MN Marriage Minute #29: Negative Consequences of Redefining Marriage in Massachusetts

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqHr0u7wm94&feature=player_embedded

Marriage: Feminine Slavery or Fulfillment of her Liberation?

.
(by Theresa)

The first wave of feminism at the turn of the century and the early 1900s supported women's equality, wanted to give women the right to vote, and sought to elevate everything feminine. The second wave of feminism around the 1960s pushed forward the plight of women's equality, but there was one very significant divergence from the earlier feminists.

There is a tragically brilliant movie called "Mona Lisa Smile"starring Julia Roberts (2003) that illustrates what I believe is the very crux of this "liberal feminists" divergence. In the movie, Roberts plays a teacher in the 1950s who challenges her female students at a prestigious private college to question "the system. etc.; While watching the film, a woman is moved to rally behind the teacher (even though most of the students in the film resist). And then you see it: the school nurse is giving out the newly created birth control pills to any girl who asks for them. The biggest problem of the feminism of the 1960s is that it happened in the 1960s. The sexual revolution was supposed to free women, to liberate them. (Liberate them from what exactly? Hmmmm We'll get to that.) As much as it saddens my heart to watch, the film perfectly and accurately portrays the reality of what occurred: the fused intertwining between the feminist movement and the sexual revolution. And therein lays the fracture between the first- and second-wave feminists.

Are our bodies really not relevant?

What spurred on this divergence from the earlier feminists was a mindset that our very bodies and our partaking in child birth and child rearing is in itself oppressive to women. They believed (stemming from their own interpretation of Marxist philosophy) that our bodies were not part of our nature. Thinking this way, what you did with the body did not matter. The sexual revolution and birth control pill allowed women to "have sex as men do" and completely disconnect it from any responsibility.

Despite the divergence, the over-arching goal of feminism is the same. "liberal" and "conservative" feminists alike want a society where women are respected as much as men are. It would be a society in which women are highly valued, not objectified (nor used) and are not left to handle the child-rearing alone. Instead, the childrearing would be shared between men and women. It would be a society where women feel free to be themselves and choose any career they wish. The world would praise, support and encourage her to choose her destiny and never block that path nor demean her in any way.

As Christians, we believe that we were made in the image and likeness of God. Instead of our bodies and their sexual expression being irrelevant to who we are, we believe that our bodies are intrinsic to who we are. We are not some vague, non-gender being. We do not want our femininity stripped away from us, but elevated.

We see this truth come to the surface as statistics confirm that "having sex like a man" is unfulfilling to and depressing women. Generally, men experience sex more physically and women experience it more emotionally. Thus, sexual activity for recreation sake without the personal attachment or long commitment slowly eats away at the heart of the woman.

Sexual freedom vs. chastity

Yet, sexual freedom continues to be a rallying cry of liberal feminism. Which scenario is more supportive and honoring of a woman? This first is a young lady who has sexual relationships throughout high school, feels emotionally empty and used, and reaches a point at 18 where she must choose between having a baby or aborting that baby (both options seem horrid to her). The second scenario is a young lady who does not engage in sexual activity and has boyfriends, but retains her chastity, thereby maintaining her self-respect and joy. She meets a boy in college who has waited as well and they get married after they graduate. She is 22 and pregnant. She is overjoyed. She knows she will never have to face parenting alone. She knows that if her husband could control his sexual passion all this time, then he will be able to be faithful to her and love her respectfully and deeply.

The role of marriage in women's liberation

Perhaps when seeking women's liberation, we threw out the baby with the bath water. Marriage and lifelong, monogamous sexual intimacy is not the prison of feminine slavery that it was thought to be. If there was indeed a problem of only allowing women to stay at home, the solution was not to destroy the home. A truly feminist approach would have honored and supported equality whatever choice women chose.

Liberal feminists speak of this ideal society where women are completely respected and men share in child-rearing. Yet, they kick to the curb the one institution that protects women from being exploited and used, and demands men to become responsible: marriage.

Marriage is the key to women's true equality and liberation, not their oppression. Authentic, self-giving marriage creates for her a place of respect, assuring that her sexuality will not merely be used for another's pleasure but will be honored and cherished. This understanding of marriage demands that a man be compelled to participate in child-rearing.

