It was with some dismay that I read the outcome of the Commons vote regarding the introduction of so-called homosexual marriage. It was a dismay that was certainly accompanied by a lack of shock, the result was to be expected. In fact, my prayer this morning and afternoon against its passing was entirely lacking in any hope of a sudden change, it was entirely formulaic. I am sure that the 300 of Thermopylae had a greater level of expectation. Some laud its introduction into British society as a great leap in fairness (the archetypal virtue of 'Britishness', a fiction to any with a modicum of understanding of history on these islands), but like so many liberal law changes does not contain any depth of thought, and the whole process has not be considered at length.
Marriage is now outlawed, it is considered by our establishment as a figment of an out-dated mind, a relic of an unequal period. This is utterly a revolution. What is left after the ashes of a fallen city have been scattered by the wind? What remains after the rising and falling of the powerful, whether we are talking about Emperors, Kingdoms, or Dictators? What is the stability that each society requires to operate at least partially successfully? It is without doubt, the family. The family which exists before the state does. An institution which has inalienable rights that no one should dare to remove. This 'peaceful' revolution is all the more dangerous as it appears in the disguise of an honourable modification to a law in order to include more people. An inclusion which opens up the benefits of this venerable institution to those unjustly oppressed and neglected. Said in such terms, our opposition to this seems bizarre or plain bigoted. Ah, bigoted, an adjective which must be hysterically rejected by all right-minded and fair souls. Such a term belongs to those Integrists and the mentally ill. It is interesting that it has not been pointed out to them that homosexuals were already allowed to marry. If the institution meant so much to them why did they not attempt to contract marriage which someone with whom the marriage bond was acceptable? Namely, someone of the opposite sex. If I wish to become the father of a child, I must reproduce with a female. I would be a fool if I were to insist that the government change this 'unjust' law of nature to suit my delusions.
What is the purpose of this marriage I promote? It is the union of one man and one woman for the propagation of human society. That is the primary end of marriage. Other purposes of marriages, such as the perfecting of the spouses, flow from that first end. If this order has been distorted, it leads to grave errors, such as the use of artificial contraception and abortion. With this faulty mindset, it is not a surprise that if a new member of the family seems undesirable, these awful methods will be used to eliminate the 'problem'.
To understand this we must have a clear conception of the true difference between male and female. This is a distinction found in reality, not a construct of human society that one can reject if such a notions appeals to a particular person. This is what the Holy Father admirably preached in his Christmas address that few bothered to read in full and simply resorted to a facile interpretation of something that was not even explicitly mentioned. Marriage is therefore based on the complementarity of male and female. This distinction is a given, something found in the very nature of human beings, which can be neither wished away nor can it be removed by genital mutilation and expensive state funded cosmetic surgery.
The end of marriage also makes the it public and of interest to human society. If the government is interested in the good order of its public life, it has to take an interest in the promotion and protection of marriage. It has no rights over the family as it is actually dependent upon it to exist. A state which attempts to abolish the state in order to make the citizens children of the one government or nation, will end up doing away with their ''offspring'' without remorse in the interests of an ideology. This is totalitarianism, and one far greater than any attempt to censure the press or literature. Without the family, no state could flourish.
This public aspect is not present within a homosexual relationship which exists simply for the gratification of those involved. The way I have expressed this is hardly politically correct but it was deliberate. If a union is illicit according to right reason and the revealed Divine Law, it is not necessary for the fruitful living of human beings. Its practice is simply because the parties included in this abomination so wish it. Why would the government need to step in here and recognise it and regulate it? Supporters of the Bill claim that if marriage is a natural and necessary part of human society, the inclusion of those who 'love' one another strengthens the institution and public life. However, this is not marriage that they are promoting, but merely a vague form of an emotive bond. It is also true that any sexual component has been removed from marriage altogether, as the 'experts' after tying themselves up in knots over the question of how a homosexual 'marriage' could be consummated, declared themselves defeated and that the matter was not of importance.
I must state that 'love' as commonly and unthinkingly understood is not necessary for marriage. How can I vow to love my wife until the day I die? I can not promise this honestly if I have a defective understanding of love as some 'emotional feeling'. I have gone through many passionate feelings for females and I am only 22, have any lasted? I have also (and continue to do so) many inclinations that overwhelm me in the evening, but any resolution I have to fulfil them is saddening lacking in the morning. This is a fact of fallen human experience. Man is opaque to himself and is rightly compared to a troubled vessel on a choppy sea. Following this erroneous line, it is not a surprise that families are torn up, while children suffer the damage of bitter and selfish parents who assert their 'right' to be pleased emotionally.
My parents marriage has been reduced to an emotional bond of no intrinsic value other than the emotions they may feel for each other. Marriage has no reference to any one outside of this closed world. Children are necessarily excluded from a homosexual union and in a heterosexual union, a child is a mere by-product (and often an unwelcome one).
A society is lead to flourish on the basis of its national ideas and spirit. We have merely a bunch of broken shards of a once precious vase. Parties in a debate are wont to ascribe to the issue under consideration a transcendental value and often this is unjustified. I like the imagine the heated discussions in the Roman Senate about whether to finally put an end to Carthage. A great deal of passion was put into the debate by men such as Cato the Elder, the staunch defender of Roman propriety and austerity who wished to see that enemy destroyed once and for all. Although, our irritable guardian of romanitas won the day, he did not live to see his wish fulfilled. Looking back, one may wonder why it all mattered. After all, Carthage was destroyed by the Roman legions in 146 B.C., but so was Rome herself later on. Our revolution is not like that. For all the grand changes that occur in human society, such as usurpations of the throne (for good or ill), technological innovations or scientific advances, what truly matters is that which exists on the local level, the lifeblood of human existence and authentic flourishing, the family. Western civilisation has certainly entered upon its last stage of erosion...
