“He’s gone off the deepest end of the swimming pool this time,” you say. Well perhaps I have but I do not think so. An interesting thing is that Rome, on this topic as well as so many others, has many, many layers of theology and reason, all of which are both important and needing consideration in order to come to a cohesive understanding of the topic at hand.

MN will almost certainly become, as early as next week, the 12th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Note I did not call it, as is today popular and chic, “marriage equality.” Actual and literal marriage equality would necessitate polygamy, an issue from the last century or just before it, and very possibly the marriages of close relatives, also something which occurred more prevalently then and still occurs now in some states (19 to be exact). It could even mean that children could once again marry (the late country singer Loretta Lynn was married in 1948 at age 13) just as another example, and one, I would suggest, more serious than allowing non-related adults to marry of either gender.

All of those are instances of marriage “equality “gone awry and not particularly good for society. Many would put same-gender marriage in the same categories as the above, but I am not sure we can do that, either as a Church or society. Why not?

A stark history lesson going back to the Founding Fathers of the United States might be in order here for starters. Thomas Jefferson, who is often thought of as one of the ‘liberals” of the bunch who signed the Constitution into law, was of the belief that homosexual males should be castrated. And, up until the early 1970s, the condition of SSA (same-sex attraction) was thought to be a mental illness by most, which has now been refuted by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, and most other health and social service organizations have followed suit. The American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, as has National Association of Social Workers and numerous other mental health professionals since that time. Very few think otherwise.

On the other hand, the clear and unwavering teaching of the Church is in favor of traditional marriage, both for society and for the children produced by it. I am as well, and not disputing this ideal in any way. I wish to remain clear on this as I write what may now seem to contradict the interpretation of some within the Church on this matter.

With that, here is the rub between the last two paragraphs. Church authority as well teaches that we are not to discriminate against those with homosexual orientations in any unneeded ways, and to treat those of us from that background with the utmost respect and kindness. That line of thought is directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) of 1992. Yet if you present that line of reasoning to many, they will come up with astounding interpretations that support their view, yet are clearly contrary to the spirit and letter of the CCC. Just as an example, I have heard or read on several occasions that the “kindest” response would be to make homosexuality illegal again (which by the way has only been legalized on a nationwide level since the Supreme Court decision of Lawrence vs. Texas in 2003) in order to “protect us from ourselves.” That to me is akin to making smoking cigarettes or purchasing super-sized sodas illegal since both are clearly bad for us and somewhat addictive besides.

My point is this: some personal decisions and choices are going to be made anyway and either way, law or no law, and therefore are better gently regulated than outlawed. And I think my Libertarian as well as many staunch Republican friends would tend to agree. The sexual behavior of two consenting adults is, in my view, squarely in that category. I am not sure how it can be otherwise unless the police plan to stand guard at all houses and apartment complexes, with ears to the floor and allow only squeaky bedsprings with wiretaps tightly attached. On a practical level alone we just do not have the resources for such a police state nor would anyone sane, LGBT or otherwise, accept that in our day and age.

So how do we best obey Church teaching while at the same time offering true and authentic tolerance here? Obviously on a personal level we can and should share our Faith and values with our families, friends and neighbors. But I question if it is the best use of our time and energy to continually fight over this issue, and spending millions upon millions of dollars to do so. And in addition, intentionally or not, we are painfully alienating an entire segment of society in the process. I mentioned the 1960s earlier, and what many do not realize, because among other reasons it was not “newsworthy” enough to even be reported in the news, is that LGBT people were constantly being arrested, harassed, beaten, and tormented in those days, days within my lifetime. Was it not for Stonewall (see link here)—
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

there might never have been even a mention of homosexuality within the Catechism promulgated less than 25 years later. The gay rights movement, whether one wishes to admit it or not, brought some very powerful and important changes which were sorely needed to society, and exposed to the light some of the horrific discrimination that did and still does exist at times due to sexual orientation. And sadly it was not the Church who first recognized this miscarriage of justice. The video below from the 1950s is one dreadful example of why people still think that LGBT people are “child molesters.”

On one level it is utterly laughable, but when I realize I missed by less than a full generation carrying such a stigma myself, and still have glimpses of it from the occasional few who are back in time with Jefferson and the others, I find it chilling to the freezing point. Were it not for amazing and courage-laden LGBT activists there would not even be discussion today of hospital visitation rights or wills shared between lifetime partners, much less permanent legal protections for couples in any way akin to marriage.

But, you may say “marriage” goes too far. And on a purely religious level I might agree with you. However one theological notion which has developed within the living Tradition of the Church, long before the issues of “marriage equality” or the sexual revolution ever occurred, is the principle of doing that which is “least evil.” It in fact is a standard which applies even and in fact especially to non-negotiable issues of faith and morals in a religious context. A simple explanation might be this—for the sake of societal concerns, there are times one must choose, whether politically or in other ways, what choice is the least problematic when, no matter which decision is made, all available choices may violate some or several of those principles.

I am of the belief, given the long-standing as well as recent history as well as present day of severe oppression of LGBT people, that some sort of “marriage” type of legal arrangement is more necessary than not, and that it should be similar and transferable throughout the nation too. Otherwise I fear, not a little but greatly, that the post-Stonewall advances discussed above made will fast be reversed, and I would hate to return to an era in the United States when it is legal to not only discriminate but to castrate those of us with SSA. We cannot afford to ever let that happen again. Neither in our lifetimes nor in our children’s. And it is naïve to assume it could not. Ask Matthew Shepard if you do not believe me.

I also know that there are very real dangers with “marriage equality.” The fears that schools and social service or adoption agencies among other groups will be drastically affected are not without warrant. Canada has had same-sex marriage in effect nationally for a number of years now, and churches have been very nearly forced by the government to drastically “tone down” their language in their teachings on the topic. To me those apprehensions are not insignificant or to be ignored. But the bottom line is, this is coming. To a state or nation near you. And especially near me. Most likely very soon in fact. So now is the time to begin seriously collaborating, which neither side has been particularly famous for on this thorny issue. And in the meantime, just as the late  Holy Father John Paul the First  congratulated the first invitro-fertilized couple upon the birth of their child, although conceived in a way that the Church did not in any way approve of or condone, I plan to gladly congratulate my LGBT friends who obtain the protection of law when they legalize their unions in a civil marriage. I will do so because I believe it is better than the alternatives which are now left available. While civil unions in theory might at one time have been “enough,” the example of Vermont, first a civil union state and now a same-sex marriage state, should clearly show us that the LGBT leadership will not be satisfied with “separate but almost equal” in this matter. Not anymore.

I believe and accept the fact that this will never be considered the “Church ideal” now would I personally ask it to be. I do not expect the Church to somehow create an 8th Sacrament for unions of the same gender either. But I move forward with the hope that she, our Mother the Church, will finally begin concentrating more on how to integrate our precious LGBT couples and, yes, families, into parish life when possible, and according to Church law, rather than fighting about whether they should even exist or not. That demographic is not going to disappear—and as my friend Joseph Amodeo eloquently wrote, they do not have “dirty hands” either. Many same-gender couples and parents could easily teach the rest of the Church a few things about love, sacrifice, and raising children in an atmosphere of love. Will we at last let them?