Many people have expressed surprise at the speed with which same-sex unions went from being a crime and a sin to being a constitutional right.
Exactly 50 years ago, to far less fanfare, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that married couples had a constitutional right to prescription contraceptives. (The FDA had approved the pill just five years earlier.) In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that single people had the same right.
The Economist called the pill the most important scientific advance of the 20th century. It certainly has changed the way we live. It also paved the road for the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case.
Before the pill was readily available, sex and children and lifelong commitment were all part of one contract. Sex naturally led to children, or at least held forth that possibility. People understood (and still do) that children need to grow up in stable and permanent families.
So closely were these three things (sex, children, marriage) tied together that sex was referred to as the “marital act.” This was our social practice, enforced by notions of virtue, counsels of prudence, legal rules and social taboos.
The pill allowed us to split what once was one contract into three. Today, there is no necessary connection between sex and children. And if there are no children in prospect, sex needn’t lead to marriage. It might be just a pleasing form of recreation. Even within marriage, children are now a matter for negotiation.
All this has had predictable effects. The idea that there is a virtue (chastity) connected with how and when we have sex seems almost quaint. Instead, we have radio and TV personalities like Dr. Ruth Westheimer encouraging us to have “good sex,” part of the name of her show.
Young people are certainly taking her advice, but they are no longer getting married. The Pew Research Center recently reported that 69 percent of young adults (age 18 to 24) believe “society is just as well off if people have priorities other than marriage and children.”
For almost half of women age 15-44, cohabitating was their first union, not marriage, according to a report by the National Center for Health Statistics. The same report showed that informal relationships don’t usually last — the median duration of a first cohabitation is 22 months.
Elizabeth Anscombe, a British analytic philosopher, presciently observed, back in 1972, that “if sexual union can be deliberately and totally divorced from fertility, then we may wonder why sexual union has got to be married union.”
Indeed, she said, if we disconnect sex from children “there is no reason why … ‘marriage’ should have to be between people of opposite sexes.” She was right on both counts. The fracturing of our sexual contracts brought about by the pill has led us to reframe same-sex marriage as an issue of equality and discrimination, not of children and societal health.
Is there any chance of getting our culture to embrace, once again, the Catholic view about sexual relations between men, or between women? I don’t think so, unless we see an equally revolutionary change in the behavior of heterosexual couples. Unless they themselves recover the virtue of chastity — unless they view sex as necessarily connected to marriage and fertility — they have no moral warrant for imposing it on their gay friends.
Garvey is the president of The Catholic University of America in Washington.
Join the CatholicPhilly.com family
CatholicPhilly.com works to strengthen the connections between people, families and communities every day by delivering the news people need to know about the Catholic Church, especially in the Philadelphia region, and the world in which we live.
By your donation in any amount, you and hundreds of other people become part of our mission to inform, form in the Catholic faith and inspire the thousands of readers who visit every month.
Here is how you can help:
- A $100 gift allows us to present award-winning photos of Catholic life in our neighborhoods.
- A $50 gift enables us to cover a news event in a local parish, school or Catholic institution.
- A $20 gift lets us obtain solid faith formation resources that can deepen your spirituality and knowledge of the faith.
- A small, automated monthly donation means you can support us continually and easily.
Won't you consider making a gift today?
Please join in the church's vital mission of communications by offering a gift in whatever amount that you can ― a single gift of $40, $50, $100, or more, or a monthly donation. Your gift will strengthen the fabric of our entire Catholic community and sustain CatholicPhilly.com as your trusted news source. Thank you in advance!
Make your donation by credit card here:
Or make your donation by check:
222 N. 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
PREVIOUS: Learning to take the wheel of your own life
NEXT: Miracles come to sinners as well as saints
The author seems to have an idealized view people’s past motivation regarding intimacy. From my readings and experiences, it’s the enjoyment of being with someone seen as desirable. The cerebral considerations attributed to an idealized past doesn’t seem accurate to me; it does not take into account real world sexual motivations of humanity: distant past and present. The Church’s more idealistic views of marriage and sexual behavior are important and necessary counter-cultural challenges. But to explain today’s marriage/sexual/legal issues based on one event, the Pill, is narrow and self limiting.
We do not know why homosexuality exists along with heterosexuality. But if I may paraphrase Rabbi Gamiliel’s logic: If gay marriage is God’s will it will survive. If not, it will collapse on its’ own contradictions.
The article is based upon an unstated and erroneous assumption. There has been a local entropy bubble in which the RCCh has found its morality more-or-less echoed by the dominant culture in the US. There error is in assuming that this anomaly has always existed and will always continue to exist, or even was a good thing in the first place.
It ignores earlier history when Catholicism was subject to the same sort of discrimination as to which gays are/were. It ignores, too, the distinct possibility that rising secularism, immigrational Islam, or the Dionysian acculturation of Hispanic Catholicism will present a future culture as foreign as that of 17th Century Japan. It takes as gospel that hidden drawbacks can never be as important as manifest positives.
It is rather late, but the Church must learn that She can no longer rule the world, not even via the mechanics of Democracy – which would have been even more destructive than the frank practice of empire. The “Social Kingship of Christ” would have been another recipe for “one man, one vote: once”.