"This new power grab by the State to redefine a centuries-old institution" - and the mob mentality promoting it

  
TUESDAY, 8 APRIL 2014

“I was jeered and spat at for defending marriage”

BY CAROLINE FARROW

 10 |  |       

Recently I appeared in the audience of BBC’s Question Time in my home town of Brighton after a friend asked me to take their place at short notice.
When Marilyn Barmer stood up and nervously asked whether the first gay marriages due to take place in the city in the next 24 hours were a necessary piece of legislation, the temperature in the auditorium plummeted, the warm glow of good-natured yet passionate debate replaced by a glacial hostility.

I have never before experienced such a palpable and visceral sense of contempt and dislike, despite having debated the issue a number of times inside a TV studio or on the radio with LGBT advocates.

While I’ve come in for a hefty amount of online abuse and insults over the years and at times been shocked by some of the sentiments expressed, I have at least been able to emotionally distance myself.

Words can have a powerful impact but at the end of the day that’s all they are -- a stream of invective from those suffering from a sense of inadequacy in one or several areas of their lives, who should not be given any headspace.

Fed up with the shallow and saccharin sentiments of love that were lacking in intellectual rigour emanating from the panel and the on-screen love-in between Tory MP Justine Greening and Labour MP Dianne Abbot about how wonderful it all was, I raised my hand when David Dimbleby asked whether or not anyone agreed with the questioner.

As the host focused his attention upon me, asking me to refute specific allegations of homophobia, I did my best to add a fresh perspective to the debate from the point of view those who did not wish to see marriage redefined.

But when the audience jeered in response to the simple statement of fact that every single child had a biological mother and father, I knew that I was fighting a lost cause.
The audience were not listening to what was being said; even a great debater such as George Bernard Shaw would not have won them over.

Afterwards both Roger Helmer and Lord Simon Wolfson, two of the guest panellists, kindly congratulated me on my courage.

Surely I thought, speaking my mind on a TV show wasn’t particularly brave. Yes, the aggression was unnerving, not least when Dimbleby began to unexpectedly interrogate me, but as we are  living in a free and democratic society we should all be able to speak in the public square without fear of repercussions.

Sadly however, freedom of speech comes with a price. While filing out of the studio, someone approached me to tell me I was ‘absolutely disgusting’.

Another group of people spat at me. I was swiftly identified on Twitter by Dr Evan Harris and gay columnist Benjamin Cohen and the insults flowed.

My crime? Stating that marriage was a child-centric institution and that children have a right to be brought up by their biological parents, where at all possible.

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell is still not satisfied that same sex marriage legislation goes far enough is now calling for a repeal of the marriage law.  Stonewall are calling for homophobia to be eradicated from ‘churches and homes’.

What does this mean in reality? Are the thought police to be sent into churches and homes to enforce the new orthodoxy that anyone who does not support the new State definition of marriage is to be censured and made to see the error of their ways?

A new Cinderella law seeks to prosecute parents who do not show their children  enough emotional affection.

Will the State define as emotional cruelty ideas that are not commensurate with their own vision of perfect parenting?

Will parents who homeschool or refuse to condone the new definition of marriage be deemed guilty of emotional cruelty or causing harm?

There is legitimate concern that this new power grab by the State to redefine a centuries-old institution will have a serious impact on  freedom of speech and religions. Being spat at is the least of our worries.

Caroline Farrow writes from the UK where she has participated in a number of media debates on family issues. This article first appeared in Conservative Woman and is reproduced here with permission.
* The BBC Question Time referred to is here, and the question about gay marriage begins at 38 minutes in.

This article is published by Caroline Farrow and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/13875#sthash.UjZrl4oQ.dpuf

Polygamy comes out of the closet

Michael Cook | 17 Dec 2013 

Kody Brown, center, poses with his wives, from left, Janelle, Christine, Meri, and Robyn

Is Utah’s ban on polygamy unconstitutional? Last week a Federal Court judge ruled that it is, after Kody Brown and his four wives, the stars of the reality TV series Sister Wives, challenged it.

Judge Clark Waddoups, of United States District Court in Utah, struck down provisions of Utah’s bigamy law, which make “religious co-habitation” illegal. Kody Brown, who belongs to the Apostolic United Brethren Church,  an offshoot of the Mormon church, and has four wives and 17 children, welcomed the decision:

“Like thousands of other plural families, we have waited many years for this day. While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our beliefs. Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs.”

Judge Waddoup’s ruling will not allow a man to be legally married to several women. He specifically stated that the state still has a right to enforce a ban on multiple marriage licences. But it does allow polygamists to come out of the closet and live without fear of prosecution.
Although Brown v. Buhman is sure to be challenged and could be overturned, it is a milestone in the evolution of modern relationships from monogamous and permanent traditional marriage, to no-fault divorce and serial polygamy, widespread de facto marriage, same-sex marriage and now polygamy.

Most Americans are still deeply hostile towards polygamy so supporters of same-sex marriage constantly argue that the US is not on a slippery-slope to polygamy. Judge Waddoups’s decision, however, makes it very clear that being unpopular or disliked is not a legitimate reason to discriminate against a lifestyle. And, in fact, all the arguments deployed in favour of same-sex marriage work perfectly well for polygamy – and other even more colourful forms of plural marriage.

The judge’s 91-page decision relies on two fundamental ideas expressed in two famous decisions of the US Supreme Court.

