The argument about marriage has little to do with homosexuality

Blogged by James Preece on 22nd February 2012

Unless you have been living under a rock lately you have heard that campaigners are demanding the right to gay marriage, that the government are "consulting on legalising gay marriage" and that the nasty intolerant hateful Christians are saying they don't want gay people to have marriage because "God hatez teh gays innit"... or something like that.

You have heard wrong. The argument is not about who has the right to marriage. The argument is about what marriage is.

Many people do not seem to have noticed but there are in fact two competing definitions of Marriage. The first of these definitions I will refer to as "traditional Marriage" and also simply "Marriage" because that is what it is. The second definition can scarcely be called Marriage at all, I shall refer to is as "pretend Marriage".

What is traditional Marriage?

The origins of traditional Marriage are lost in pre-history, the earliest civilizations we know about already had Marriage and there is a very good reason for that: Marriage is necessary for civilization to exist at all. People did not build civilizations until they were advanced enough to invent marriage, it was the other way around - they got married and discovered they had built a civilization. It is practically the definition of civilization for human beings to recognise their rights and duties towards one another and the most fundamental duty in any society is this: The duty of both parents to care for the child they have created together and the right of the child to be cared for by their parents. Everything else stems from this.

The specifics of traditional Marriage have varied in different times and places (e.g. polygamy etc) but the general requirements have remained constant. It begins with an obligation on heterosexual couples to abstain from sex outside of marriage because despite the lack of government mandated sex education, primitive societies knew what causes babies and they also knew that babies need looking after and it was irresponsible to do the thing that makes babies without first promising to stay together to look after the child. Even most modern day secularists at least have some sense that sex outside of marriage is dangerous and one must don 'protection' and approach with extreme caution. People of the 21st century might be a bit mushy on the details, but even they get the basic principle - you shouldn't do the thing that makes babies without first promising to stay together to care for the child.

Other requirements of traditional Marriage are that it be exclusive and for life. Not only because children do best when their parents stay together (and that includes grown up children and grand-children as well) but also because while it's quite obvious which woman is giving birth to a child (the midwife can usually tell) it isn't necessarily obvious which men are responsible for which babies. Okay, I hear you... DNA tests. But traditional Marriage isn't about making sure the right man pays the right maintenance money in to the right bank account - it's about making sure children have the best possible chance of growing up in a stable family with a mother and a father. Did you know that mums new boyfriend one of the people most likely to abuse a child?

Countless cultures and civilisations have understood something own society seems to have forgotten: Children are the future. We can invent flying cars, build beautiful towering cities on the moon and even find a way to fund everybody's pension but if nobody has any babies then in a hundred years time it will all be in ruins. It is not simply a matter of having babies either, it is a question of bringing them up well and forming the next generation to be the kind of people who help old ladies across the street rather than, say, knifing each other in the playground and setting fire to London. The survival and prosperity humanity throughout the ages, from stone age villages to medieval villages and modern cities have depended on the institution of Marriage as the mechanism to discourage irresponsible behavior and ensure that the rights of children are put ahead of the pelvic desires of adults.

Traditional Marriage insists that teenagers wait so their own children can grow up in the best possible environment and it recognises that sex before of marriage is gravely irresponsible behaviour that jeapordises the right of a child to be born in to a stable family. It forbids men from using one woman after another as objects of pleasure before abandoning them to look after children on their own. Finally, traditional Marriage imposes on society an obligation to support families. If men and women are obliged to provide a stable home and bring up their children to be a benefit to the society in which they live, then that society is obliged to do everything it can to help them.

What about pretend Marriage?

Our culture has spent the better part of the last hundred years dismantling marriage. Contraception appeared to remove the necessity for couples to abstain from sex until they were ready for a child while divorce declared marriage a temporary arrangement to be ended once the shine wore off. The new definition of marriage is a mirage. It looks a bit like marriage from the outside (dresses, rings and lots of flowers) yet it has no substance. It has ceased to be the system of rights and duties on which our civilisation depends and has become something altogether different.

CS Lewis noted over sixty years ago that people who "do not believe in permanent marriage" simply "wanted the respectability that is attached to marriage without intending to pay the price: that is, they were impostors". The pretend Marriage many people have today is no longer a committment between a man and a woman for life and has become a special gold star award that couples grant themselves in recognition of their extra mushy feelings. It's a little bit like a Facebook status only more expensive. People buy you gifts and make you feel really special. You can always get divorced.

So far I have written only about heterosexual couples, but it should now be clear why I say that the campaigners asking for gay marriage are not asking for real marriage at all. They do not want society to impose on homosexual persons a duty to avoid pregnancy until they are ready to have children, they do not want society to insist homosexuals remain monogamous for life. They simply want homosexuals to be allowed a share in the special gold stars in recognition of their extra mushy feelings.

