****Damnable Falsehood ****
Bishop Brown’s Nuances on Domestic Partnerships
By Charles A. Coulombe
It all seemed simple and straight-forward. In March 2000, the voters of the state of California approved Proposition 22, which added one sentence to the California Constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The measure was an effort to forestall any attempt at bringing homosexual marriage into this state, should any of the other 49 accept it. The state’s Catholic bishops endorsed Proposition 22.
It seemed simple and straightforward; but, of course, there was a great deal of discussion on the matter. During the bitter campaign, Bishop Tod Brown, on February 15, 2000, sent a terse memo with two attachments to the priests of the diocese of Orange. The bishop’s message read: "attached are two articles Moral Theology and Is Proposition 22 Discriminatory?, by Father Gerald D. Coleman, SS., regarding the marriage initiative, which expresses very well my own thoughts on this subject. I hope you will find them helpful to you."
Coleman wrote his piece in reply to an article in the January 18, 2000 San Jose Valley Catholic, the official mouthpiece of that diocese, in which one Michael Quieto, a senior at Gonzaga University in Spokane, attacked Proposition 22. Coleman outlined Quieto’s major points – that the initiative gave homosexuals the message that Californians do not accept them; that civil marriage is separate and distinct from sacramental marriage, which voters ought not to be able to affect; and that the issue is not marriage but equal access to legal protection, denial of such access being discrimination.
Father Coleman defended the California bishops’ support of Proposition 22 in a most interesting way. After seconding Quieto’s assertion that the Church strongly supports homosexual people, and citing the catechism in this regard – “the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear the homosexuality is not a choice and homosexual persons ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard must be avoided.’ (no. 2358).” – Father Coleman went on to consider what he considered the real controversy. “The moral question, then, is clear,” wrote Coleman. “Can one simultaneously affirm authentic respect and sensitivity toward homosexual persons and hold that marriage is a union only between a man and a woman?”
Mentioning its “instructive and helpful” quality, Father Coleman quotes canon law’s definition of marriage as being a sacramental union ordained by Christ between a man and woman. He then tells us that “Jesus did not change the meaning of marriage. Jesus did not create a sacramental bond that evaluates a non-sacramental bond as unworthy or undignified. Jesus merely pointed out that the marital union, when celebrated by two Christians, bears the additional meaning of a sacrament, a living sign of the unique marriage which Jesus has established with His Church.” Father Coleman asserts that such a union, which brings both mutual benefit and the rearing of children, must be protected by Church and state. Thus Proposition 22 is neither a way of demeaning homosexuals nor of compressing civil and sacramental marriage; rather it is a legitimate defense of marriage through defining it.
Still, one might wonder what Coleman meant about Jesus not creating “a sacramental bond that evaluates a non-sacramental bond as unworthy or undignified.” In the next two paragraphs he explained himself:
"Some homosexual persons," wrote Coleman, "have shown that it is possible to enter into long-term, committed and loving relationships, named by certain segments of our society as domestic partnership.
**“I see no moral reason why civil law could not in some fashion recognize these faithful and loving unions with clear and specified benefits. These unions would then be recognized by society as sustaining an important status deserving our respect and protection. I believe that this possibility could be pursued without equating such unions with marriage, and without in any way demeaning our needed respect and protection for the institution of marriage.” **
**** Continued on next post