The first is that a ban on polygamy is essentially religious discrimination and that heterosexual, monogamous marriage is merely a Christian institution. He grounds this idea on an 1878 case, Reynolds v United States. George Reynolds, the secretary of Mormon leader Brigham Young, had been charged with bigamy. His defence was that his religion obliged him to be married to several women and that his marital arrangements were protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court did not accept this. In a unanimous decision it said, “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people”. In a subsequent decision in 1890, the Court described polygamy as “a return to barbarism” and “contrary to the spirit of Christianity.”

To Judge Waddoups, such words are “unthinkable” in a racially and religiously pluralistic society. There can be no rational basis for a ban on “religious co-habitation”. Society is no longer predominantly Christian and its standards cannot legitimately define relationships.

The second case is Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled in 2003 that homosexual sodomy could not be criminalised because it was protected by a constitutional right to privacy. This has buttressed arguments for same-sex marriage. If the government cannot prohibit homosexual behaviour, how can it prohibit relationships based on that behavior?

Judge Waddoups has simply extended this line of reasoning to polygamous relationships. The attorney representing Kody Brown and his wives, Jonathan Turley, summed this up in the New York Times: “We should fight for privacy as an inclusive concept, benefiting everyone in the same way. Regardless of whether it is a gay or plural relationship, the struggle and the issue remains the same: the right to live your life according to your own values and faith.”

The common thread in Waddoups’s reasoning is that marriage is simply a legal framework which gives public recognition to the affections of adults. Children are just a footnote, an optional extra, in their relationships.

The reality of authentic marriage is quite different: it is centred on children. Marriage deserves to be recognised and protected by the government because the loving care of a father and a mother is the best environment in which to raise children.

A polygamous marriage is superior to a same-sex marriage because both a father and a mother are involved in raising a child. But even if there is no physical, sexual or emotional abuse of the wives or children, it fails to treat them with the dignity that they deserve. Men and women deserve unique and exclusive love as a fundamental aspect of their human dignity. Polygamy introduces division and competition into relationships.

Contrary to what Judge Waddoups contends, the repudiation of polygamy is not a uniquely Christian idea. It is based on historical experience and even on the finding of social science. Although polygamy a fact of life in many societies, the ideal relationship has always been between one man and one woman. Christianity merely ratifies this and places it within its own theological framework.

Is this bracket creep from same-sex marriage? No, it’s bracket creep from the idea that every kind of sexual expression deserves government protection so long as no one is physically harmed. As Justice Kennedy wrote in another famous case about sexuality: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

But as support for same-sex marriage grows, the twin notions that Christian morality has no rational basis and that any non-abusive sexual relationship is legitimate will take deeper root. Polygamy is obviously the first cab off the rank, because there are thousands of polygamous families belonging to offshoots of the Mormon Church. As the number of Muslims grows, some are certain to demand the right to polygamous marriage.

One person who must feel more than a little satisfaction at Brown v. Buhman is US Supreme Court Justice Scalia. In his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, he declared that the majority opinion “effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation” because if “the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above- mentioned laws [against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity] can survive rational basis review”.

Justice Scalia has often been ridiculed for his forthright comment. But Judge Waddoups has proved him right.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet. 

This article is published and was originally posted here by Michael Cook and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact them for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/13280#sthash.ZShDOxyQ.dpuf

Conformism, Reputation, and Reality

Paul Adams

Publication of two very different articles, one in the Guardian (UK), the other in the liberal American Catholic magazine Commonweal, bring to mind the gap that often exists between the merit of a public intellectual’s work and the “dynamics of reputation and public debate,” as the first author, Stefan Collini, calls it.  

Collini’s article commemorates the fiftieth anniversary of a celebrated (or notorious) lecture by literary critic F.R. Leavis in response to the earlier lecture by C.P. Snow on the “Two Cultures.”  The specifics of the exchange of lectures will be of little interest to most today, I expect, though they were a major event in my English student days. 

Snow was, Leavis argued, a classic case of a figure entirely without literary or scientific significance - he aimed to bridge the gap he discerned between the "two cultures," scientific and literary.  His reputation was based on his own self-confidence and endorsement by a literary-cultural-journalistic elite which had no serious critical standards but for whom all was vogue and being in tune with the times - the lemmings argument for inevitability.  Leavis was denounced on both sides of the Atlantic (e.g., by Lionel Trilling) for being too rude, dismissive, and personal, but his point was not about Snow himself. 

Bottum's essay - famous for being famous, as they say - is also interesting as a cultural phenomenon, an assimilation to the hive mind and just too much “because there's nothing there," as the Catholic Thomist philosopher Edward Feser puts it. The essay is rambling, personal, and needy, an incoherent argument - except there is no argument - that the Catholic Church should acquiesce in same-sex “marriage.”   It calls for the Church to reject the position laid out ten years ago by the CDF, signed by Joseph Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II, that “In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection” (emphasis added).

Bottum's piece must be engaged both at the level of what it attempts to do, the musings or arguments it sets forth, and its symptomatic significance as a moment in the life of the Church and of American elites.  Michael Pakaluk captures both aspects in his brilliant satirical piece.  He shows both the incoherence of Bottum’s non-arguments and his feeble desire to go along to get along rather than stand firm in the face of the soft persecution Catholics face in the West.  We are not presently called to be martyrs for marriage like John the Baptist and Thomas More, but face denial of jobs and promotions, rejection of applications to college and dismissal from professional programs.  Good Catholics and other Christians are being driven out of business, Catholic Charities pushed out of fields it excels in like adoption and foster care or helping women caught in sex trafficking.