As the state of marriage deteriorates (from the destruction of the nature of marriage as well as the frequency of divorce), woman's true equality lessens. She is objectified and picked apart, judged by her body and her looks, and left alone to raise the next generation. It is common knowledge that single mothers and children disproportionately suffer from poverty in this country. A society without strong marriages is not a place of equality for women, but a place that perpetuates women's degradation.

If we are seeking a society that respects women and demands that men share the burden of child-rearing, self-proclaimed liberal feminists must finally open their eyes. If they do, they will see that the stone they have rejected must become the cornerstone of the ideal society they claim to be promoting.

About Theresa

Wife, mother of four boys, author, artist and New Feminism Rising blogger (newfeminismrising.com). She loves the way God uses family life to stretch her, but also the way good healthy food shrinks her down again. Originally from New Orleans, she's a southern belle bringing a little warmth to Minnesota.

View all posts by Theresa →

Archbishop Nienstedt issues prayer for marriage

.
Archbishop issues prayer for marriage

To assist statewide efforts to defend and define marriage in the Minnesota Constitution, Archbishop John Nienstedt has issued a prayer intended for use as part of the Prayers of the Faithful at Mass.

The archbishop also encourages use of the prayer in eucharistic adoration chapels so worshipers can pray for the success of the state marriage amendment and all efforts to strengthen marriage, according to a letter posted on the archdiocesan website at http://www.archspm.org. He also is calling on Catholics in the archdiocese to embrace Fridays as a day of prayer and sacrifice for the success of the amendment effort.

The amendment, supported by Minnesota’s Catholic bishops, will appear on the 2012 ballot. It will ask voters: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”

“The current struggle to defend and define marriage within our civil constitution demands a three-fold approach,” Archbishop Nienstedt said.

[1] “We must educate our fellow citizens on the meaning and good of marriage.

[2] We must actively and resolutely promote widespread participation among our fellow believers in the support of a marriage amendment.

[3] And, most importantly, we must pray and offer sacrifice for the success of all endeavors that seek to protect and promote marriage.”

Copies of the prayer may be downloaded or ordered from the archdiocesan Office of Worship.

Marriage Prayer

Heavenly Father,

Through the powerful intercession of the Holy Family, grant to this local Church the many graces we need to foster, strengthen, and support faith-filled, holy marriages and holy families.

May the vocation of married life, a true calling to share in your own divine and creative life, be recognized by all believers as a source of blessing and joy, and a revelation of your own divine goodness.

Grant to us all the gift of courage to proclaim and defend your plan for marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman in a lifelong, exclusive relationship of loving trust, compassion, and generosity, open to the conception of children.

We make our prayer through Jesus Christ, who is Lord forever and ever. Amen.

Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children

.

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.

A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.

Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.

Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.

Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

The accumulated wisdom of over 2,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

Catholic News Agency

The original article by Dr. Trayce Hansen can be found by following this link: http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_samesex.html

NY archbishop worried polygamy, infidelity will be next step in redefinition of marriage

.

NY archbishop worried polygamy, infidelity will be next step in redefinition of marriage

By Archbishop Timothy Dolan

July 7

Archbishop Dolan, formerly of Milwaukee, reflects in his blog on the passage of the same sex marriage legislation in the state of New York and the past fifty years of American political life that led to that event.

This is a somber reminder for those of us facing the Minnesota Marriage Amendment referendum in 2012, defining it constitutionally, as being between one man and one woman.

---

Almost two weeks ago — hauntingly, on the Feast of the Birth of John the Baptist, whom King Herod would behead because the saint dared to defend the God-given truth about marriage — our state sadly attempted a re-definition of marriage. Is there anything left to say?

Yes.

For one, thanks to those courageous millions who valiantly fought this unfortunate project of social engineering. You can hold your heads high. Sanely, civilly, thoughtfully, vigorously . . . you did not cave-in. The forces on the other side were a Goliath indeed — with tons of money, “glitterati” from entertainment circles, political powerbrokers, and the media — but you proved a worthy David.

You will understand my special word of gratitude to people of faith — evangelicals, Mennonites, Jews, Moslem, Catholics, Amish, and so many more, led often by African-American and Latino believers — who simply believe that marriage is a given, at the very foundation of civilization, which the state has the duty to defend and protect, not to mutate.

My brother bishops of New York were particularly prophetic. When I arrived here a little over two-years ago, they told me realistically that we faced a looming battle over the defense of marriage. They advised me that the odds were not in our favor, and that some experts were even suggesting that we give-in and not put up a fight.

