Op-Ed:  On the 'Protection of Marriage Amendment'

The Pilot, Archdiocese of Boston, Nov. 30, 2001, at 16

After the Nov. 9 publication of a story regarding the Massachusetts Bishops' support of the "Protection of Marriage Amendment," The Pilot received a letter to the editor outlining a possible flaw in the proposal that could be seen to harm certain vulnerable persons in our society.  In the interest of clarification, The Pilot has requested a response from the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the official representative of the four Catholic dioceses of Massachusetts on public policy issues.

Dear Editor:

Although I respect my Church's efforts to promote families, I don't believe that the "Protection of Marriage Amendment" serves this goal.  the measure will have unintended consequences that will hurt vulnerable people.  In many European countries parliaments have recognized that many civil relationships merit legal support.   In France, for example, an aging parent and his or her adult child can enter into a partnership which allows the latter to cover the former with insurance and other benefits.   Furthermore, those taking a caretaker role can both share benefits with and receive benefits from those for whom they care.

The poorly drafted "Protection of Marriage Amendment" would require the state to only recognize the "union of one man and one woman," and "any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage from the Commonwealth and its political subdivision."

Such language would undermine efforts by the state to recognize and promote the kinds of caretaking and concern our Church has worked so hard to promote.  It is sad to think that an amendment ostensibly designed to protect the family values will likely undermine them.

[. . .]

Dear Editor:

[The author] believes incorrectly that, if adopted by the voters of Massachusetts, the Protection of Marriage Amendment would prohibit the state from, among other things, giving benefits to an adult child to support an aging parent. He misses the significance of the words "exclusive to marriage" in the Amendment’s reference to benefits.

The state has long extended employment, healthcare, and other social benefits to both married and unmarried persons. Thus, public benefits of this nature are not exclusive to marriage. Contrary to [the author's] claim, the Amendment would still permit the state to provide for an aging parent through the health plan of a state employee because the law has not limited this type of public benefit only to married persons.

There are benefits exclusive to marriage that should remain so. The Catholic Church along with other religious and moral traditions recognizes that only a man and a woman joined as spouses have the right to engage in a sexual bond, and thus sexual intercourse is, morally speaking, a benefit exclusive to marriage.

State law reflects this view by prohibiting sexual intercourse involving unmarried persons (see Mass. General Laws chapter 272, sections 14 & 18). While the courts refuse to enforce these statutes due to privacy challenges, their continued existence as expressions of public policy affirms the exclusivity of sex to marriage. Under the Amendment, the right to sexual intercourse could not be extended to unmarried couples.

The Protection of Marriage Amendment responds to a lawsuit filed in Boston last April by several same-sex couples who argue that they have an equal right under the state constitution to obtain marriage licenses. A right to obtain a marriage license has always been limited to heterosexual couples and would remain an exclusive marital benefit for these couples if the Amendment passes.

The Amendment also responds to a bill now before the state legislature to equate unmarried "domestic partners" to spouses. Under this proposal, an unmarried couple could qualify for spousal benefits through a benefits plan for government employees. The couple would have to declare their "intent to reside together indefinitely as the other’s sole and exclusive partner", and prove they are "not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the Commonwealth" (Senate Bill 2120).

By these terms, aging parents or other close relatives dependent on a government employee’s support would not qualify for coverage. The bill’s reference to "sole and exclusive partner" and its failure to include close relatives expose an intent by the bill’s drafters to treat unmarried cohabitation between lovers as the "legal equivalent of marriage", which the Amendment would forbid.

In sum, the Amendment would not bar the state from providing healthcare and like public benefits to unmarried persons, since these are not exclusively marital. The Amendment would, however, affect the manner in which such benefits are provided. Eligibility would have to be based on criteria that do not assert a legal equivalence between the relationship that exists between a man and a woman in marriage and unmarried cohabitation. While the Amendment would necessitate careful drafting to provide for the legitimate economic and healthcare needs of unmarried persons but without equating cohabitation and marriage, this is a small price to pay for preserving marriage’s unique and fundamental status in society.

Daniel Avila, Esq., Associate Director of Policy & Research, Massachusetts Catholic Conference