A threat to civilisation?

Increasing numbers of people believe that marriage is nothing more than a way to show that you are respectable people who love each other sooo much you are willing to put yourselves in a position where separation is a bit more expensive. Despite this, Marriage is still widely understood in the traditional sense and our society depends on it.

Some marriages will always struggle and not everybody will avoid pregnancy before they are ready. The economy can afford for some marriages to fail, life doesn't always go according to plan and the state can and must support single parents, widows and orphans. It was wrong of previous generations who resented the "burden" of single parents to ostracise them and their "bastard" children. The child who had the right to be born in to a stable family, doesn't lose the right to be cared for just because his mother or father scarpered. Yet this support is possible only because a majority of stable families support those for whom things didn't work out - do you think the economy can afford for most marriages to fail? Do you think the economy can afford the promotion of pretend Marriage?

There are already plenty of people who have non-permanent special pretend-Marriages already and plenty of people who do not bother to get married at all. Our economy is already feeling the strain through the ever expanding benefits system, the cost to the NHS dealing with the various health problems that are associated with messy, painful divorces not to mention increased crime rates. This is why we say the destruction of marriage (of which the legalisation of gay marriage is but a small part) is a threat to civilisation. Not because gay marriage involves a man and a man (the homosexual aspect is largely irrelevant) but because the legalisation of gay marriage would enshrine in law the idea that marriage has nothing to do with mutual rights and responsibilities between potential parents and society but is instead a "right" to have your super mushy feelings properly recognised with a big party and a certificate from the government until such time as you decide you don't quite feel so mushy any more.

This is also why it is futile for Christians to ignore the struggle for the meaning of marriage. If all we do is say that heterosexuals can have a special certificate for mushy feelings but homosexual's can't then that really is unfair discrimination. Homosexuals are just as capable of mushy feelings as anybody else and they have just as much right to demand the government applaud their mushy feelings as anybody else does.

So what now?

Civilisation as we know it depends on traditional Marriage. If we dismantle traditional Marriage and replace it with a fraud then our civilisation cannot last. We will wake up one day and realise we have been replaced by populations who respected traditional Marriage. Long before that happens we will experience economic collapse and poverty. We will have failed our children.

It is a well known fact that hateful bloggers like myself have no time for Bishops which must be why I regard them as essential to any attempt at rebuilding traditional marriage. It is they who have the authority and the duty to mount a serious defense of traditional Marriage, to teach loud and clear the rights and duties heterosexual couples and society have towards one another. To explain all the things I didn't have time for in this blog entry (like why contraception doesn't negate the need to abstain from sex before marriage) and to claw back some of the ground lost in the last fifty years.

Meanwhile, we laity can take some advice from the campaigners who say "against gay marriage? - don't have one". If we are against pretend Marriage then one thing we can do is make sure our own marriages are not pretend ones. To remain faithful to our partners and provide our children with the stable environment they have the right to.

Please do support the coalition for Marriage pertition but know that it is not enough on it's own. It is not enough to oppose pretend Marriage, we need also to promote traditional Marriage.

Because none of us can live without it.

Rate this blogentry: + -

+40

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

+10

St John Smythe said...

Very good post indeed.

Just to close off the logical circle, it would be good to deal with the objection sometimes raised that people who are long past child-bearing age can still get married, even though there is no prospect of children.

I suppose one way to put it would be to say that marriage between people for whom children are not possible (due to age or infertility) is still the type of union apt for children, but through some circumstance of life there can be no children in the particular case. Same-sex etc unions are not apt for children, can never in any circumstances permit the begetting of children, and hence are qualitatively different. Recognising such unions in law as "marriage" would debase the meaning and significance of marriage, whereas infertile marriages of the traditional sort have no such deleterious effect.

That's my attempt, anyway, although others might find a pithier way of explaining it.

Policraticus said...

the days of white martyrdom are here!

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND, February 22, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com)�A 14-year-old homeschooler who testified before the Maryland state senate against a bill redefining marriage has been the subject of cyberbullying, vicious name-calling, and death threats.

Maryland State Senate

Sarah Crank, 14, told the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee last month she believes children need a mother and a father. � I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender,� she told the senators. �Even though some kids think it�s fine, they have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on.�

She continued, �People say that they were born that way, but I�ve met really nice adults who did change.�

�Today�s my 14th birthday, and it would be the best birthday present ever if you would vote �no� on gay marriage,� she said.

Click �like� if you want to defend true marriage.

After audio of her uncharacteristically mature testimony was posted on YouTube, the story went viral on homosexual activist websites�and death threats quickly followed.

