In the wake of the announcement that Bishop Cordileone was being elevated and moved to San Francisco, I had a short, fruitful discussion with a friend who is liberal regarding gay marriage. When I told her about the move of Archbishop designate Cordileone, she was afraid he would get more involved in the gay marriage debate. She started by saying “You’re the wrong person to talk about this with…”
I asked her why she would say that, and she told me that the Archbishop’s stance on it would have him in hot water with the gay community. I responded to her that Catholics are not against homosexuals having legal status in cohabitation, that we were simply against it being called marriage. I asked her first what the purpose of marriage was, and when she hemmed and hawed, I asked her if it wasn’t primarily for the welfare of children. She thought about that and said that she could agree with the statement. I said that if marriage was about what is best for the raising of children, then gay marriage was an impossibility. I told her that marriage is a religious institution that was usurped by government, that the purpose of government was to determine that the people forming the union weren’t already in a union, and that was about the end of government’s involvement. So I proposed that, rather than call what government does in the whole process ‘marriage’, they call it something else, like ‘civil union’. Then we could all agree that two homosexuals could form a civil union. But, before going down that road, we have to determine what the boundaries are of that? Can a man and his horse, say, form a civil union? Or a woman and her 15 lovers? The point of this is that these things always have boundaries that must be defined, otherwise, we get ‘mission creep.’
God bless you.