In our society support for homosexual marriage has become a touchstone of moral decency, only those in the grip of bigotry could possibly oppose it. Even those traditionalist MP’s who oppose legislation on homosexual marriage do not express their opposition as a matter of principle but rather in terms of “We have more important things to consider, such as the economy.”
But a wish to be seen as morally acceptable is not the only reason we find politicians like David Cameron jumping on the homosexual bandwagon. There is the pragmatic political reason; by taking a pro-homosexual stance they plug in to both an activist community prepared to spend lavishly in support of those who will further its aims, and into the influential opinion formers in the media who are strongly pro-homosexual.
They also demonstrate to the general public that they are modern, advanced, progressive and all the other touchy feely things which focus groups recommend; and that they are not reactionary, stuffy, hidebound, homophobic and all the other nasty things traditionalists are accused of being.
Yet there is another and more important political reason. This issue represents a deep seated change in politics. Politicians, especially in Britain, realise that they are effectually powerless over the major issues, decisions concerning these are increasingly taken in the EU and G20. Being shut out of the macro-political issues they turn instead to the micro-political issues, such as homosexual marriage.
No longer able to shape the major issues in society our legislators turn to what the Labour Party terms the ‘politics of behaviour.’ They attempt to reshape the actual way we think of ourselves, the way we live, our relationships, and our lifestyles. Homosexual marriage is an integral part of that statist impulse. Homosexual marriage gives politicians an opening into reshaping the family, the one social structure which has been seen as a sovereign entity free from the interference of the state.
The radical interference of politicians can be seen in David Cameron’s consultation on homosexual marriage which proposes that terms such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ be dumped and replaced with ‘partner’ or ‘spouse.’ This at least is better than Canada where homosexual marriage has been legal since 2005 and even the terms ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ have been rejected in favour of ‘Partner 1’ and ‘Partner 2’ although which is #1 and which is #2 is a matter of conjecture.
As Orwell observed, when the state and the powerful wish to change our perception of reality a vitally important aspect of their social engineering is to change the language. If you are no longer a ‘Mother’ or a ‘Father’ but instead merely ‘Parent 1’ or ‘Parent 2’ what in terms of perception stands in the way of the state deciding that ‘Parent 3’ or ‘Parent 4’ is better fitted to parenting duties?
When we allow the state to define such organic relationships as marriage and the family we allow them to interfere in and regulate our lives in a way which is essentially destructive to freedom. The function of the state is to recognise and protect the way in which we choose to live our lives; in future it may well see its function as determining how we choose to live our lives.
Traditional marriage is a union between a man and a woman which, through bringing into being and nurturing the next generation of humanity, binds the family to a much wider community. Heterosexual marriage is an indispensible building block of society. Unlike homosexual marriage which is an atomised partnership affecting primarily those involved, heterosexual marriage is a societal institution. To destroy this institution is of benefit to no one except those who, unable to perform their proper political function, look for a role in society to justify their positions.
Opposition to homosexual marriage can be seen as a faith issue, as such it is of concern to Christians. It can also be seen as a freedom issue, as such it is of concern to all.