New Friend said...

What has her being "white" got to do with her experience? If she was "black" would that be OK?

Mark Dobson said...

Hi NF,

I think you've misunderstood, though you're quite right in implying that her skin colour has nothing to do with it.

Look, for example, at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrai_Homily#The_colors_of_martyrdom

White martyrdom would refer to the kind of martyrdom (which means witnessing, not death) not to the kind of skin.

New Friend said...

Mark

Thank you. I did indeed misunderstand, although for a non believer with an incomplete knowledge of the complexities of your faith, I trust you will accept that the mistake was itself understandable.

The original poster might like to consider that in future for I am not so sure that every Catholic would necessarily have understood either. It read very badly.

Mark Dobson said...

You're welcome. Quite understandable.

However, you noticed yourself that it didn't add up. With a little reflection you might have guessed that you were missing something (due to that, perfectly legitimate, incomplete knowledge) rather than chalking it up to racism.

The poster was was referring to a concept with a long history on a Catholic blog�

New Friend said...

Mark

I quite agree it sounded illogical but then so much of what I read here does to me, so I didn't think was it was especially unusual.

+11

Ben Trovato said...

Excellent post! This needed saying, and you have said it very clearly!

New Friend said...

James

No doubt all the Catholics will rush to agree but there is so much wrong with this that it is difficult to know where to begin.

I write as someone who is happily married and intend to stay that way. I cannot though have children any more, due to my cancer, so maybe, according to the logic being used I should not be married at all!

Marriage was not the pre-cursor of civilization. For most of mankind's existence on earth it did not exist at all, in any formal way. It started as a trade between tribes, and was always arranged and rarely was there any love involved. The maintenance of a wife for child bearing purposes did not mean that a mistress or two could not be enjoyed and this attitude extends to today in many countries, at certain levels of society. Catholic ones included! To suggest that we would all die out without marriage is clearly nonsense. We survived without it in the past, and those who don't marry still produce children.

What you describe is what has developed in the relatively recent past (in historical terms) of the partnership recognised by Catholics as marriage. It is not truly "traditional" nor is it essential. It was only in around the 12th century AD that the Church began to get involved and to dictate who and who could not marry whom. Not much love there either!
No-one will stop you holding to these values within your own community. That is your right. Outside of it, for others who don't share your views, is a different matter.

I don't actually have very strong views on whether a gay partnership should be considered a "marriage" or not. I don't either have very strong views on people who decide to co-habit rather than marry. I believe in choice and if that is what they decide I will respect it. I can see the argument to encourage making a committment, and for making it difficult to achieve a divorce but, living where I do, where divorce is not permitted, I also see the other side of that. Maybe that is another debate, but it is far from utopia and actually very unsatisfactory.

So I don't think you have any right to try to define what the word "marriage" means. History says so. Other elements in society say so. By all means make your views known, but please don't make claims that don't really stand up.

The human race is not going to collapse without the institution of marriage. Traditional marriage, in the way you mean it, has only been so for a short while. Marriage, like everything else, is evolving. Those who don't adapt are liable to extinction, and not the other way around.

+13

James said...

I think we are perhaps more in agreement than you realise.

When you say speak about arrangements between tribes where "rarely was there any love involved" this is precisely my point. Marriage isn't a public expression of mushy feelings - it's a system of rights, duties and obligations. It regulates sexual activity in a way that puts the good of the tribe ahead of the urges of the individual.

I agree that marriage has taken on different forms in different times and places (arranged marriages, polygamy etc) and Christian marriage explicitly rejects some of these forms but the basic principle has remained the same.

The new form of pretend-Marriage that is being proposed however is not Marriage at all - it has no rights, duties or obligations. It does not put the good of the tribe ahead of the urges of the individual. It will by definition lead to a fragmented society where individuals work for their own benefit and not the benefit of the tribe - the polar opposite of a civilisation.

Jonathan said...

"Those who don't adapt are liable to extinction, and not the other way around."

You're wrong on this point and with a little bit of effort I hope you will be able to see why. Let's consider the selection pressures on competing populations. Throughout history neighbouring tribes have competed violently over land and other resources. Different tribes had different strategies for raising children. Raising more children, and more effective children, than a neighbouring tribe gives you a significant advantage in this competition because you soon have superior numbers and can make better use of resources. Clearly there is a selective pressure on societies regarding their child rearing. Keeping this selective pressure in mind try and name one large, powerful civilisation that had not adopted a strategy of secure marriage as the way to bring up children? It's not a coincidence.

New Friend said...

