Rite and Reason:Gay unions exclude the sacramental understanding of marriage, of which children are the natural expression, writes Rik Van Nieuwenhove
It is a bad time for the institution of marriage. In the Budget, the Government continues its policy of "tax individualisation", effectively promoting a policy to get both parents to work outside the house. There was nothing in the Budget for stay-at-home-parents, while tax relief for childminding outside the house was increased.
And last week an "expert group" to the Government recommended that gay couples who contract a full civil partnership should enjoy the same rights as heterosexual married couples, including the right to adopt. This is marriage in all but name, and presumably it is mainly for electoral reasons that the Government refrains from calling it that.
So what's wrong with gay marriage? A first observation should appeal to those who do not necessarily have any religious convictions. Although marriage is not just for the sake of children, marriage and having children have nevertheless traditionally always been linked. To this day, many cohabiting couples get married when they hope to start a family, or when a child is on its way.
It is highly debatable whether it is in the best interests of children to grow up in families with parents of the same sex. Man and woman, being different, beautifully complement one another in the raising of children. This kind of enriching complementarity is lost in gay unions. Moreover, in traditional marriage, the affective bond between parents and their children is usually already grounded on a biological bond. However, in gay unions, this bond between the parents and the children is either absent (children adopted by two males) or merely extends to one of the parents.
When one raises the issue of children in discussion on gay marriage, one often hears it argued that at least some gay couples already raise children - and at times more successfully so than some heterosexual couples.
This may very well be the case, but it is beside the point in trying to make a case for gay marriage: because the demand for the legal recognition of gay marriage amounts to a demand to consider it an ideal, equally valid to that of "traditional" marriage.
In my view, however, we should promote ideals and norms in which every child, in principle at least, is entitled to a mother and a father. The fact that the social reality often falls short of this ideal can hardly be considered an argument in favour of promoting other ideals (including gay marriage) that fall short of this elementary entitlement.
I would add a more theological argument. In my view, there should be some scope for religious arguments in a country in which the majority of the people still profess belief in God. According to Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology, marriage is a sacrament.
In marriage, husband and wife reflect and make present the love between Christ and his church. Sometimes, this love for one another has to go through the affliction of the Cross, as Christ had to suffer for his church, but even throughout the hardships and disappointments of marriage, the Christian husband and wife form a union in complementarity that reflects, and shares in, Christ's love for the church.
This rich sacramental understanding of marriage hinges on the distinction between male and female. Gay unions exclude this sacramental richness and fruitfulness, of which children are the natural expression.
Perhaps some might counter this reasoning by arguing that gender identities are not necessarily tied to sex. Arguing along those lines, people in favour of gay marriage could perhaps say that the roles of Christ/husband and church/wife could be adopted by people of the same sex.
This argument is, however, deeply problematic: any view that dissociates gender identity from actual sex entails a disembodied view of human personhood and identity. Against this we must argue that it is part of our human identity to be male or female. Our sexuality shapes our self-understanding as human persons, male or female.
Anyone who has the audacity to question an equal recognition of gay unions is in danger of being branded conservative, homophobic, and discriminatory.
We need to move beyond these facile labels and focus on what is at stake: promoting a society that best safeguards the interest of children through marriage of man and woman. It is time for a referendum on this issue.
Dr Rik Van Nieuwenhove is a lecturer in theology at Mary Immaculate College in Limerick