Marriage, nature, and law
| Autor | Brian M. McCall |
| Páginas | 43-60 |
MARRIAGE, NATURE, AND LAW
Brian M. MCCALL
University of Oklahoma
One of the most divisive and important issues in the opening de-
cades of this century has been the issue of marriage. From some civil
governments’ attempts to invent a new definition of it, to those trying to
make «marriages» by other names —civil unions— to the controversial
2014 Synod on the Family, the nature of marriage and its survival in our
society has been in the forefront of public debate, rising all the way to the
Vatican and the US Supreme Court 1. Although the nature of marriage
has been divinely revealed and its dignity has been raised for Catholics
to a sacrament, marriage is a real state of relation that exists under the
natural law. For those who refuse to listen to divine revelation, it is useful
to make arguments in support of the divinely ordained nature of this
institution based in natural reason. It is imperative to do so at this time in
particular, as the organs of power in our society are bent on denying that
marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman for the pur-
pose of begetting, rearing, and educating children. That this self-evident
truth could be questioned was inconceivable for practically all of human
1 In June 2013, the US Supreme Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act, which
required the federal government to recognize only the union of a man and a woman as a
marriage, unconstitutional. The Court also refused to reverse a lower court ruling invali-
dating California’s Proposition 8, which prohibited so-called same-sex «marriages» in that
state. See United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 12 (2013).
DE MATRIMONIO.indb 43 20/07/15 12:31
44 BRIAN M. MCCALL
history. As the highest court in New York observed less than a decade
ago: «Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost every-
one who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there
could be marriages only between participants of different sex» 2. Yet, the
U.S. has several high ranking judges and a president and the Catholic
Church some high ranking clerics who are eager to call into question this
accepted truth. Interestingly, in a public debate in November 2012, in
which I participated, my challenger began his remarks by stating that he
believed the State had no business defining what constituted a marriage.
He concluded therefore that the law should let anything be accepted as a
marriage that is claimed to be such by individuals, regardless of its form.
I began my reply by saying that he was absolutely correct in his premise
that the State had no business defining marriage. His inference was, how-
ever, incorrect. The reason the State has no business defining marriage is
that no person has the competence to do so. The State, and any individ-
ual, for that matter, is likewise incompetent to define or redefine what is
water, fire, or the sun. Marriage is what it is, as these other substances
are. People have the ability to think about and understand to a greater
or lesser extent what comprises the pre-existing essence of marriage. The
State has merely the ability to craft laws with respect to the implications
flowing from this reality to the extent necessary for the common good.
The institution itself is not in any way subject to the volition of individ-
uals or the State to determine its nature. Law establishes rules in light of
reality; law cannot make reality.
So if marriage is not whatever we want it to be, how do we know that
it is the lifelong society of one man and one woman for the purpose of
begetting, rearing, and educating children? There are two sources of our
knowledge: the natural law and the divine law. In this chapter we will
consider the natural law principles which prove this definition. We will
examine the natural law, not because it says anything different from di-
vine law or is superior to it; on the contrary, as they both have their origin
in the same source, the eternal law —the divine reason— they are com-
pletely in accord with one another. We must be familiar with the natural
law principles to defend the truth in a world whose leaders willfully re-
fuse to listen to arguments from the divine law. Even in the absence of the
acceptance of supernatural arguments, if society conforms its laws to the
natural law, the common good will be better served. Since as ST. THOMAS
2 Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 361, 821 N.Y.S.2d 770, 777, 855 N.E.2d 1, 8
(2006).
DE MATRIMONIO.indb 44 20/07/15 12:31
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba