Could civil partnerships weaken traditional marriage if they became legal in our country? Certainly the Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, Cardinal Sean Brady, is worried.
He says Ireland should avoid giving unmarried couples the same rights as married partners.
Some people believe the cardinal should keep his nose out, that he should be denied an opinion simply because some of our long-gone politicians were once far too craven toward some long-gone bishops.
Nonsense.
The cardinal, like any other lobbyist, is entitled to put the views of the people he represents to the government.
It's up to our leaders to weigh his views against those of other lobbyists as they decide on the law of the land.
A civil partnership bill is expected to become law next year.
Cardinal Brady says it will introduce de facto marriage rights for cohabiting and same-sex couples, and should be blocked.
"Will it really help children and married couples or will it further erode marriage at a time when research and experience point to the value of marriage for children and society?" he asked.
While the cardinal fears the harm that civil partnership could inflict, I think it might actually benefit traditional marriage.
Celibrate
As far as I can tell, it won't usher in gay marriage. (Mind you, I'm often amazed at how enthusiastically pro-marriage many same-sex couples are. They seem to cherish the institution more than the rest of us.)
As for extending the privileges of marriage to unwed heterosexual partners, that could strengthen traditional marriage. It would filter out those couples who, as things stand, marry for various worldly reasons.
I imagine Cardinal Brady, like many who live a celibate life, is very idealistic about marriage.
Being a priest, when he meets with engaged couples he is likely to hear them put forward the "right" reasons for wanting to get married: they love each other, they want to raise children, they want to be united in the sight of God, and so on.
Those of us who live in the secular realm, on the other hand, sometimes hear couples voice less idealistic motives -- ones they'd be reluctant to share with an idealistic priest.
I know one long-time couple who astonished all their friends by getting married years after they'd first set up home together.
Why? Because they'd finally got around to buying, rather than renting, their mutual home.
Naturally each of them worried that he or she might lose that home if the other person died, or fell ill, or ran off with someone else. The woman, in particular, feared that her parents (her legal next of kin) would put her partner out in the street were they to inherit her share of the property.
So my friends asked lawyers how they might protect themselves, which led to ever more complicated discussions about wills, powers of attorney, life insurance and other tedious aspects of property law.
In the end, the woman saw a way out of the legal swamp: "F*** it. We'll just have to get married." Call me a romantic, but I'd prefer to hear different words from a bride-to-be who has just embraced marriage as her destiny. None of this would matter if this couple were the sort who'd always intended to marry someday. Actually, they were both quite hostile to marriage as an institution.
I know lots of people who got married for, em, pragmatic reasons. Let's see, there was the couple who married only because a baby was on the way. Another married so that the woman wouldn't be deported as an illegal resident.
If such couples could untangle their complicated lives by opting for civil partnership, they would no longer be pushed, reluctantly, into a marriage.
This would reserve traditional marriage for those who genuinely want to make that commitment. Surely, as a result, the institution would be strengthened and marriage would mean more? Let's take the subtle coercion out of marriage -- and put the romance back in.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce
(Source: EH)