Snow and Bottum are very different public figures, but there is similarity in the way both were embraced by the kind of political and cultural elite represented fifty years ago by the Sunday papers and smart weeklies and today by the New York Times.  Leavis’s concern with Snow was not personal, despite the attacks on his lecture as rude, dismissive, vicious, and in general, over the top. The gap between Snow’s evident lack of any real talent or achievement and his self-confidence and acceptance as a public authority on literature and science called for a kind of diagnosis of the state of a culture in which no serious critical standards were in play.

Why does Bottum's piece deserve any attention at all?  Surely not on the basis of any merit.  Not because he is or was a good fellow.  The NYT rushed to boost him with a special trip to Bottum’s home in South Dakota and a puff piece in the paper because it so well fits the narrative of "Conservative Catholic caves on SSM."   The self-styled “paper of record” gave similar prominence to David Blankenhorn's jumping ship as a prominent defender of marriage and opponent of what he himself described as the hijacking of our most child-friendly institution by those whose real interest was not marriage, parenthood, or children but respect for their sexual relationships.  The story in Blankenhorn’s case was "Marriage expert, critic of SSM, folds.”  For Bottum, who was no expert on marriage and had written nothing of substance about it, the story was “Catholic conservative, former editor of First Things magazine - a vehicle of conservatism and orthodoxy in religion and culture - abandons opposition to same-sex marriage.”  Or more succinctly, as the title of the NYT article put it, “A Conservative Catholic Now Backs Same-Sex Marriage.”   Bottum has stepped back from what he appeared to mean when he approved the subtitle of his own article in Commonweal, “A Catholic’s Case for Same-Sex Marriage,” saying now he accepts the Church’s teaching on same-sex unions, just holding that she should stop opposing them in the public square.  

Neither Bottum nor Blankenhorn has a single coherent argument for abandoning the defense of marriage, doing no better than saying it’s the way elite opinion has gone and it’s over.  There is this longing to come in from the cold and be liked again that Pakaluk nails in his satire on Bottum’s essay. (I commented on Blankenhorn's jumping ship on marriage here.)  Both statements, given prominence by the country’s most prominent champion of same-sex “marriage” and elite values, the NYT, show this weariness and desire for acceptance.  If Bottum had been a liberal Catholic or secular liberal, and never editor of FT, no-one would have cared.  The instant fame of the piece has nothing to do with its merits and it's not fallacious (ad hominem) to say so.  It's an expression of a cultural collapse bigger than Bottum but of which he and his sudden liberal admirers are symptomatic.

At one level, this cultural collapse is an expression of the collapse of marriage and all the other consequences of the sexual revolution, defined as  the ongoing destigmatization of all varieties of nonmarital sexual activity accompanied by a sharp rise in such sexual activity, and has its technological base in the contraceptive pill that became widely available in the 1960s.

At another the phenomenon of intolerant conformism to elite opinion reminds us of Tocqueville’s critique of the democracy he saw at work in the United States of the 1830s. In a section entitled, “The power exercised by the majority in America over thought,” he asserts, shockingly to American democratic sensibilities, “I know of no country in which, speaking generally, there is less independence of mind and true freedom of discussion than in America.” Indeed, he says, “There is no freedom of mind in America.”

An aspect of this irresistible power of public opinion, which he sees as inherent in democracy (American Lockean style at least), pointed to by the Snow and Bottum cases, is the particular force of conformism in elite opinion.  The incapacity for independent critical thought and judgment among the cultural elite of the day in England that Leavis diagnosed, and that enabled a man lacking in any talent but self-confident self-promotion, is also evident in the rapid transformation of homosexual “marriage” from joke to dogma in ten years.  Indeed, Brendan O’Neill, who coined the phrase, sees it as a class marker, a sign of cultural superiority, based not on a mass movement but on the pressure, so evident in Bottum and Blankenhorn, to be accepted in the right circles.

Such a phenomenon depends, precisely insofar as it flies in the face of reality, of the truth about the human person and about marriage, on a high degree of coercion.  The coercion is in part that imposed by the cultural elite on its own through determining who is admitted or excluded or denied advancement in its charmed circles.  In part it is the narcissistic bullying, intimidation, and entrapment by homosexualists of those, like wedding photographers and bakers who will not celebrate, against their conscience, travesties of marriage between same-sex couples who are inherently incapable of consummating their union.  But increasingly, the coercion involves the direct use of state power to push people into believing that 2+2=5, or - since belief cannot be commanded or forbidden in this way - at least into not saying or acting as if it were not so.  (On this, see Douglas Farrow’s Nation of Bastards, which showed us from Canada’s experience the implications of SSM for the hypertrophy of state power and the erosion of civil society and religious freedom.)

As King Canute (Cnut the Great) demonstrated so beautifully, the power of any ruler or ruling elite is limited in the face of a reality that is prior to politics and human power and will.  Every English schoolboy learns some, usually the wrong, version of the story, but this is the earliest and most powerful, as told by Wikipedia: 

Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.' He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again "to the honour of God the almighty King".  This incident is usually misrepresented by popular commentators and politicians as an example of Cnut's arrogance [as though the king thought he actually could command the waves].

Whether either version is accurate or fair to the great king is not the point.  What matters for us is the limits the story illustrates on man’s capacity to make himself a god.  Marriage is a natural institution based on the reality of how humans reproduce and what is necessary for them, and especially their young, to flourish.  It is not, or cannot for long be whatever the state says it is.  As Horace put it, natura expelles furca, tamen usque recurret: “You may throw nature out with a pitchfork, but she will keep coming back.”

