Pro-Life is Easy, Pro-Marriage is Hard

Jan Van Eyck 1434 die Arnolfini Heirat

by Matthew Warner
From National Catholic Register

Culturally, it’s getting easier for people to be pro-life. There are four key reasons for this:

(*While being pro-life includes many things, here I’m mostly referring to life in the womb.)

1) The science: Science has clearly confirmed that a new, individual, self-directing human life is created at the moment of fertilization (i.e. conception). There is no point after that where this life magically becomes human or deserves to live, etc. It’s quite obviously a precious human life from that first moment. Just add food, water and proper shelter and eventually you get a bigger human being. People increasingly get that. And it takes really convoluted, non-rational squirming to try and say otherwise.

2) The socially defensible position: The socially convenient pro-life maxims are winners. “It’s a baby, not a choice.” “Why can’t we love both the mother AND the baby?” “What excuse possibly justifies the killing of an innocent baby in the womb?” It’s hard to argue with these.

3) The most compassionate thing: Being pro-life is easily seen as the “most loving” thing to be. When you see a struggling mother, the compassionate thing is to help her – not to help her kill her baby. When you see a sonogram of a baby, the compassionate thing is protect the baby. To justify killing the baby either takes an increasingly vincible ignorance that the baby is not really a human life, or really complex, strange-sounding psycho-babble that could basically be used to justify the killing of any human life – born or unborn.

4) Consistency: The pro-life movement is largely consistent – at least on the issue of abortion. We do a pretty good job of not trying to justify weird exceptions that make us appear hypocritical. We accept that a new human life is created at fertilization and we accept all of the consequences that come with that logic, no matter how difficult they may be, extreme they may seem, or what utilitarian “advancement in science” we may forego in the process.

To sum it up, the pro-life argument is a winner (and ultimately true). And, more importantly, it’s pretty easy to understand and defend in social circles. So it’s gradually winning out. Great news.

Marriage, on the other hand, is not.

We are losing the Marriage battle. Even among ardent, pro-life Christians, it’s easy to find many of them silent on Marriage or silently indifferent to our Marriage laws, gay “marriage”, etc. This is a tragedy. But here’s a few reasons why it’s happening:

1) The science: While there is a lot of science that supports all the benefits of true, sacramental Marriage, it’s a more complex issue to analyze and make conclusions about – especially in a society full of broken and “modern” families. There are also lots of other “studies” out there done with their own bias that muddy the water for people. So the perception is that the science is inconclusive and people can largely grab whatever stats they want to make their own case. Further, because it’s harder to make sense of it all, people resort to their own anecdotal evidence. “I know a gay couple who would make much better parents than half the parents I know.”

2) The socially defensible position: Being pro-marriage is hard in public. And if you can’t defend traditional marriage without referring to the Bible, God or Natural Law, then you’ve already lost the argument (because people immediately stop listening or have trouble grasping what things like the “Natural Law” is and why it matters). Also ineffective is saying “this is the way we’ve done it for thousands of years.” Not gonna fly. On the other hand, it’s much easier in our culture to just say, “How is their relationship hurting you?” “They love each other and just want to not be treated as second class citizens.”

Today, those arguments win hands-down in a sound-bite culture with a short attention span and an unappreciation for the democracy of the dead. If we can’t distill down the profound and beautiful theological and sociological arguments we have for true Marriage into equally convincing sound-bites of our own, we won’t be heard.

3) The most compassionate thing: You’ll hear things like…“I’m good friends with a wonderful gay couple. They are in love just like you and me. Why would you want to keep them apart? Who cares what gender they happen to be. They’ve been bullied and cast out their entire life by bigoted people [which is often very true] and pushed to the edge of suicide. Just let them have a life together with the person they love. They aren’t hurting you. That’s what makes them happy.”

If we can’t inject some more truth into such illogical implications, while acknowledging that the argument resonates with some truth, and then make the much harder case that the compassionate thing to do is actually to help those with same-sex attraction to pursue a higher calling and a still more beautiful plan for their lives, then we’ll continue to lose here, too.

4) Consistency: This part hurts the most. We’ve redefined marriage over and over again ourselves already. It no longer lasts until death. It no longer has to be open to life. Sex no longer has to be contained within it. We’ve completely separated marriage from procreation from sex. Culturally, we’ve reduced Marriage to just a loving relationship between two people. So of course it appears unfair to start getting all specific now about what a true marriage really is. Through all of our selfish shenanigans we’ve almost completely neutered our argument for what makes Marriage between a man and a woman so unique and special to human society. We’ve made it very difficult on ourselves.

