operate it, but most of us think it’s an important program that helps senior citizens.

In many ways, Social Security has been a successful federal-run program.

However, there have been many federal initiatives that – though well intentioned – are not only ineffective, but disrupt the appropriate relationship between the individual and the state.

One principle that is often overlooked when trying to understand the appropriate relationship between the individual and the state is the Catholic social principle of subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity is the belief that if something can be accomplished more effectively by a lower level of government then higher levels of government should not get involved. For instance, if the state of New York is better at delivering healthcare to its citizens than the federal government, then the federal government has no business telling them how to do it. In other words, nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done just as well by a smaller and simpler organization.

Now, there are areas where local government is inadequate and higher levels of government are necessary. Indeed, it would be unwise to think that a county or local municipality could do a better job at protecting credit card owners than the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.

True as that may be, it is often the case that many federal programs are established by politicians more concerned with prolonging their career than respecting the principle of subsidiarity. What inevitably happens is that lower forms of government end up getting pulverized.

Without respect for the important role churches, non profits and local government play in the lives of ordinary citizens, politicians end up destroying what was once a thick and robust buffer between the individual and the federal government.

When these mediating institutions are cast aside, the federal government assumes unto itself the responsibility of providing, among other things, shelter, food, and material well being for its citizens – a not so inexpensive venture.

Indeed, we see this take place all too often in our politics. And my home state of Michigan is no exception.

Republican Governor Rick Snyder recently paid a visit to a school in Grand Rapids that reportedly provides breakfast, lunch and dinner for its students during their summer vacation.

Now, no one wants children to go hungry, but can anyone seriously defend the idea that the state, and not the mother and father of these children (or a local charity), should be the ones providing them with meals during the summer? Whatever happened to the family unit? Whatever happened to relying on our neighbors and churches for help?

The fact of the matter is that when the state takes on responsibilities formerly reserved to the family, it obfuscates the importance of civil institutions and plunges us into an ever-deepening reliance on programs and initiatives from a far away bureaucracy that will not and have not accomplished their stated ends. Namely, win the war on poverty.