The "marriage for all" will come. This was decided by the majority of the members of the Bundestag this Friday. The vote in the CDU/CSU parliamentary group was different. Karl Schiewerling explains why he voted against it.
Interviewer: It was quite clear from the beginning that the so-called "marriage for all" would be approved in the vote in the Bundestag. You voted against it anyway. Were you already aware that your vote will probably only have a purely symbolic value?
Karl Schiewerling (social policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag): Our voice already carried weight because there were 226 congregants who voted against it. With this, we were not exactly a small group. But it was clear to me that we would not achieve a majority in the German Bundestag, because there is actually no majority for my and our position in society. Nevertheless, I do not change my position.
Interviewer: In fact, the value of the traditional concept of marriage has changed in society in recent years. There are a good 80 percent of people who would agree to marriage for all. Why do you still hold on to the traditional understanding of marriage when society seems to think otherwise??
Schiewerling: Article 6 of the Constitution protects marriage because marriage is the legal framework in which children are given life. It is a matter of children being born and educated and growing up to be capable of living as the foundation of our society. Thus marriage has its own significance as a place and legal framework, because it is the legal framework for the transmission of life. This is the difference to same-sex couples. This was confirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court in 2002, when it made the distinction between a marriage and a registered partnership. The court explicitly underlined this specific, special role of marriage in Article 6. It is by no means only a felt Christian position that I am taking here, but it is one that has so far been seen and supported by the Constitutional Court.
Interviewer: Here we are talking about the ideal case, when one says that marriage should come down to mother, father and children. However, there are also marriages that remain childless. There are marriages in which children do not fare particularly well. There are cases of abuse that must not be concealed either. Could it not also children in individual cases in homosexual partnerships even under circumstances better go?
Schiewerling: The argument is initially what is written in the Verfang. The other question is where meanwhile partnership has moved away from children. I experience everywhere that the life situation of children is very different. After all, far more – almost 80 percent of all children – grow up with their parents. This is something that is quickly forgotten. But we also experience in our society that children are not, so to speak, a natural part of marriage and family, but that they are added to it and that they take on a different role in our history. That is correct.
But it is about the fundamental question of the importance of the relationship of a man and a woman, from which in principle children arise, who have their own dignity, their own perspective, but who ultimately arise from this community and to highlight the difference with same-sex couples, from which by nature no children can be born together. That's why the Federal Constitutional Court gave special protection to the legal institution of marriage. I also believe that this is necessary for order in our society and that clear structures are needed in our society.
It is not for nothing that we created registered civil partnerships in 2002, which I also very much welcome, because this is the place where people who live together as a same-sex couple make promises to each other to stand together and take responsibility for each other. This is a particularly important institution and legal form that I strongly welcome. I have great respect for registered partnerships and no less respect than for people who enter into marriage.
Interviewer: Criticism comes mainly from the Catholic Church in the wake of the decision, which clarifies the difference between sacramental marriage and civil marriage. Did you then vote more as a Catholic or more as a politician in the vote?
Schiewerling: I cannot distinguish on the ie. As a Catholic, as the regional chairman of the Kolping Society in North Rhine-Westphalia, as someone who is deeply rooted in his Church, I am naturally influenced by my view of humanity and my world view. I was very surprised, by the way, that the Catholic Church has not made any clear statement at all about this so far. All their Catholic deputies who have thought from this basic attitude have by no means been vehemently supported. But of course I decided from this basic attitude. I have also decided – and that is why I refer to the Verfang – as a member of the Bundestag, which sees the Verfangsrang of marriage and which has made its decision on this background.
The interview was conducted by Renardo Schlegelmilch.