But they were also resolute in their conviction that such would have been a dereliction of duty. As Blessed John Paul II often commented, the Church is “counter-cultural,” like Jesus, often at odds with what passes as chic, enlightened, and progressive. In their writings, sermons, personal lobbying, interviews, and our common statements — backed up by indefatigable efforts by our New York State Catholic Conference, bolstered by ecumenical and inter-religious cooperation, and, especially, supported by countless thousands of our faithful Catholic people (one legislator told me he received 47,000 e-mails against the measure from the Catholic Advocacy Network) — the bishops were on the frontiers. We have been bloodied, and bruised, and, yes, for the moment, we have been defeated. But, we’re used to that. So was the Founder of our Church.

Two, the Church neither has nor wants political “clout.” As Cardinal John O’Connor commented, “The only ‘clout’ the Church really has is God’s Truth, the assurance of His grace, and the simple yet sincere conviction of our people.” Blessed John Paul II again reminds us that “The Church never imposes, she only proposes.” And as our current Holy Father has often observed, all the Church wants is its freedom to serve humanity by bringing the light of the gospel to the world.

But, three, we do worry indeed about this freedom of religion. Editorials already call for the removal of guarantees of religious liberty, with crusaders calling for people of faith to be coerced to acceptance of this redefinition. If the experience of those few other states and countries where this is already law is any indication, the churches, and believers, will soon be harassed, threatened, and hauled into court for their conviction that marriage is between one man, one woman, forever, bringing children into the world.

Four, the real forces of “intolerance” were unmasked here. The caricature, of course, is that those defending traditional marriage were the right-wing bigots and bullies. However, as one out-of-state journalist, who was following the debate closely, commented to me, “From my read of the columns, blogs, and rhetoric, it’s not your side that’s lobbing the grenades.” A Catholic who wrote to criticize me for my defense of marriage still conceded, “But I must confess that I am sickened by the amount of anti-Catholic venom that has surfaced in this debate.” As one respected columnist has observed, the problem is not homophobia but theophobia — a hatred by some of God, faith, religion, and the Church.

Five, though, if we did hurt anybody in our defense of marriage, I apologize. We tried our best to insist from the start that our goal was pro-marriage, never anti-gay. But, I’m afraid some within the gay community were offended. As I replied recently to a reporter who asked if I had any message to the gay community, “Yes: I love you. Each morning I pray with and for you and your true happiness and well-being. I am honored that so many of you are at home within our Catholic family, where, like the rest of us, we try, with the help of God’s grace and mercy, to conform our lives to Jesus and His message. If I have offended any of you in my strenuous defense of marriage, I apologize, and assure you it was unintentional.

Point six, the Church has always stood-up for marriage — one man and one woman, united in lifelong and faithful love, leading to new life in children – whenever and wherever it was in danger. Veterans my age and over can remember sixty years ago when we fought widespread, no-fault divorce, convinced it would lead to a cheapening of the marriage bond and harm our kids (as, of course, scholarly studies now report has, indeed, happened). Recall how the Church resisted the “contraceptive mentality,” fearing it would rupture the sacred bond between love and the procreation of children. Then, remember how the Church sounded the alarm over rising rates of promiscuity, adultery, pre-marital sex, and cohabitation prior to or instead of marriage. And now we ring the steeple bell again at this latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage, worried that the next step will be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity. If you think I’m exaggerating, within days of the passage of this bill, one major newspaper ran a flattering profile of a proponent of what was called “nonmonogamy.” Apparently, “nonmonogamy” is the idea that society is unrealistic to think that one man and one woman should remain faithful in marriage, and that openness to some infidelity should be the norm!

Let me say it again. None of this is anti-anybody, but simply pro marriage.

(By the way, as Professor Robert George at Princeton University eloquently points out, in warning about promiscuity, divorce, cohabitation instead of marriage, adultery, and “same-sex marriage,” the Church is hardly some shrill, bitter, reactionary, naysaying prude, but actually prophetically right-on-target. Recent studies by people such as Myron Magnet and Kay Hymowitz show that the weakening of stable marriage and families is the cause of most social and cultural woes, especially burdensome on poor women and children.)

