By: Modesto P. Sa-onoy
THE Philippine Supreme Court last week junked a petition asking to allow a man to marry a supposed woman, and a woman to wed a supposed man. The idea is called “gay marriage” a rather unclear term since the supposed wedlock is between a man who acts or prefers to be a woman contrary to its nature.
Be as it may, this type of coupling is allowed in some “progressive” countries, progressive in the sense that they moved out or away from what nature dictates.
From the beginning of recorded time, marriage is between a man and a woman in the legally and morally recognized norm for procreation and the perpetuation of the human species, the care of the offspring and the formation of families to constitute a community for self-protection.
The union of a person with another of the same gender runs counter to this natural law and purpose, the reason that since the beginning of time this coupling has been proscribed and even imposed with a death penalty.
But today many countries have allowed this kind of union under the incorrect label of “marriage” when it is not. Gay marriage is merely a union of two persons of the same gender so that to call it marriage is a farce.
One reason adopted by the promoters of this kind of union is to legalize their living together as a husband and wife so that both will have the same rights as those of the real married couple. This means the capacity to build a family with an adopted child, the right to conjugal properties and to engage in sexual activities without fear of social scorn.
In some countries, unmarried couples wanted that they be allowed to “kiss” during the Mass like the others to express peace as other married couples. But the Church does not allow this kind of coupling much less to scandalize the faithful during the most solemn act of worship.
Of course, in a “traditional” society like ours, this kind of coupling would be scandalous but in places where such unnatural wedlock is permitted the situation can be funny, at least to me. We were in Madrid in 2012 and witnessed this gay marriage. We found it funny, if not ridiculous looking at the person in a dark suit with well-trimmed hair and clean-cut face who was supposed to be the “man” while the hirsute woman in a white bridal gown was supposed to be the “woman”. To the “bride and groom” that was natural. They merely tried to imitate and delude themselves with the idea that they are having a real marriage and people around them agreed.
Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church because it was constituted by Christ, its Founder, to be between a man and a woman who willingly agreed to live as husband and wife not for their own selves but for higher purposes – procreation, the building of a family for the care and education of their children and for the formation of the Church community.
A “gay marriage” is a misnomer because it cannot perform the first purpose of the union. This kind of union undermines the natural purpose of marriage because it is based on the mere satisfaction of sexual desires that are also contrary to the nature of their gender.
The Church does not reject, ostracize or look down on their physical condition. Their situation is called “disordered” or “disoriented”. Many of them live decent and honorable lives, imbued as they are with special gifts and competencies. Many excel in numerous human endeavors.
Thus, by the very nature of Catholic marriage, the movements to force the Church to agree in the same way that civil authorities grant them legal status cannot happen. Marriage, in fact, is not for all and many people who live celibate lives have become saints and men and women of great achievements.
In the natural order of things, sex has its place, it is not the only thing that matters and in this natural order, there is a place and time for everything.
The “gay marriage” movement may succeed in getting civil license considering the tendency of lawmakers to grant anything for a vote. But the Church is not an institution of men but God’s for His own purposes that He mandated from the beginning of time.
