I read lots of opinion pieces for and against marriage equality from a variety of perspectives, especially from Catholic and religious positions. I daresay that I read at least two or three a day–and could probably read a lot more if I had the time to digest all that come my way. Because many of these pieces repeat arguments that I have heard many times before, my eyes are always attracted to ones that have a freshness to them that make me think in new ways.
Such was the case when I read Heidi Schlumpf’s essay in The National Catholic Reporter last week, entitled “Gay marriage foes change their tactics, but not their tune.” Schlumpf points out a new trend in the way that marriage equality opponents are making their case lately. Because polls continue to show that greater majorities are supporting marriage equality, opponents seem to realize that their arguments about the sinfulness of homosexuality are no longer effective, and they are using a different approach:
“. . . an increasing number of ‘traditional’ marriage supporters are taking a different tactic. They’re not talking about gay people at all — or if they are, it’s only to voice newfound support for LGBT folks.
“It’s not about gay people anymore. It’s about the children.”
Schlumpf cites the recent case of an interview with William B. May, president for Catholics for the Common Good, in which he argued against same-sex marriage, where he stated:
“This issue is not about homosexuality at all. It is about whether marriage is a reality that not only unites a man and a woman with each other, but with any children born from their union.”
Schlumpf asserts that May’s argument is “a definition of marriage that is not ‘adult-centric,’ but rather exists to unite children with their biological moms and dads.” For her, this definition does not match the reality of her life or withstands the test of logic:
“As the parent of two children not born to me, I understandably question a definition of marriage that wouldn’t include my own union with my husband — not to mention those marriages of men and women that, for whatever reason, don’t include children at all.
“Yet when I pose this question to those who defend traditional marriage in this way, they are usually very supportive of adoptive parenting, seeing couples as almost heroic for creating families by adopting children who need parents. Straight couples, that is.
“To be honest, I find these arguments logically problematic. It seems to me that not opposing legal marriage for adoptive families (two ‘adult-centric’ folks with children not born to them) but doing so for LGBT families (two ‘adult-centric’ folks with children not born to them) reveals that the real problem for defenders of ‘traditional’ marriage is still homosexuality.
“The new ‘spin’ may be that it’s about the kids, but it’s really about homosexuality.”
Schlumpf concludes with an appeal to the new direction set by Pope Francis:
“When even the pope is encouraging Catholics to follow God and ‘endorse the existence of [gay and lesbian people] with love’ rather than ‘reject and condemn’ them, it’s clear that homophobic arguments just aren’t going to work anymore. But neither will defending marriage as an institution only for children and their biological parents.”
What I find refreshing in Schlumpf’s analysis is that she exposes the homophobia which underlies the faulty logic of an argument that on the surface denies being homophobic at all. Such analysis is needed now more than ever, as Catholic leaders make more use of this type of argument than most religious leaders do.
–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry