Recently Bishop Malloy reminded us of a very necessary consideration that we should bear in mind when speaking about same-sex marriage. He wrote, “Defense of the nature of marriage is not some form of long-standing discrimination or bigotry. Our Catholic faith teaches us to love our brothers and sisters … with respect to human dignity in every person … but we must at the same time respect and support the protection of the fundamental human relationship that confirms the complementary nature that we bear. That is, marriage has an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman.”

Recently, in one of the daily newspapers in the diocese someone wrote a letter defending same-sex marriage, saying “Respect requires equality under the law.” And under that rubric the writer delivered himself of several untruths. 1. “Faith-based doctrine is fallible.” 2. “America is a democratic republic with a bill of rights that secures individual freedoms that all are entitled (sic).

We have to be very clear when we talk about marriage rights and doctrines, that we point out that marriage is not a doctrine that resides or is found only in divine revelation. It is confirmed there, but it is found in the experience of human beings through all of our history. Monogamous marriage has proven to be the best protection for women, for men and for children in terms of sex and family life. It is true that polyandrous, polygynous, polygamous societies have existed. They are all dead. The one that survives and comes to the fore all the time is that which holds, in accord with nature’s law, that marriage is between one man and one woman for their mutual aid and for the procreation and education of children.

This falls with difficulty on some ears today. We are in the midst of a devolutionary culture where we are in the hands of a political apparatus that regards abortion as some sort of quasi, unholy sacrament to be defended against all causes, and believes all morality is subject to popular vote.

Same-sex marriage would undermine the foundation, not only of our society, but of most societies that have existed on this earth. We can profit from the example of President Lincoln, a citizen of Illinois to whom this riddle is attributed. Lincoln asked,” how many legs does a dog have? The answer of course was obvious and the respondent said “four.” Then Lincoln said “what would happen if we called the tail a leg?” “Then the dog would have five legs,” his respondent replied. Lincoln said, “No, still only four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.”

So, too, calling a union between two persons of the same sex a marriage does not make it so. As Bishop Malloy wisely notes, this is not primarily a religious doctrine, but a common sense one.