Foggy Bottom Explains What He Meant

What I Meant to Say: A Case for Same-Sex Marriage

by Foggy Bottom

 Crisis magazine today publishes Michael Pakaluk's brilliant and timely satire on Jody Bottum's essay in Commonweal.  

Crisis Editor’s Note: A friend passed on this manuscript written by someone named “Foggy Bottom,” which purports to be the notes or an alternative draft of a recent piece, with a similar title, which has received some attention by one “Jody Bottum” in Commonweal.  We cannot vouch for its authenticity, but in light of its curious content and approach, we think that our readers will find it of exceedingly great interest.

I had a friend named Jim Watson.  We used to play bluegrass music together on street corners in New York City.  When we did, Jim used to shout loudly to people passing by, using very crude and explicit language about his gay sexual practices.  That didn’t bother me.  I liked playing music with him.  (And I’m cool because of that.) But Jim became increasing anti-Catholic over time, showing intense and irrational hatred, first towards the hierarchy, and then towards all Catholics.  That didn’t bother me either; I still wanted to play old-timey Americana tunes with him.

Last time I was in New York, Jim did not return my phone call about playing music together.  I think I have lost him as a friend.  Actually, no one in the arts circles of New York wants to be my friend. The reason is that I am a Catholic and therefore stuck with a Church that annoyingly keeps opposing same-sex marriage.  Frankly, the Church right now is just a big embarrassment to me and a huge rock around my neck.

So, the purpose of this essay is to say that I wish the Church would make life easier for me.  I know that that sounds like special pleading and weakens my case, but hey … if I can re-frame the question, not in terms of what embarrasses me, but rather in terms of what will make the Church more effective, then no one will notice.

I don’t really have any arguments either, but I’m a damn good writer, and I think if this piece gets enough attention then I just might embarrass the Church leadership into agreeing with me, or at least enough Catholics so that no one will connect me anymore with the remaining fools.

READ the rest here.

Symbolic of His Struggle Against Reality

Marriage Redefined in England and Wales

Norman Wells | 19 Jul 2013 | 

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill completed its parliamentary passage at the beginning of this week and received Royal Assent yesterday. Having campaigned vigorously for many months in support of the legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, we are extremely disappointed by this outcome.

How did we get here? 

Less than a decade ago, when civil partnerships were being introduced for same-sex couples, the minister for constitutional affairs, Lord Filkin, told the House of Lords:

“The concept of homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms, which is why our position is utterly clear: we are against it and do not intend to promote it or allow it to take place.”

Prior to the 2010 General Election, same-sex marriage did not feature in the election manifesto of any of the three major political parties. Yet in spite of a complete lack of any electoral mandate, in March 2012, the government published a flawed consultation document that read more like a declaration of intent. By framing the document in terms of ‘how’ and not ‘whether’ to legislate for same-sex marriage, the government registered its determination to redefine marriage, regardless of what the public thinks.

Both during the consultation period and during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, the government made it clear that it was not interested in a meaningful debate in which all the issues could be thoroughly explored. It ignored over 500,000 members of the general public who had signed the Coalition for Marriage petition and declined to engage with the serious concerns that were raised by parliamentarians in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

The parliamentary bulldozer 

In the course of Monday’s Third Reading debate in the House of Lords, Lord Framlingham spoke for us all when he said:

“Today has the potential to be deeply sad for this House and for millions of people—children, parents, families, teachers, clergymen—indeed, anyone who believes in the traditional family unit and its fundamental role in the life and cohesion of our country…

“The questions that many are asking are: why now and why the haste? The simple truth is that the coalition Government have colluded with equal love campaigners and the European Court of Human Rights in bringing a case—an appeal—against our country’s long-established and settled position on marriage. There was a suggestion—some would call it a threat—that if legislation were not brought forward by June this year then changes would be forced on us. The House of Lords Library tells me that as legislation is proceeding the case in the European Court of Human Rights will probably not now be pursued. What outrageous, behind-the-scenes arm twisting.

“The result is that not one meaningful amendment has been accepted, not because none has been worthwhile but for the sake of entirely contrived deadlines, which suit campaigners in a hurry and a Government who want it off their plate well before the next general election. How cynical and how dangerous. Given the huge effect the Bill, if passed, will have on millions of people, what an abuse of the parliamentary system to put speed before truth. So many important issues causing great concern have been left unresolved and hanging in the air, such as the effect on teachers, faith schools, the issue of adultery, consummation, the effect on registrars, which has already been referred to, and the use of premises—issues touching the lives of thousands every day, not to mention the effect on marriage itself.

“Those of us who have sat through all the stages of the Bill and have watched the Government knock down amendment after amendment have despaired at their intransigence. This House prides itself on being a revising Chamber. On this Bill it has been a bulldozer. We are being used to bulldoze through an ill thought through Bill, the ramifications of which the people have not begun to understand. All great issues are essentially very simple. We make them complicated when we do not want to face them or when we are anxious to hide their true meaning and purpose. This Bill is built entirely on pretence. It pretends that there is no difference between a man and a woman. From this deceit have sprung all the problems we have been wrestling with—problems we have failed to resolve and which will bedevil generations to come. How can we possibly give our blessing to legislation built on pretence?”

What of the future?

Earlier in the year, we passed the following comments on the government’s proposals:

“Committed as it is to creating legal parity between opposite sex and same-sex relationships, in drafting the legislation the government has been unable to escape the fact that they are fundamentally different. No amount of rhetoric or manipulation of language will ever be able to make them the same. The whole notion of ‘equal marriage’ for same-sex couples is fatally flawed. The danger is that, in pursuing something which does not and cannot exist out of a desire to accommodate the wishes of the few, the government will create a whole host of injustices and inequalities for the many.”

