Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!

In a September op-ed published in the Catholic Herald, Marquette associate professor of theology Fr. Bryan Massinagle, also a priest of the Milwaukee Archdiocese, argues that faithful Catholics should vote NO on the Marriage Amendment. The Bishops of Wisconsin have strongly urged a YES vote on the Amendment.

Fr. Massingale takes issue with the second clause of the Amendment, which says “[A] legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”

According to Fr. Massingale, this

[R]aises troubling concerns. Many fear that this clause could endanger laws and other arrangements which extend medical coverage (among other benefits) to unmarried households and people who would otherwise be uninsured. Why is this a problem? Because the right to medical care, according to Catholic Social Teaching, is a fundamental human right.

Not so fast, Fr. As MJS’s Patrick McIlheran has pointed out, the Leg Council has been clear in saying benefits are not in danger:

The Wisconsin Legislative Council was clear when asked exactly this last February: There’s no evidence the amendment’s meant to deny benefits, and there’s no sign its language could be interpreted that way by a court. In fact, lawmakers are on record as saying they seek only to bar gay marriage under another name, not benefits. Since Wisconsin law says courts must be guided by lawmakers’ intentions and plain language, this is as close as you can get to certainty.

Fr. Massingale is really searching for solid ground on this next paragraph [emphases added]:

Thus, any measure which opens the door to the possibility that health care benefits could be limited or denied to any segement of our population, under the pretext that these are ’spousal’ or ‘marital’ benefits not only exacerbates the already scandolous reality of the uninsured in our society; it runs contrary to deep Catholic commitments and values.

The reality, as McIlheran points out, is that health care benefits offered by private companies will not be affected AT ALL and those offered by government entities can be easily solved:

[I]f we’re still worried that companies will have to cut off benefits for unmarried partners, we can ask whether that’s happened in any of the 19 states that already have such amendments. It hasn’t. Business groups, benefits experts, human resources consultants, even anti-amendment group Fair Wisconsin will tell you that no company has had to cut off benefits because of an amendment. And no one’s tried to make a company do so.
Some government employers have run into lawsuits over benefits for same-sex couples. The straightforward answer, say lawyers who filed those suits, is for cities and schools not to premise taxpayer-funded benefits on a particular kind of unmarried relationship. Simply offer an employee-plus-one option open to lovers or disabled adult brothers equally, as some employers already do, and local governments won’t be recognizing some unmarried relationships as particularly special.

Owen at Boots and Sabers does us all a great favor by providing both the entire Leg Council legal memo and the portions specific to health care and other benefits. The LC memo clearly debunks Fr. Massingale’s argument.

Meanwhile, the blogosphere takes on Fr. Massingale’s argument too.
Dad29 is right on with his criticism:

In essence, Massingale commits the intellectual sin of failing to recognize a hierarchy of values. Of course, it’s possible that he simply ‘forgot’ about such distinctions…but knowing that he’s on staff with Maguire, that’s not likely.

As TerrenceBerres.com points out: “Massingale cites as direct support for his views only a statement by then-Archbishop of San Francisco William Levada. This is the same way Dr. Daniel Maguire approaches the issue, see “The Marriage Option and Solidly Probable Opinion” in his The Moral Revolution (1986) pp. 98-102.”

Let me close with a quote from Dr. Wolfe, another prof. here at MU:
“Support for this amendment is not incompatible with any element of the church’s social standing. Fr. Massingale’s piece attempts to undermine support for an amendment that reflects the church’s teaching on the importance of marriage and our obligation to preserve it as best we can.”

• Why Van's the Man - January 5th, 2009
• 9th Cir. Screws up Scouts' Case - January 5th, 2009
• Favorite Moment in the Final Days - December 29th, 2008
• Over on MULS Faculty Blog - December 29th, 2008
• The Race for DPI Superintendent - December 29th, 2008