This letter was sent to the Senators and Members of the House of Representatives of the State of Hawaii on Jan. 31.
Honorable Senators and Representatives:
Aloha!
It is my understanding that the Hawaii State Legislature is planning to take up the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage. I would like to present some thoughts for your reflection, since this is a matter that will have a profound effect on our community for generations to come. I appreciate your reading this lengthy letter and pondering the points I am about to present. Although there are theological reasons from a Catholic perspective for limiting marriage to one man and one woman, the reasons I present go beyond sectarian doctrine to the fundamental core of our human nature, to the way we are built and made. They go to the foundation of civil society itself.
1. Marriage is not a private but a public institution. Although there are aspects of marriage that demand privacy, the state has regulations for marriage because there are compelling reasons for this special relationship to be regulated. The most compelling is the nature of the family, especially as a foundation for the procreation and education of children. It is the family that lends stability to society and culture itself. Public commitment to permanence — “until death do us part” — actually helps to support an often difficult commitment and to keep it together in bad times, in sickness, and in poverty or adversity. Some argue that this is a reason also to justify why same-sex couples should be allowed the same civil recognition in a state-sanctioned, marriage-equivalent institution. But this argument overlooks another key compelling state reason, which is to foster the complementary nature of the sexes by institutionalizing marriage as only between a man and a woman. Thus children, even though they can be loved by a same-sex couple, are denied the benefit of a daily experience of the complementarity of the sexes for their own psycho-sexual formation. Furthermore, the complementarity of the sexes brings unique benefits to the couple themselves.
2. Equality of persons is a value we all hold dear. But we have often allowed ourselves to think that equality means sameness. However, the two concepts are quite different. An apple enjoys equality to an orange as a fruit, but they are not the same. A female enjoys equality to a male, but they are not the same. Same-sex unions blur the essential distinction between male and female and their complementary nature. While every person enjoys equality to every other person, there are differences. You and I are equal, yet I am not a legislator, nor are you the bishop. Respecting the differences is essential to our culture. Equality of persons in dignity, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is foundational. Sameness is not. Therefore institutions, such as marriage or civil unions, should also reflect the fact that the union of a man and woman in marriage is not at all the same as a union of a same-sex couple, and therefore should not be treated the same in the law. The word “discrimination” has much negative emotional baggage attached to it, because history is replete with examples of unjust and oppressive discrimination. Yet it must be stated that discrimination is, by definition, making distinctions, some of which may be unjust, but some of which are quite just. We discriminate quite wisely, for example, between adults and minors. Our penal system discriminates justly between those who are presumed to be upright citizens and those who have proven themselves to pose some threat to society and its values, and our discrimination is not based on robbing the latter of dignity but on protecting the common good. Again, while you and I enjoy equality as citizens of this state, the law discriminates between you and me, giving you and not me the authority to make a decision such as the one that now faces you regarding same-sex marriage. There is no injustice in such discrimination, because it recognizes true differences ordered for the common good.
3. The proponents of same-sex marriage have claimed it is a constitutional right. I would submit that this is a manufactured right that is not guaranteed by the constitution. If we concede one manufactured right, then we open the door to others. If same-sex couples have the right to marry, should not polygamists have the same right? Close relatives? Adults with consenting adolescents, without the permission of the adolescents’ parents? (If that seems far-fetched, think of minor females who can now receive birth control aids or abort their babies without their parents’ knowledge or consent.)
4. For centuries civilizations throughout the world have valued the special relationship of marriage between one man and one woman as the foundation of family and culture. Religions have embraced and blessed this special relationship, but they did not invent it. In these days in which we lament short-sighted and self-serving decisions we made regarding our environment and are paying the price for those decisions, let us not make decisions now that ignore our social environment or experiment with its well-being. Love and friendship are realities that all people can share, regardless of sexual orientation. Marriage, however, as a bond between one man and one woman, has proven, despite its challenges and failures, to be one of the most stabilizing factors in the body politic. It would be self-destructive to further erode its value when there are already so many factors that threaten it.
5. While it is certainly not your role as legislators to espouse any particular religious doctrine in your decisions, I believe it is definitely your role to protect the constitutional right to religious freedom of the citizens of this State. There are cases of repression of religious freedom in other countries and states that have passed same-sex marriage laws. Some preachers have been sued for preaching about their faith’s adherence to the belief in the sacredness of marriage as between one man and one woman, accused of “hate crimes.” Churches that find same-sex marriage repugnant to their beliefs have been sued for not allowing same-sex couples to use their facilities for “wedding” receptions. Religious adoption agencies with reputations for placing many children in stable homes have had to cease operations rather than be forced to place children in the homes of same-sex couples, contrary to deeply held religious convictions. Employment issues, especially with regard to hiring teachers for religious schools who hold the values of the respective faith community, will certainly become more challenging if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land. If nothing else, religious freedom needs to be guaranteed in any law that is passed in this regard.
As legislators you have a formidable task and a very heavy decision to make. Please know that you are in my prayers, and that the Catholic community of our beloved Hawaii is also praying for you, that you will be given wisdom, guidance, and courage in your leadership.
Sincerely yours,
Most Reverend Larry Silva
Bishop of Honolulu