Nothing has changed during the passage of the Bill through Parliament to give us cause to revise anything in that statement.

Family Education Trust remains deeply concerned about the far-reaching implications and consequences of this legislation which will inevitably unfold over the coming weeks and months. We shall be monitoring developments very carefully and working to press for safeguards for individuals and groups who will find their liberty of conscience and freedom of speech under threat as a result of this legislation. We shall also continue to stand for marriage as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Throughout the campaign, we have worked in close association with the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) as key partners in the battle for marriage. We are delighted to confirm that we shall be continuing this partnership into the future and C4M will be making an announcement about its plans in the next few days.

Norman Wells is the director of the Family Education Trust, a British campaign group which researches the causes and consequences of family breakdown. 

This article is published by Norman Wells and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/#sthash.cOoiEZvG.dpuf

Robert George on SCOTUS and Marriage

Going with the Flow of History: The Lemming Argument for Redefining Marriage

Compare the Nazi and Communist cases for inevitability here.

From Joke to Dogma in Ten Years: Gay Marriage, Conformism, and the Breakdown of Moral Argument

Paul Adams

One of the extraordinary features of the SSM 'debate' is the absence of serious moral argument, or indeed any coherent argument in which the two sides connect, consider, and dispute.  Proponents of SSM resort mainly to name-calling and vilification, as if everyone before them for millennia were, in their view of marriage, motivated only by bigotry and hatred.  The absurdity of the position is matched by the intensity and vitriol with which it is promoted.

In place of argument, we have opinion polls.  It is true that in 32 states where the issue has been put to the people in a referendum - including liberal states like California and Wisconsin - the conjugal view of marriage as between one man and one woman has prevailed.  In some cases, constitutions have been amended by popular vote, in others representatives have enacted statutes to the same effect.  As Anderson, Girgis, & George say, "All told, the people of forty-four states have affirmed the conjugal view of marriage by direct voting or through their representatives."

But polls show opinion shifting rapidly in favor of SSM, especially among younger voters. One can explain this in terms of the pill, the sexual revolution it enabled, the separation of sex from marriage and both from children, the consequent rapid decline of marriage, family, and faith, especially among those in the lower socioeconomic strata--see Mary Eberstadt's outstanding work on this in Adam & Eve After the Pill and her new book, How the West Really Lost God.  The result has been the erosion, not only of marriage itself,  but of the conjugal understanding of marriage as a comprehensive union, permanent, exclusive, and monogamous, of man and woman, in body and mind, rooted in and consummated by the one and only sexual act that can produce new life, and ordered to the procreation and education of children (if any) who result from that union.  With that erosion has come the revisionist view of marriage as rooted in emotions, in the feelings of adults without reference to children or even to sex, and lasting as long as the feelings last.

That revisionist view may be incoherent--unable to explain how that relationship they want to call marriage is different from friendship (which the state does not certify or enforce, or generally involve itself in); from the committed, longterm, financially interdependent relationship of two sisters or two brothers who share a residence; or why such a relationship should be limited to only two adults.  But it "finds overwhelming support among intellectuals, journalists, and entertainers, indeed nearly all our cultural elite" (Girgis, Anderson, & George, 2012).  Especially lawyers.

Here Fr. Robert Barron draws attention to the lack of any serious moral argument on the issue.  Citing Alasdair MacIntyre, he wonders about the possibility of moral argument in our society.  A fundamental. civilizational shift is under way without any serious public consideration of the issues and arguments.  As if poll trends were arguments, as if public support for something--say dropping the bomb on Hiroshima in 1945 or slavery in 1825--made it right and were sufficient argument in itself.

One of the few voices decrying the elite's rush to conformism and its imposition on the rest of society through legal coercion and single-minded propagandizing by the mainstream media, is Brendan O'Neill.  A former Marxist, O'Neill describes himself as an "atheistic libertarian," now edits Spiked Online, and writes for many other publications.   He co-founded the Manifesto Club, an organization "with the aim of challenging cultural trends that restrain and stifle people's aspirations and initiative."In his latest essay, O'Neill takes up the question of how this conformism came about and swept so much of elite, and then public, opinion before it, without either a mass movement or a serious public debate or even a coherent argument.  He says: 

I have been doing or writing about political stuff for 20 years, since I was 18 years old, during which time I have got behind some pretty unpopular campaigns and kicked against some stifling consensuses. But I have never encountered an issue like gay marriage, an issue in which the space for dissent has shrunk so rapidly, and in which the consensus is not only stifling but choking. This is the only issue on which, for criticizing it from a liberal, secular perspective, I’ve been booed during an after-dinner speech and received death threats....

Is this sudden shift in opinion, accompanied by intolerance of any discussion or questioning and by vitriolic denunciation of any dissent,  threats to jobs and businesses (not to mention the death threats) of those who don't quickly fall into line, healthy?

How do we account for this extraordinary consensus, for what is tellingly referred to as the ‘surrender’ to gay marriage by just about everyone in public life? And is it a good thing, evidence that we had a heated debate on a new civil right and the civil rightsy side won? I don’t think so. I don’t think we can even call this a ‘consensus’, since that would imply the voluntaristic coming together of different elements in concord. It’s better described as conformism, the slow but sure sacrifice of critical thinking and dissenting opinion under pressure to accept that which has been defined as a good by the upper echelons of society: gay marriage. Indeed, the gay-marriage campaign provides a case study in conformism, a searing insight into how soft authoritarianism and peer pressure are applied in the modern age to sideline and eventually do away with any view considered overly judgmental, outdated, discriminatory, ‘phobic’, or otherwise beyond the pale.

