Church Says Redefining Marriage a “Social Catastrophe”


Father Francis Walsh compares the anticipated landmark decision from the US Supreme Court on same-sex marriage to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case of 1857.

Guam – The Catholic Church has also weighed in on the matter of same-sex marriage. Father Francis Walsh, speaking on behalf of the Archdiocese of Agana, says the definition of marriage is something that belongs to the Church and any attempt to redefine marriage could have grave consequences.



“Marriage exists in order to put human love at the service of human life,” he says.

As a theologian, Father Francis Walsh’s opinion on marriage is largely based on theology and religious beliefs–one that places family at the center of marriage that can only happen between two individuals who can procreate.

“And the family is a creature not of the state but it’s a creature for God. It pre-exists the state,” he notes.

The US Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on whether a ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional later this month. They are expected to render a decision by the end of June. Father Walsh compares this movement to that of the Dred Scott decision issued by the US Supreme Court in 1857 that said slaves had no legal rights and that African Americans were not entitled to American citizenship.

“Marriage is not the product of what the civil law says. The only rights that the state has is to regulate the civil consequences of marriage. It does not have any right to define marriage. Now if the state should overstep its boundaries and create that kind of an injustice, our response would be the same that we would make for the Dred Scott decision,” Walsh contends.

The outcome of the Dred Scott decision, Father Walsh points out was a civil war.

“What we are dealing with now is something along the same lines–a major social catastrophe; and what has to be done is total resistance for the good of the whole society,” says Walsh.


Father Walsh is a professor at the Redemptoris Mater Seminary.


  1. Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

  2. Gay Marriage always denies a child either a father or a mother It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent. The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

  3. Gay Marriage turns a moral wrong into a civil right. Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

Comments are closed.