Gay Marriage

“The state does not ‘own’ the institution of marriage. Nor does the church.

The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.

If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People’s careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?”

Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury

I am, sadly, on the same side of this as Lord Carey.

Even in the US of A, marriage itself is on the decline.  So, in one sense the debate is moot. In Europe, contractual relationships have largely replaced marriage … whether the contract is between a man and a woman or any other pairing.

I am sad because the homosexual community has managed to convert a simple matter of law into a religious debate.

Why should the  state have any  more business in defining “marriage” than it does in defining the moment when the soul begins or deciding on who is  the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama?  Should the state legislate on the presence of a soul?

The only rational answer is no.  A democracy should stay out of marriage.  The contractual relationship associated with marriage should have nothing to do with s cultural and religious institution. .  The state needs to and can decide on such important issues as inheritance rights, surnames, and child custody …. whether these are between pairs of homosexuals, hippy communes, polygamists, or married couples. As for consensual intercourse, that is certainly none of the state’s business unless it wants to certify virgin status for men as well as women.

Your Comment