The Church has the most beautiful, true and ultimately most fulfilling teaching on Marriage. We have a duty to share that truth and to fight for it for the sake of all people – including those with same-sex attraction. But until we do better on these four points (which is a very challenging task), nobody else will know it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Pro-Life is Easy, Pro-Marriage is Hard

  1. ellen says:

    All good points. Marriage is not supported in today’s culture. It has become a counter-cultural stand. True marriage is rare these days. Jesus wants true marriage–the kind that mirrors the love, fecundity, fidelity, creativity, of Christ for His Church.
    That said, I feel in my heart that attempts to love in truth are still attempts at holiness. The Church should not call homosexual unions, for example, “Marriage” nor bless them as sacraments, but as civil unions, can’t they be accepted? Can’t they be honored as two people trying to be true to themselves and their hearts’ inclinations to faithful, monogamous love?
    Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce. Obviously divorce is not the will of God, but He allowed Moses to permit it.
    Just asking, and would appreciate good, Catholic feedback!


  2. Lynda says:

    Being pro-life and pro-marriage are two sides of the same coin – interconnected, interdependent. One cannot be one without also being the other.


  3. toadspittle says:


    “If we can’t inject some more truth into such illogical implications, while acknowledging that the argument resonates with some truth,”

    1: We can’t “inject” any truth, let alone “more”. It is not divisible. And you can’t have “some” of it either.
    2. The “implications” here don’t seem at all illogical to me. Nor do they seem to be “implications,” but statements.
    3: If, as the writer – who seems more than a little confused – admits, the argument resonates with (some!) truth, it must also resonate with (some!) logic, and (some!) ethics.
    Which it does.
    4: What is the writer offering as an alternative? What “higher calling?” The priesthood?


  4. The Church recognizes homosexual attractions as a higher calling to chastity. Chastity is not our natural state as man, it is super-natural; thus, it is a higher calling. The Church has become much better over the past several years at helping those with same-sex attractions to feel more welcomed. In fact, the Church categorically rejects bullying or even the slightest social exclusion of someone because of her or her sexual attractions. Furthermore, the Church does NOT call it a disease or a punishment as some may think the Church does.

    I believe the Church needs to promote the promotion of marriage through defending the issue of human rights. The Church has a very strong standing in the world as far as defending human rights. In the United States, the right to marriage is advertised as a human right- this is false. Human rights are inherent qualities all humans are equally entitled as based on our existence in nature. Marriage is a sacrament, or in the courts it can be considered a contract(or worse, just a document). Each human has the right to LIFE, to resources found in nature, to be free, to health care(particularly in the sense of not being forced to live in unhealthy environments or being denied access to care).

    Marriage between a man and a woman is good and society is stronger when the family is strong. But first the Church must get everyone back on the same page. Marriage is NOT a human right- that is a law. And we cannot move forward until we are back on the right discussion.


  5. *Clarification on the last paragraph. Marriage exists as a contract in the eyes of the law, or a sacrament in the eyes of the church.


  6. toadspittle says:

    “Chastity is not our natural state as man, it is super-natural;”
    Says Sed.
    Oh no, it isn’t. Chastity is a decision frequently made by some perfectly rational people. It is not super-natural, nor even unnatural. Uncommon, perhaps.

    “In the United States, the right to marriage is advertised as a human right- this is false.”
    Oh, really? Surely we all have the inalienable human right to get married if we want? Not only in the States, but in China and The Peoples’ Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well.
    Assuming of course, that we can find someone dopey enough to freely agree to get married to us.
    Any dictator who announced that people no longer had the right to get married, would find comtumely swiftly heaped upon him (or her.)


  7. JabbaPapa says:

    Surely we all have the inalienable human right to get married if we want?

    Nope. Even defined as a “right”, it would be an alienable not inalienable one — for example by virtue of being under the legal age, or of being already married, and so on.

    More legalistically, it would be more realistic to describe it as a civic power enjoyed by certain classes of individuals in certain conditions, rather than as a right.


  8. toadspittle says:

    You are right, of course, Jabba, and those two very points did occur to me after writing the above. But I still maintain that, if you’re old enough, (which can vary) and stupid enough, (just normally, will do nicely) and aren’t already married, it is your right to do so.

    Maybe I should also add, and are not criminally insane. But then, maybe not.

    Correct me if I’m wrong.

    And this will learn me real good for employing big, six-syllable words like “inalienable,” gratuitously.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s