This evening, I was given the opportunity to bathe in the glorious, energetic concoction that is Carl Orff's rendition of "Carmina Burana." The "O Fortuna" part should be familiar to you from its use in film scores during epic battle scenes. The juxtaposition of the final two movements is brilliant, terrifying, and (at least it struck me as) particularly apropos as we navigate the tumultuous waves of response in the wake of North Carolina's approval of the Marriage Amendment (or Amendment 1, if you prefer technical euphemisms). Apples and oranges? Be patient with me . . ."Carmina Burana" is a mostly Latin, Medieval series of poems of unknown origin. Orff, a German composer of the early to mid 20th century, chose 24 of these poems for his theatrical composition. The piece begins with a warning by Fortune who "mak[es] sport with our desires / causing power / and poverty alike / to melt like ice." Following this are a series of lighter, bucolic melodies praising spring and flirtation. This moves into the darker "Tavern" section which sometimes humorously and sometimes darkly recites a litany of man's darker habits and inclinations. Finally, the "Court of Love" focuses on a young woman's abnegation of her chastity as she gives in to the sensuous desires of her lover. This section ends with a choral piece called "Ave formosissima" or "Hail to thee, most lovely" [see clip below]. Anyone who has some exposure to traditional, Catholic polyphony and reads the translation will catch that this is a thinly veiled parody of a hymn to the Virgin Mary; however, here the virgin at the center of this encomium is the woman who has become a "Venus" and "Helen" to her lover. The tone of this piece is euphoric. Suddenly, the tone shifts [2:35 in the clip below] and Fortune strides in to snatch our attention back to the warning from the beginning of the whole piece; She is still in control, and implied is the short-lived nature of our amorous couple's passion. Human love is glorious; a bond between a couple may lift one to the heights of human experience. Yet, that same human love is unstable and subject to the whims of Fortune ... or to the frustrations of how much money to spend on the new couch.
Switch gears: The Marriage Amendment is not setting out to RE-define anything or to take away current rights or protections from anyone. There have been plenty of legal reviews to ensure that this is the case. It merely seeks to establish what used to be a basic assumption--namely, that only a legally bound, committed relationship between a man and a woman has the potential to be a building block of society. That type of relationship is so fundamentally different from all the other types of legal contracts or domestic situations people might have that it gets a special name, marriage, that no one else can apply to his or her relationship. Some claim this is bigotry. Others claim it is elitist or even a type of eugenics! I say, it's time we understood (even setting aside all moral arguments for or against various lifestyle choices) that marriage under the traditional definition is irreplaceable as a foundation for society.
As our musical piece above dramatizes so well, various sorts of human love outside of the bond of marriage can be deliriously exciting and mutually comforting. In so far as a person goes out of him or herself to recognize, affirm, and value the good of the other, there really is love on some level within monogamous heterosexual and homosexual relationships. However, those relationships lack two things (at least! philosophy, sociology, history, and various faith traditions may add quite a few more) that make them inadequate to replace or join marriage as a particular necessity within society.
First, as indicated by the dramatic change between the last two movements, human relationships are subject to the same fickle storms of passion that begin them. If emotion is one's highest good, than Fortune (and the emotions that result from her fiddling with her wheel) becomes the ruling force behind the relationship and stability is only "real" while the emotions continue. This is all true unless the relationship is subjected to something more lasting than itself or its origin. In marriage, the public, legal contract made between the man and woman gives them stability, a motivation beyond themselves to stay together, even in difficult times.
Monogamous heterosexual couples are by definition less committed (and thus less socially stable) than a married couple; otherwise (in most cases), they would just get married. Monogamous homosexual relationships, statistically, are highly likely to be short lived. Interestingly, a 2004 study in Vermont showed that including them legally into contractual "marriages" did not help the longevity statistics; nearly 80% of monogamous homosexual couples decided not to take the step, now legalized there, to get "married." Sadly, the accessibility and frequency of divorce in our country is making even many traditional marriages less steady ground for our society to trust for its economic, social, and moral stability and consistency.
Secondly, traditional marriages have the highest probability of the various relationship types to be fruitful and formative. A society must birth and raise future citizens to continue successfully. In a committed relationship, a couple is more likely to open themselves to children. In turn, the presence of these children gives the couple yet another reason outside of themselves and their emotions to stay together and make things work. Also, the distinct roles of a man and woman help their children to understand and interact with society, based on their experiences within the microcosm of the family unit. [Clarification: married couples who are infertile are not by extension less essential to society. The stability of their bond often lends itself toward fruitfulness within their larger community in other ways and the (natural or spiritual) adoption of other children.]
Cohabiting, heterosexual couples are more likely to use birth-control to prevent pregnancy because of the unstable and vague concept they have of their bond. When they do have children, the undefined nature of their roles within the family and that family's place within society may prove disorienting for the children and detrimental to their secure development. Homosexual couples are intrinsically unable to have children, so they can't be the most essential building block of society. If homosexual couples chose to adopt a child, that child will still lack (at the very least) the unique formation received through the experience of parents of different genders.
I think that people's virulent reactions to the passed amendment are often less about them having true legal issues with something that's always been taken for granted and than about connected issues. First of all, they may be reacting in order to support the people they know who are cohabiting or who are in a homosexual relationship and whom they don't want to judge or isolate. They know that to join the "marriage" camp may seem like a rejection of these wonderful people they know. I too have friends and family members who are lovely people with hearts that really have true affection for others, even if they make relationship decisions that morally I disagree with.
I also wonder, particularly in the case of married people who are against the amendment, if they truly understand and appreciate the uniqueness of their own marriage--its contribution toward society, toward the formation of their children, and toward the mutual betterment of the spouses who can live confident in the knowledge that the other loved them enough to make a free, commitment for life to them. The Pontifical Council for the Family stated (in 2000): "Equality before the law must respect the principle of justice which means treating equals equally, and what is different differently: i.e., to give each one his due in justice. This principle of justice would be violated if de facto unions were given a juridical treatment similar or equivalent to the family based on marriage. If the family based on marriage and de facto unions are neither similar nor equivalent in their duties, functions and services in society, then they cannot be similar or equivalent in their juridical status." The good ol' Catechism would add: "The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honour God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society." (n.2207)
Finally, I think some people disagree on a moral level, or maybe just on a gut reaction sort of level, to cohabitation, homosexuality, or both. They don't know how to rectify this feeling with the politically correct dogma of tolerance that they constantly feel subjected to. Thus, in order to quell their inner voice that's challenging them to really consider these relationships, their impact on society and on they themselves, and the way in which to approach the individuals they know who live in these different ways, these uncomfortable souls just try to silence those who remind them that essential differences do exist and that there are differences of degree and of kind within the realm of relationships that ought not be erased or equated. In Brideshead Revisited Cara, a mistress of a married man, comments on this phenomenon (and more specifically about why her paramour and others dislike his wife) by saying, "When people hate with all that energy, it is something in themselves they are hating." I think there is oftentimes some truth to this statement.
We respond energetically to the things that matter most to us and that touch us at our core. Our sexuality and our choices about how we express it (and how others close to us express it) are, thus, rather inflammatory topics. Yet, if everything in our society becomes relative ... if we no longer can at least defend the linguistic primacy of marriage among other relationships from a social and economic point of view ... if the foundation of our society is gradually replaced with limestone and sand rather than granite ... we should be ready to face the consequences, and perhaps "O Fortuna" would be an appropriate accompaniment to the fallout.
Image source
Some quotations grabbed from here
