LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Gratitude for marriage letter

Posted

TO THE EDITOR:

Arthur Goldberg and I wish to thank the Rev. Michael Menna for raising his concerns with our article “Deconstructing an alleged right to re-define marriage.”

Science indicates that homosexual attractions are neither hard-wired nor a conscious choice. Sexual attractions develop due to the interaction of social, familial, peer and biological factors. Consequently, some people can and do change their orientation. Attorney Goldberg, who is also a rabbi and practicing Certified Relationship Specialist, has met hundreds of individuals who have been healed of same-sex attraction in his role as president of Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality (PATH) and as Co-Director of Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH).

This should not be construed to mean that change of orientation is easy or that everyone who attempts change will succeed.

In the Catholic and Orthodox Jewish traditions there is nothing sinful about having homosexual attractions. We do not choose our attractions; we choose what to do with or about them. It is not morally required that one attempt let alone succeed in changing to a heterosexual orientation. Relying on God’s grace to live out the virtue of chastity according to one’s state in life, however, is required regardless of sexual orientation.

Rev. Menna correctly notes that it is impossible to address the issue of homosexuality in a brief space. This never was nor is it now our intent. Our goal is to dismantle the three universal myths that undergird support for an alleged right to redefine marriage. These myths are first, that homosexuality is genetic like skin color – it is not; secondly, that marriage is a mere contract between two romantically attracted people – it is far more; and finally, that no harm has come to societies that have legalized same-sex marriage. Significant harm has arisen; harm including but not limited to the violation of religious freedom, parental rights and physician right of conscience.

Marriage has been progressively under attack since the birth of the sexual revolution nearly 50 years ago. Rabbi Goldberg and I do not claim that those with homosexual attraction have caused the woeful — though still salvageable state of marriage today. A culture that has embraced a sexual libertarian ethic did that. Re-defining marriage to allow for same-sex unions — divorcing marriage from gender complementarity and the potential for life-giving love – is one more giant step along the sexual libertarian spectrum; a spectrum that can only lead to the de-institutionalization of marriage and a massive increase in a host of social ills already present today. Those who insist otherwise are ignoring the past as well as the present. See for reference J.D. Unwin’s Sex and Culture (available online), and David Blankenhorn’s The Future of Marriage.

The issue in the debate over re-defining marriage is not equality; the issue is the nature and purpose of marriage. Marriage is first and foremost a public institution that regulates human sexuality by binding a man to his biological children and their mother for the common good. America denies this at its peril.

Michelle A. Cretella, MD

Westerly

Dr. Cretella is on the Advisory Board for the RI Chapter of the National Organization for Marriage. For further information please visit: www.nationformarriage.org and www.pathinfo.org.