This is not a mass movement like the civil rights movement or the pro-life movement, but an elite-driven campaign led by lawyers and the elite media, one that brooks no dissent or even discussion.  O'Neill again:

In truth, the extraordinary rise of gay marriage speaks, not to a new spirit of liberty or equality on a par with the civil-rights movements of the 1960s, but rather to the political and moral conformism of our age; to the weirdly judgmental non-judgmentalism of our PC times; to the way in which, in an uncritical era such as ours, ideas can become dogma with alarming ease and speed; to the difficulty of speaking one’s mind or sticking with one’s beliefs at a time when doubt and disagreement are pathologized. Gay marriage brilliantly shows how political narratives are forged these days, and how people are made to accept them. This is a campaign that is elitist in nature, in the sense that, in direct contrast to those civil-rights agitators of old, it came from the top of society down; and it is a campaign which is extremely unforgiving of dissent or disagreement, implicitly, softly demanding acquiescence to its agenda. 

READ O'NEILL'S WHOLE ESSAY HERE. 

And in an additional brief comment on his video, Father Barron answers a further question on the subject: "What is the framework for having a good moral conversation?"

If two lesbians, why not two sisters?

This was the question posed by the Burden sisters in England. See posts above for September 18, 2010 ("Treat Us Like Lesbians!") and April 30, 2008.  In addition to the question of why the Brave New World of "marriage" should be limited to two people (so discriminating against polyamorists), there is the question posed by siblings like the Burden sisters in England and this author from New Zealand of why such "marriage" law should exclude two people who live together in a loving committed, interdependent relationship which is not sexual. What is the state's interest in privileging sexual relations over sibling relations in these circumstances, where there is in principle no possibility of children coming from the relationship? The great virtue of Hawaii's reciprocal beneficiaries law was that it did not exclude non-sexual relations. It did not assume or require that two people living in a committed reciprocal relationship be having sex. It addressed some of the problems of such relationships (hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.) without mimicking or hijacking marriage. Here Carolyn Moynihan, Deputy Editor of MercatorNet, takes up the question with reference to her own situation.

Carolyn Moynihan

New Zealand’s Marriage Act 1955 does not define marriage; no-one then thought it necessary to define what was self-evident, anywhere. As the agitation for same-sex marriage grew, however, the United States federal government passed the Defence of Marriage Act in 1996 defining marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, a move ratified by the majority of states.

In New Zealand that did not happen and marriage revisionists have seized the initiative to define marriage in a way that would accommodate same-sex couples. A bill for this purpose was introduced last August by Labour Party list MP Louisa Wall.

This piece of legislation, passed by two-thirds of MPs after its second reading debate last Wednesday, is meant to ensure that our marriage law is "not applied in a discriminatory manner."

The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill "will make it clear that a marriage is a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity," says the preamble. "It will ensure that all people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity will have the opportunity to marry if they so choose."

That sounds about as inclusive as you can get, doesn’t it? But even this version of marriage law discriminates against certain classes of people. I cannot, for example, marry my sister. A schedule to the bill excludes me from marrying a sibling, a grandparent, parent, child, grandchild and a list of in-laws. This list of prohibited degrees of marriage is carried over from the Marriage Act 1955 -- purged, of course, of brother, sister, mother, father and all terms which imply that the human race is either male or female.

But why could I not, in the brave new era of marriage equality, marry my sister? What is the difference between us and two lesbians who present themselves to a marriage celebrant? Neither couple can produce a child, so the customary reason for “siblings” (brother and sister) not being able to marry or even have a sexual relationship -- a genetically impaired child -- is irrelevant.

Advocates of this law change insist that marriage is all about love, commitment and stability. I believe the relationship between me and my sister meets that description. We love each other and have lived together for over 20 years. We are committed to each other and care for each other, jointly own our home, have wills favouring each other. We have cared for dependent relatives and also, at one stage, an unrelated young girl. Neither of us has her own children but we are still capable of raising a child, should we feel so inclined.

What part of Ms Wall’s definition of marriage as “a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity” does not fit us?

Perhaps it is the “union” bit. However, although it is supposed to define marriage, the term itself is undefined. What does marital union mean in an era of same-sex love? Does it have to involve sexual attraction? It is necessary to say at this point that my sister and I have no sexual interest in each other. It is conceivable that sisters might -- as a student told an attentive select committee at a hearing on the bill, "all forms of attraction exist" -- but we do not. Is our sisterly love therefore less worthy of public recognition in the form of a marriage certificate than the love of two lesbians who are romantically involved?

An affirmative answer to this question has to explain what is the public interest in what two women who are not blood relations do together in bed. Remember, my sister and I have a loving, committed, stable relationship in which we share our lives and goods -- equal, I am sure, in those respects to any settled lesbian couple.

To repeat: what is the public interest in the romantic desire and sexual activity of two women? I suggest there is none.

Marriage is associated with romance because romance is the kind of desire that aims at bodily union, with its potential to beget children. Partners of the same sex cannot achieve such a union no matter what they do. Strictly speaking, therefore, they cannot achieve sexual union at all. They can have sexual encounters in which they give each other pleasure and, no doubt, produce a feeling of being more united, but this is quite a different thing from the organic union that a man and a woman achieve in sexual intercourse -- particularly when it results in the conception of a new human being.

