As you may be aware, English Catholics have been encouraged by our Parish Priests to write to our MPs stating our views on equal marriage. This is an extract from one such letter which, point by point, states the objections. (it's not my letter - I stole it from a Catholic blogger and have highlighted the objections)
"Vincent Nichols, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, has urged the Catholics of England and Wales to write to our Members of Parliament on the subject of gay marriage, and the government?s proposed legislation. As a committed Catholic, active in two parishes (one in in your constituency, the other in*, in the heart of Archbishop Nichols? diocese), and as a father and grandfather, I am delighted to comply. I strongly urge you to disregard the objections of Archbishop Nichols and the other bishops, and instead to support the proposals of your colleagues in government, to introduce equal marriage, as soon as reasonably feasible. Many of the claims made in opposition to government proposals, are simply false, or misleading.
It is claimed that as these plans were not included in party manifestos, the government has ?no mandate?. This is a half ? truth at best: if not included in the formal manifestos, the subject was widely discussed and supported by several leading politicians. Mr Cameron himself specifically promised to ?look into? the subject. Since then, every opinion poll that has specifically asked about equal marriage and the law has shown strong public support. The most recent of these furthermore showed a dramatic increase in support since the public consultation began. The opposition has made their case ? and decisively lost the argument, in the court of public opinion.
It is not the government that lacks a mandate, but the Catholic bishops themselves, who are not elected by British Catholics, but appointed from Rome. They may lead the Catholic Church, but do not in any sense represent it. This is particularly true in matters of sex and marriage. As priests who have chosen voluntary celibacy for themselves, their pronouncements on the subject have no basis whatsoever in any real life experience. Catholic doctrine includes numerous prohibitions on a wide range of sexual matters ? which are routinely ignored by most Catholics, from contraception to cohabitation before marriage. In the USA, where public opinion polls are frequent, these have routinely shown that Catholics in general support marriage equality, to a greater degree than the public at large. There is no reason to suppose that British Catholics are any different in this respect.
It is claimed that government has no right to ?redefine? marriage. This ignores the historical facts that the Christian church for over half its history had no interest in marriage, leaving its regulation entirely to secular authority, and that the Church?s own understanding of marriage has been constantly redefined. It also ignores the fact that from historical and cross-cultural perspectives, there is not and never has been any single definition of marriage which is universally applicable.
It is claimed that the ?purpose? of marriage is the procreation of children, and so should be reserved to opposite ? sex couples. But this is contradicted by the facts: in the UK today, the majority of marriages are contracted after conception of the first child ? but before the birth. The value of marriage is not in making children, but in protecting them and providing for them after birth. The hundreds of thousands of British children currently being raised by same ?sex couples also deserve the protections that marriage brings to families.
It is claimed that same ? sex couples do not ?need? marriage, because the civil partnership laws already provide all the legal benefits of marriage. But marriage is much more than a simple matter of a legal contract. Words matter, and separate is not equal.
It is claimed that same ? sex marriage is contrary to Catholic and Christian belief. This is contradicted by some Catholic theologians and groups, individual Church of England bishops, and entire religious denominations that argue that there exists a strong religious case in support of equal marriage, required by the Gospel insistence on equality and inclusion for all.
It is claimed that introducing equal marriage will somehow interfere with religious freedom. This is nonsense, and has been adequately covered by your colleague, Minister Maria Miller, with her ?quadruple lock? to protect such freedom. The interests of religious freedom require that equal marriage should be possible for those denominations that see it as a religious obligation ? and for those outside the faith communities, who do not wish to be constrained by the religious beliefs of particular groups.
It is claimed, on the basis of a single Comres poll, that 70% of voters believe that marriage ?should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between one man and one woman?. But this proposition concerns an ideal about marriage, not its treatment in law. The same finding could equally be used to argue for and end to legal divorce, or to the criminalization of adultery. If it is not appropriate to apply it to divorce or adultery, it is also inappropriate to apply it to equal marriage."