Finally, last point, for us in the Church, not much changes. We continue to hold fast to the God-given definition of marriage, and acknowledge that no unfortunate legislative attempt can alter reality and morality. Yes, we have a big catechetical challenge, in that we have to admit that quite a few people no longer hold to this timeless moral truth. (Although I still believe most people do; thus the fear of a referendum on the issue by those who still claim this is a “grassroots movement” sweeping the nation.) Yes, we do have our work cut out for us, as even some Catholics, and, scandalously, even political leaders who claim to be Catholic, tell us the Church is “out of it,” and has no claim on truth.

So, we try our best to witness to the truth, encouraging our married couples and their kids to be loving, radiant, “lights to the world.” We acknowledge that, as St. Augustine taught, if something is wrong, even if everybody else is doing it, it’s still wrong; and, if something is right, even if nobody else is doing it anymore, it’s still right. Like St. Thomas More, we’re willing to take the heat and even lose our head from following a conscience properly formed by God’s revelation and the teaching of His Church, even if it is politically incorrect, and clashes with the King’s demands to re-define marriage.

Catholic Spirit Editorial: Marriage amendment not about ‘fringe’ politics, hate

.
The Minnesota Independent noted in a recent article that newspapers throughout the state are coming out against a bill seeking to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. No editorial boards, it said, are supportive of the amendment.

That’s not true. This newspaper is supportive of the effort.

Marriage and family life have been the bedrock of civil society for millennia. It is the place where a man and woman pledge to share a lifelong, committed love with each other. It is the place where new life is created, and where it should be nurtured and protected.

This union is so sacred that the church elevates it to the level of a sacrament. But one doesn’t need to be a person of faith to recognize the value of traditional marriage to society.

The state — meaning our secular government — recognizes marriage and gives it certain benefits because it contributes to the common good. Stable unions between a man and a woman who love each other are in the best interest of the children they bring into the world — children who will someday become important contributing members of society as workers, taxpayers, community volunteers, spouses and parents of children themselves.

That’s not to say that married couples don’t fall short of the ideal sometimes for a variety of reasons, but that is not the fault of the institution itself. Nor is it to say that a child cannot be raised successfully by a single parent.

But neither case warrants changing the definition of marriage.

What they’re saying

Newspaper editorials opposing the marriage amendment effort have failed to recognize the essential purpose of marriage and the importance of the institution itself.

Some, like the Fairmont Sentinel, question the fairness of not extending some of the benefits enjoyed by married couples — “rights associated with property, inheritance, tax law, work benefits, etc.” — to same-sex couples.

The Winona Daily News characterizes the amendment initiative as pandering to the interests of “fringe conservatives.” A few, including the Star Tribune and the Mille Lacs Messenger, call it bigotry.

Two points are garnering much of the concern and complaint: benefits and equality.

However, the propriety of extending certain benefits to same-sex couples can be addressed through private legal arrangements without resorting to changes in the definition of marriage or creating civil unions that are equivalent to marriage.

Regarding the latter — equality — there is a sense among some that if the state does not allow same-sex couples to marry, it amounts to saying that persons with same-sex attraction are somehow “lesser individuals” who can be treated with less respect.

Not true. They deserve the same respect as any other child of God. Our laws say so, and so does our church — a fact that seems to get lost when the church comes under criticism in some quarters for supporting the amendment effort.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: People with same-sex attraction must be “accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.”

Admittedly, at times, the church — we individuals, parishes and institution as a whole — could do a better job of acknowledging the gifts that these brothers and sisters of ours bring as well as the challenges they face in communities that aren’t always willing to acknowledge their God-given human dignity.

But, none of that is a reason to change the definition of marriage. And that’s why supporters of traditional marriage are advocating for the amendment bill.

Why this approach?

Even though same-sex marriage is currently prohibited by state law, that law could change. Recent court rulings and legislative actions in other states have changed the legal definition of marriage. Five states plus the District of Columbia currently allow “same-sex marriage.” Illinois recently passed a law legalizing civil unions and giving them the same status as marriages in the state.

The only way to ensure that the definition of marriage does not change is to make it part of the state constitution. If the amendment bill passes both the House and Senate, which it could do as early as this week or next (the governor’s signature is not required), Minnesotans will have 18 months to debate the merits of an amendment before voting on it in November 2012.

Ensuring the definition of marriage doesn’t change has nothing to do with hate. It is nothing “fringe” or radical. It is all about preserving an institution that best serves children and the common good. Catholic Spirit