It is that organic, conjugal union that defines marriage, and its potential to generate children that creates the state interest in marriage. The state needs marriages to produce new citizens and to ensure that they grow up into decent, law-abiding citizens. It is all too evident in New Zealand's poverty and abuse data how disastrous it is for children and society when marriage culture breaks down.

If the good of existing children were the main issue in recognising same-sex relationships there might be reason to revise existing laws regarding adoption and civil unions, but it is not. We have been told repeatedly that this bill is about the good of same-sex couples, with or without children, about their right to have their love equally recognised by New Zealand society.

At best, this is a purely sentimental claim. It is not rational. There is no more reason for the state to bless the romantic relationships of couples who cannot unite sexually than there is for it to bless the affection of two sisters. In a sane world marriage law would discriminate against both.

Carolyn Moynihan is deputy editor of MercatorNet

A slightly different version of this article was published in the New Zealand Sunday Star Times, March 17.  Copyright note from MercatorNet:

This article is published by Carolyn Moynihan and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

Think and pray about your vote!

This statement by Bishop Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois clearly explains the crucial difference between voting for politicians who support and promote actions that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful - i.e., always wrong and never justified in any circumstances - and voting for those who make a different prudential judgment about how to achieve a common good like reducing or eliminating poverty.  In the latter case, the good is common and agreed on both sides - the difference is about how best to go about achieving, neither ends nor means being intrinsically immoral.

This is a clear and accurate Catholic statement about the key differences between the parties on these crucial matters.  It explains, without putting it quite so bluntly, why voting for the party of death - as many Catholics do at every election - is to put one's immortal soul in jeopardy.  As Bishop Paprocki says in a much-quoted phrase, "...you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy."

Think and pray about your vote in upcoming election

by Bishop Thomas John Paprocki

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

Much attention was given at the Democratic National Convention held recently in Charlotte, N.C., to the fact that all references to God had been purged from the draft version of the party platform. After outcries of protest from outside as well as within the Democratic Party, the sentence with the same reference to God used in 2008 was restored to read, "We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential."

Before anyone relaxes and concludes that all is well now that the Democratic Party Platform contains a single passing reference to God, the way that this was done should give us pause. Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa had to call for the voice vote three times because each time the sound level for the "ayes" and the "nays" sounded about even, far short of the two-thirds necessary according to convention rules to amend the platform. That did not stop the convention chairman from declaring, "The ayes have it!"

What is troubling about that is the blatant disregard for the rules and for the apparent wishes of about half the delegates. The reference to God is back in the platform apparently because President Obama wanted it back in. That may be fine for now, but if a future president wants references to God taken out, apparently that can be done regardless of the wishes of the delegates if that is what The Leader wants. That does not bode well for democracy in the Democratic Party.

Even more troubling is that this whole discussion about God in the platform is a distraction from more disturbing matters that have been included in the platform. In 1992 Presidential candidate Bill Clinton famously said that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." That was the party's official position until 2008. 

Apparently "rare" is so last century that it had to be dropped, because now the Democratic Party Platform says that abortion should be "safe and legal." Moreover the Democratic Party Platform supports the right to abortion "regardless of the ability to pay." Well, there are only three ways for that to happen: either taxpayers will be required to fund abortion, or insurance companies will be required to pay for them (as they are now required to pay for contraception), or hospitals will be forced to perform them for free.

Moreover, the Democratic Party Platform also supports same-sex marriage, recognizes that "gay rights are human rights," and calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996 that defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

Now, why am I mentioning these matters in the Democratic Party Platform? There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding "political" and didn't say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins. I know that the Democratic Party's official "unequivocal" support for abortion is deeply troubling to pro-life Democrats.

So what about the Republicans? I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin. The Republican Party Platform does say that courts "should have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases." But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (in paragraph 2267), "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. 

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils.

Certainly there are "pro-choice" Republicans who support abortion rights and "Log Cabin Republicans" who promote same-sex marriage, and they are equally as wrong as their Democratic counterparts. But these positions do not have the official support of their party.

Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.

I pray that God will give you the wisdom and guidance to make the morally right choices.

May God give us this grace. Amen.

Retrieved October 3, 2012 from 

http://ct.dio.org/bishops-column/59-think-and-pray-about-your-vote-in-upcoming-election/text.html

Church, State, and Marriage in the UK

Paul Adams

The previous post by Michael Cook on an important legal opinion about the impact of the UK Government's planned redefinition of marriage raises some interesting questions.

The Church, like English and American common law as I understand it and the Natural Law, regards marriage as one of those God-given institutions that precedes the state and does not depend on the state for its definition or permission to exist.  For the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, it is a sacrament like baptism and the Eucharist.  The Church could not simply stop celebrating this sacrament any more than any other as a way of avoiding legal action or persecution.  The state could, of course, refuse to recognize, for civil and legal purposes, marriages celebrated in church before a priest, though such a move (like SSM itself) would not be politically popular.

Such a cutting off of civil from religious marriage would be more complicated for the Church of England because the state controls the Church and imposes laws on it about such things as whom it must marry.  It is not clear that the C of E would have a legal basis, though there is certainly a theological and ecclesial one, for refusing to marry two people of the same sex.  The two would be physically incapable of consummating their "marriage," of course.  There could be no one-flesh union in a conjugal act that was open to new life.  Any children the pair acquired would not and could not be the result of such a union and necessarily would grow up without at least one of his or her natural parents.  But if the state insists than such an intrinsically barren union must be celebrated as a marriage, how can the state's church refuse?  Woolly and accommodationist to secularism and the sexual revolution as the C of E (and even more its American partners) may be, it seems there must be a point where the body must heed the anti-totalitarian principle enunciated by Christ himself, to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

If the state imposes its own secularist and anti-Christian sexual morality on the Catholic Church, the Church must and will resist, no matter the cost in terms of persecution.  Serious Christians as well as Orthodox Jews and Muslims doubtless will do likewise.  The C of E is more problematic.  A product of the state against the universal Church from the start, it seems to be approaching a point where it can no longer plausibly claim to be both Christian and the state church, with the monarch as its head on earth.  Disestablishment may not save the C of E from the persecution that faces the rest of us but it might enable it to maintain some integrity in the process.

