In defence of traditional marriage

Last weekend, our Parish Priest, Mnsgr. John Boyle, invited Dame Marie Bashir, former Governor of NSW, to attend the vigil mass to thank her for her services. A most accomplished and distinguished lady, she showed up and was duly thanked during the mass. On my part, I must confess I didn't attend. I prefer Sunday mass at 7:30 or 9:00 am.

Anyway, I digress. Dame Marie was also quoted a few days later in support of gay marriage. The article written by Jonathan Moran of The Daily Telegraph noted in part: ‘Bashir said: “I feel very much in favour and supportive of that, for people to be happy and fulfil one another. Gay marriage is the way.”

Prof. Bashir added: “I wish there wasn’t so much talk about it, you know, let’s just do it.”’

Here's a public figure, not a politician, but a former medical practitioner, University Chancellor and NSW Governor backing something that I don’t agree with.

I note that the words “just do it” is a strong call to action which says forget discussion on  the subject and just change the definition of marriage to the union of two individuals, regardless of gender. I wonder if this is out of frustration or resignation that the proponents of same-sex marriage have just made it so hard for us to stick to our guns.

A few years ago, I wrote in defence of traditional marriage, that sentiment has not changed. The government of the day was toying with the idea, so I thought I would put something in writing. Now, with a change in the political landscape that same side of politics is proposing an Act of Parliament to change the definition of marriage.

After all if one is to believe the media, the majority of Australians are in favour of “Marriage Equality”. Hence, it now follows that the Marriage Act should be changed to remove “a union between a man and a woman” to one between two persons, of any gender.

As the LGBT movement would have you believe this is a matter of equality. Really? I put to you that it is not. Maybe, the movement means “sexual equality”, hence, two men or two women as a union is the same as that of a man and a woman.

Marriage is the bedrock of the traditional family. And, marriage is the start of a family. Thus, the pro-creation of children is part of this equation. The vow made by a man and woman during the marriage ceremony is also the protection of the children that result from the union.

Going back to the “equality” issue. A man and woman in marriage can naturally have children from that union. A same-sex couple cannot do so naturally. So, the confusion (or obfuscation) that the proponents of this change in the Act are trying to achieve is to make something natural into whatever. Hey, we can adopt, do insemination, so why not?

Again, really? From the not normal, we make normal. This doesn’t follow. Natural sexual complementarity and potential fertility is not the same, just because of changing the definition of marriage.

I admit, this is politicised, so it’s a matter of pleasing the electorate.

Well, I put up a higher call.

As a Christian, I consider marriage as a sacred union, which our Lord affirmed "what therefore God has joined togther, let no man put asunder" (Mark 10:9). After all our Lord not only "restored the original order of matrimony but raised it to the dignity of a sacrament. He gave spouses special grace to live out their marriage as a symbol of Christ's love for His bride the Church". (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 341,  p. 96).

And, just as important, we must not forget the consequences of re-defining marriage. Removing gender will mean that husbands and wives will be made to be wholly  interchangeable social constructs. And, here’s the rub. People who adhere to the natural definition of marriage will be characterised as “old-fashioned”, "bigots", or worse.

And, they will be made to answer to the law. As well, ministers of religion will be made to heel to the new definition and required to go against beliefs and teachings that their church has propounded for centuries. And, maybe end up in jail, as a consequence.

Note that this is not alarmism or muddying the waters. Look at other countries and you will see that these consequences are real, the Culture of Life Foundation article posted about this possibility in 2014. This is unfortunately now a fact and is manifesting itself in a number of countries, where the preaching against same-sex marriage is regarded as hate speech.

I read about clergy in Holland, France and Spain that have already been threatened with prosecution for “hate speech” for upholding their faith tradition on marriage.

Let's not forget that this change in the Act is the thin edge of the wedge. Taking the precedent, polygamous marriages have been permitted in Brazil. I also read about an incident in Holland where authorities were asked to allow polygamy, extending the equality thinking. There is also a push using equality and the new marriage definition to allow polygamy in other countries.

These are only some examples of the consequences of changing the Act. There are more, if you care to look into it further.

Another thought is the children in same-sex marriage. Is this a normal environment for children? I am sure that there are or probably have been normal adults growing from childhood in a home with same-sex parents.

However, the story of Katy Faust also comes to mind. She grew up in a home with same-sex parents and wrote a letter to Justice Kennedy of the US Supreme Court (equivalent to our High Court in Australia). Father John Flader includes her story in his latest post in defence of traditional marriage, as well as put forward more interesting points.

There are more considerations as to why we should stick with the current definition of marriage. I will just make one more point.

Finally, changing the Act will really only benefit a few. Mind you, a very vocal few. It is not about changing an age-old definition, but to quiet that minority who will benefit from this change. My thinking is so that they can now say “will you marry me?” instead of “will you civil union me?” Not a good enough reason to change not just traditional beliefs, but also Christian teaching and the bedrock of the unit of society that is under attack—the family.

Let's leave what has worked for centuries alone and not redefine something just to please a few and cause many things we may not have considered. Let's keep marriage a sacred (read solemn, if you prefer) union between a man and a woman.

Marriage Sunday: Let's hear it for Marriage

You have to hand it to our Parish Priest, John Boyle. He really is good with his homilies. To introduce Marriage Sunday, inter alia, he referred to the father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, as a single parent. It's a twist on that oft told story that I never considered.

While he (Fr Boyle) spoke mostly on the parable, which was after all the gospel, he did speak about Marriage and its sanctity.

Many marriages, regretfully, end in divorce or separation. But, that doesn't mean that the state (or rather the vocation to wedded life) is finished, or not something today's singles strive for.

It is still the best state for a family and for raising children.

I must admit that the Same Sex Adoption bill passing through NSW Parliament is a win for those pushing to have same sex unions recognised as "marriage". And, like many things which the normal order of things has been changed for various reasons, political correctness included, it's a slipper slope we now encounter for those who want to keep the millenia old definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

At the risk of offending my friends who are in same sex unions, I must nail my colours to the mast. Marriage should still be that, a union between a man and a woman.

In the political arena, we can take some consolation that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition do not want to introduce a bill to recognise same sex unions as marriage. Well, so far.

After all Labor now has the Greens on their loose coalition and one of their platforms is to have same sex marriages, we can only wait and see.

And, if I remember that Senator Bob Brown in an effusive mood, after announcing the "coalition" with the Labor government, expounded on some of things not agreed on with the latter. One of these was same sex marriages. And, he said that it’s time has come, citing as an example what is already law in Catholic Spain.

I wonder if he has referring to the 15th century under the rule of Isabella and Ferdinand, referred to as “Isabel, la católica” and “Fernando, el católico”, respectively. As, the current Madrid government is separate from the Catholic Church's heirarchy. And, the law was passed by that government against the Church's wishes.

Well, we live in interesting times. The present "hung parliament" and the current government still has to get rolling and whether the Greens will push this agendum together with its environmental agenda is still to be seen.

If we still consider marriage as a sacred union, which our Lord affirmed "what therefore God has joined togther, let no man put asunder" (Mark 10:9), let's hear it for Marriage. Let's support those who plan to marry, are married and especially those that aspire to the sacrament of Matrimony.

After all our Lord not only "restored the original order of matrimony but raised it to the dignity of a sacrament. He gave spouses special grace to live out their marriage as a symbol of Christ's love for His bride the Church". (Compendium of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church p. 96).

So, to those in the state or about to step into the state of marriage, hear, hear.