Marriage redefined?
By Fr.
ROY CIMAGALA,
roycimagala@gmail.com
May 4, 2015
US President Barack Obama
came out of the closet sometime ago and announced that he is for
same-sex marriage. He said that was the conclusion of his long period
of “evolving.”
Many political observers,
however, say that he originally was for it, then against it, then was
reconsidering, and then finally is for it again. They say this
flip-flopping is a reaction of a political animal to changing
political conditions.
Well, we know how this
stance is called in our country. “Weather-weather lang ni, bai.” To a
certain extent, this attitude is valid given the temporal nature and
autonomous character of politics.
But when used
indiscriminately, it can enter into forbidden territory as when it is
applied on matters of faith and morals, and on the fixed nature of
things. And I am afraid this is what is happening in this present
issue.
Marriage is not a political
issue that has to be defined, and its problems resolved, solely or
mainly in a political way. Marriage has a universal, immutable nature,
applicable to all of us regardless of race, gender and whatever
condition we may be in. When nature of things is involved, we just
accept it, we don’t redefine it.
Marriage simply has to be a stable relationship between a man and a
woman, because it involves a love that entails the use of sex whose
primary purpose is procreation before it provides pleasure and other
benefits to the couples concerned.
That’s simply the nature of
sex and marriage. It is not a religious imposition, but rather a
result of careful, comprehensive metaphysical study of the matter. If
we pursue this study thoroughly, then we will arrive at the conclusion
that marriage in itself has properties of exclusivity, unity and
indissolubility.
Of course, people can have
varying understanding of the nature of sex and marriage, and so we
just have to undertake a continuing discussion, clarification and
formation. The government should also feel the duty to do this. This
is everyone’s responsibility.
But we just cannot stop at
the level of “that-is-your-stand-and-this-is-mine,” since the issue at
hand is not a matter of opinion or personal preferences. It binds
everyone to conform to this nature of sex and marriage, in a way that
should be more forceful than the binding quality of our tax and
traffic laws.
Ironically, the latter laws
on taxes and traffic are more strictly pursued than our marriage laws.
It seems we are now having the wrong priorities, the wrong emphasis on
our varied concerns.
I was shocked when I heard
President Obama’s reasons for supporting same-sex marriage. They had
the usual rationalizing taste of the tolerance bit. It’s a reasoning
that has overreached its purpose, trying to go to a bridge too far.
This alibi about tolerance,
while it has its merits, should not be the only, much less, the
primary consideration to make especially in issues like marriage.
There are many other more fundamental and indispensable considerations
that precede it.
Obama was quoted as saying:
“No matter who you love or what God you worship, you can still pursue
happiness – I will support you every step of the way."
So, if one happens to love
an animal in a sexual way, he is free to marry it, and bestiality can
now be elevated to the level of marriage? Or if one happens to fall in
love with his own sister, or his own brother, he can also marry her or
him, and incest can be marriage?
Anything is always possible
with man. That’s why we need laws based on some absolute truths to
guide and educate us.
Or if one happens to believe
in violence and terrorism as his own God, it would just be ok? The
words of Obama did not include any qualifier as to who can be the
object and God of one’s love and devotion.
I may be exaggerating and
blowing out of proportion Obama’s words, but these words certainly
give us a direction that, in their most lenient interpretation, can be
considered as potentially dangerous.
There are things that we can
not and should not tamper. Marriage is one of them. Everything has to
be done to strengthen it. Those who violate them, while we always have
to be charitable and fair, should be dealt with clearly, and even
strongly.
I have no problem with gays.
I know many of them and they are excellent persons, workers and
friends. But let’s not call what is wrong, right, and bad, good, just
because we are friends.