How Does It Harm You? Let Me Count the Ways

Could British teachers be sacked for opposing gay marriage? Probably, says QC

Michael Cook | 11 Sep 2012 |  

Teachers and chaplains who openly oppose the UK Government's redefinition of marriage face being disciplined, or sacked for their views if the law is changed, warns a top legal expert. The detailed legal opinion from Aidan O'Neill, a senior QC and expert on civil liberties and human rights, commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage, concludes that legalising gay marriage will affect the lives of millions of ordinary people.

Mr O'Neill warns that the plans to tear up the centuries-old definition of marriage will have far-reaching consequences, affecting schools, foster caring, adoption, the use of public buildings and even the careers of individuals. In the most alarming section of his assessment, he warns that teachers and chaplains who work in hospitals, or even the armed forces, could face being sacked under equalities legislation.

Asked about the effect of redefining marriage on schools, Mr O'Neill writes that if gay marriage became law in England and Wales, a school would be within its legal rights to dismiss a teacher if he, or she, refused to use material in the classroom that endorses gay marriage. This would include a teacher refusing, on the grounds of religious or philosophical conscience, to use a storybook about gay marriage called "King and King".

He also warns that parents who object to gay marriage being taught to their children across the curriculum will have no right to withdraw their child from lessons they disapprove of, for reasons of conscience.

Mr O'Neill also warned that Government promises to protect marriage celebrants, who object to the current definition of marriage being rewritten, are meaningless.

Asked if those conducting religious marriage ceremonies could be taken to court for refusing to carry out a gay wedding, Mr O'Neill replies "Yes". The QC, based at Matrix Chambers, states:

"If marriage is opened to allow two individuals, regardless of their gender or sex, to marry one another, then Article 12 ECHR will apply both to same sex and opposite sex marriage. Any attempt in law, then, to differentiate between same sex and opposite sex marriage would in principle be covered by the non-discrimination provisions of Article 14 ECHR and any differentiation in treatment between opposite sex and same sex marriage would be subject to particularly strict scrutiny by the Strasbourg Court and the offending State would have to show particularly convincing and weighty reasons to justify any such a difference in treatment."

And in a strongly worded section Mr O'Neill says that churches would be in a stronger legal position if they were to stop conducting weddings, bring to an end more than a thousand years of tradition.

"Churches might indeed better protect themselves against the possibility of any such litigation by deciding not to provide marriage services at all, since there could be no complaint then of discrimination in their provision of services as between same sex and opposite sex couples."

Controversially, Mr O'Neill also says that the Church of England would be in a stronger position to fight equality laws if it were 'disestablished'.

"And, in principle, the Church of England might be better protected under any such claim if it were disestablished in the sense that its clergy were no longer placed under formal legal obligations by the general law to solemnise the marriages of all and any person otherwise eligible to marry under the general law, since then it would be more able to claim the protection of Article 9 ECHR and the principle of religious liberty as against the requirements of the State rather than as present where, at least in matters of the solemnisation of marriage, the position of the established church appears closer to being an arm or department of the State."

The strength and clarity of the advice from Mr O'Neill, who has a strong track record of supporting gay rights, will shock many on both sides of the debate and reignite calls for the Government to publish its own legal advice.

Leaked communications between the Scottish law officers and their English counterparts have already highlighted concerns that Alex Salmond's administration has about the inability of the Scottish courts to protect clergy from legal challenge. Dr Sharon James, an expert on family policy and a Coalition for Marriage (C4M) spokesperson, described the legal picture as "a disaster waiting to happen" and a "lawyers' charter".

"Looking at the effect this change will have on children and parents, taking absolute control of a child's education from a parent and handing it to a local authority is an unprecedented assault on the rights of parents. This is a dangerous path to go down and one that should be resisted. Redefining marriage would also demand that social workers ask prospective foster carer applicants if they support the new definition - and could halt their application if they do not. Supporting civil partnerships, but not gay marriage, would almost certainly fail the equality and discrimination policies, and could prevent an individual from becoming a foster parent."

The legal advice from Mr O'Neill also says that problems could also arise if a church decided to hire a council-owned community centre each week for a youth club. If the church's website stated that it will only conduct opposite-sex marriages, the council would be within its legal rights to stop the church from hiring the community centre, as it would breach equality laws. Dr Sharon James continued:

"Mr O'Neill's expert summary is incontrovertible proof that legalising gay marriage is not only a legislative minefield but an unparalleled attack on the freedom of conscience Britons have under the law. The redefinition of marriage would ride roughshod over a person's right to support marriage as the exclusive union between one man and one woman, whether that person be a teacher, a parent, a foster carer or a marriage registrar.

"The only winners from a change in marriage law will be lawyers, who will make a fortune out of what would rapidly become a legal mess of untold proportions. I hope the irony is not lost on the Government that their misguided campaign to legalise gay marriage would create a society with fewer freedoms than before."

First published by Michael Cook and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons license on the Conjugality blog.