The legalization of same-sex marriage in Ontario and BC has resulted in fewer than 500 Canadian couples availing themselves of this opportunity - about one person in every 30,000 Canadians. So what is all the fuss about? One case of smallpox in Canada would generate a lot more fuss for reasons we all comprehend. The implications rightly cause the fuss. Thus it is the seriousness of the implications that we need to think about, and few people are doing that. It is not true that changing the definition of marriage, for example, will not change the institution of traditional marriage.

We must first engage the fundamental argument that this is an issue of equality. In the eyes of the law homosexuals have the same human rights as everyone else, except the right to marry. This is said to be discrimination. Male philosophers have the same rights as female philosophers except the right to be female and that radically alters their probability of employment as philosophers. Their treatment can be equal in all respects except that there is no way to have affirmative hiring on the basis of sex and, at the same time, be equal. Similarly, the relationship between two homosexuals can be analogous to that between heterosexuals, but it cannot be the same. Marriage has been understood to be between two people of complementary sex since time immemorial. The State has good reason to keep this distinct definition of marriage clear because only heterosexual relationships can produce the offsprings that are the future state, and the Western world is slowly beginning to realize that this is not purely a theoretical fact. Population decline is real; only heterosexuals can reverse it. Moreover, heterosexual covenantal relationships are the best form of procreation the world has ever found. As physicians, dedicated to the study of outcomes, we have a duty to say this clearly for the sake of the next generation. The statement in no way prejudices future developments. We will change our position only when the data is in and, to date, the data available does not support a change.

Why does the homosexual community want to alter the meaning of a "straight" word? Scorn is their usual response to "straight" morals? Indeed, male homosexuals usually want nothing to do with marriage. A recent New York Times article by Jonah Goldberg included this ironic quip; "Does gay marriage mean that queers will have to live with something called cheating?" The usual euphemism is to describe their lives as being within a "web of relationships." Another writer has warned that marriage would be too boring for homosexuals. The editor of Fab, a Canadian gay magazine said; "I would be for marriage if I thought that gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of "untill death do us part," and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." Here we have an honest insight. If homosexuals call their relationships marriage, the institution, which is already in trouble, will be further damaged, to the detriment of children.

To apply the same word: "marriage" to homosexual couplings is to radically alter the meaning of the word and indeed to destroy its meaning. But that is not all. We are, as J. Budziszewski puts it, still logical, but slowly. Logic is a property of being human, but when a logical argument is not formally understood, it works its way to the surface intuitively, and slowly, with more errors en route. What will necessarily follow if we change the meaning of the word marriage? Having removed the procreative aspect from the meaning of marriage, and replaced it only with sentiment, then polygamy and any other form of sentimental love must be allowed on grounds of equality. The state education in civics and sexual health must then be altered to legitimize these behaviours. Our children will be taught that what was previously evil is now good. The warnings about what to do under such circumstances are well known to those who are even modestly biblically literate. In short, if the homosexual community takes over the word marriage as they did with the word "gay", they will destroy the original meaning.

Why do people care to do this? Apart from political agendas, I believe there are much deeper reasons to do with our fundamental nature. In the space available here I can only outline the argument, but fortunately J. Budziszewski, Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas, has published a book outlining the argument more extensively. Read "What we can't not know", Spence publishing. He argues that human nature is given the capacity for moral knowledge, for accepting as primary moral axioms such statements as, it is wrong to take innocent life. This deep conscience is concerned with knowledge not feeling, which is more superficial. More importantly, deep conscience does not err and cannot be shut down. The importance of this insight for our time lies in the fact that our discussions of issues like same sex marriage constantly refer to how we feel about the issue. This is a clue to the fact that we are relying on the superficial conscience of feelings, which is error prone, and not on the deep moral knowledge which is error free. Serial murderers, for instance, often show no remorse, and say they feel none, but nevertheless betray their deeper moral knowledge in various ways often by leaving evidence that will lead to their arrest. Budziszewski produces a marvelous set of arguments for this remarkable phenomenon. When we set our wills to go against this knowledge, we will do anything to ease our deep pain, except confess the truth. The homosexual community is well aware of its deep pain. It thinks that if it can get the rest of us to say that what they are doing is right, to morally legitimize them, the pain will go away. Budziszewski argues it will not.

But does one section of society have the right to force its view of morality on another? The immediate answer is no, but in order to have a society, some form of morality has to be enforced. If there is a God, freedom under the Truth of God's revelation is possible, but if there is no God, law becomes the expression of one group's power over another. A Canadian compromise is not possible. The Canadian answer has been to diminish the area of lawful control to what is commonly accepted, but on this issue, as on abortion, the majority of Canadians are not being heard.

What should be the position of those Christians, who take the Scriptures as the word of God? Even within that rubric there are many varieties of Christian, but for those who wish to be biblically honest, Robert Gagnon from Pittsburgh Theological College has written a good solid book: The Bible and Homosexuality. Gagnon's final position is that Romans 1 is correctly read when it is read traditionally. It is worth the effort to read Gagnon's book, if only to get an insight into the strained interpretations of the text that people, like the much-quoted, late gay activist, John Boswell, give to it. At least the American Episcopal Church leaders are honest when they say that there is no biblical warrant for ordaining an active homosexual but that they believe this to be the leading of the Holy Spirit.

It is time for us to repent and pray because our nation has forgotten its history and forgotten its God. This is our fault. Marriage can be defended logically and persuasively and we should be doing that.

www.johnpatrick.ca
www.augustinecollege.org


Further reading:
Budziszewski, Jay. "What We Can't Not Know: a Guide"
Spence Gagnon, Robert. "Homosexuality and the Bible"
Robson, John. "Calling it marriage doesn't make it so." Ottawa Citizen, Sept 6 2005, www.ottawacitizen.com
Goldberg, Jonah. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20030903.shtml