Jonathan

There is a lot of common ground here, but not, I fear, with the conclusions we draw. For sure when society was organised on a very localised tribal basis, as rarely in some remote places it still is, what you say is true. Like everything else it has though evolved, developed and adapted. Nowdays the tribe, from an organisational viewpoint, is a much larger unit. Mostly that is whole countries, but it can get even bigger than that, as pan national institutions, like the EU, become effective. As the tribal base has expanded so has it's reasoning on what is needed to sustain it, make effective use of all it's resouces and to introduce previously unknown concepts of fairness and diversity. The tribe can now look at it's resources objectively and decide that there are too many of one, perhaps children, for some of the others, perhaps land, water and work. It can then make adjustments to try to balance things.
So what you say WAS true, but is no longer. It is interesting that all your references are about the past, and none about the future. We simply happen to be at one particular point on a continuous path of development and expansion. Those who resist the changes will be left behind and eventually either have to run to catch up, or face the possibility of extinction.

New Friend said...

James

Do you therefore believe that a woman, and all she brings to the union, should become the property of the man, as was the case in "traditional" marriages not so very long ago? Do you believe that the interests of the "tribe" should continue to be put ahead of individual choice, and therefore that arranged marriage is acceptable, or even desirable?

I have no issue with people making commitments to one another, and that these should involve expectations of behaviour and legal obligations. I do though think they should be equitable between the partners.

Neither do I think that principal has any bearing whatsoever upon whether the partners are hetrosexual or homosexual. A commitment is a commitment, so your argument fails on this point. Who are you to judge whether a homosexual couple are more or less committed to each other than a hetrosexual one, and prepared to sign up to all the rights, duties and obligations that you expect?

Your primary point was about the collapse of civilization if this was allowed to happen, because the supply of children would dry up and I just think that doesn't have legs. The examination of whether homosexual couples should bring up children is a separate issue to whether they should marry.

By the way, what do "modern day secularists" have to do with "sex outside of marriage"? Secularism is concerned only with the formal separation of the state and religion. It has no view on this issue, which needs to be considered soley on it's merits.

James said...

I think that civilisation depends on the interests of "the tribe" being placed ahead of individual choice. For example, my individual choice to drive under the influence of alcohol is limited.

Marriage requires both partners to give themselves to the other, so in that sense the woman becomes 'the property of the man' but the man also becomes the property of the woman. She is his wife, he is her husband. I reject any idea of treating people as objects to be bought or sold.

You are right that homosexuals are just as capable of making commitments as anybody else, but these commitments are no more marriages than the contract I have with my employer.

New Friend said...

James

We are in danger of agreeing here! You are actually confirming my own view that the interests of the "tribe", or what I would refer to as the whole society, needs to come before any individual, or indeed groups of individuals. The way to determine what that interest is, is of course, via democractic decision making.

It seems to me that you are seeking to make that decision for the "tribe", who might now have a different opinion on what is in their interest. I am glad to see that you acknowledge the importance of equality between men and woman, but why stop there?

Why does a "marriage" have to mean what you think it does? If the majority of the members of the "tribe" have another opinion then you are going to be outvoted.

I don't have the slightest problem with Catholics only regarding their traditional marriages being the authentic ones, and applying all their rights and restrictions within their own community. If it makes you happy, I am happy. The same applies to any homosexual couple who want to have their own union regarded as a "marriage". If it makes them happy, why not? It doesn't hurt me. It doesn't actually hurt you or the rest of the "tribe" either. It is not going to affect birth rates, because the gay couple would still exist, and not have babies. It just makes them happy. It only devalues your own marriages if you believe that a homosexual union is something less than a hetrosexual one. That, I suspect, is at the root of your concerns. You don't like homsexuality and have problems in coming to terms with it. Don't worry. It took many of us a long time too, and some aspects still take effort to understand. This is one area where the Philippines could teach us all a lesson. Homosexuality is completely accepted here, by everyone, the Church included. There are many transgendered people here, particularly homosexual men who dress and behave as women. No-one has any problem at all. Whether the Church marries them I don't know, but I would not be the least surprised to learn that they do.

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

"You are right that homosexuals are just as capable of making commitments as anybody else, but these commitments are no more marriages than the contract I have with my employer."

That is why I think gays should be allowed to marry. Marriage is a contract. These adults should be permitted to enter this contract. By all means let the RC choose not to recognise or conduct these marriages as it sees fit but the law should allow it.

I think that the issues of illegitimacy & the low birth rate in our society would be better addressed by looking at the tax, housing & welfare systems in this country rather than picking on a few gays. As long as we live in a society where most of the married couples in family sized homes that could afford another child are over 50 there aren't going to be many blossoming families.

Our host is a sciences graduate who lives in one of the cheaper parts of the UK, even so, with three young children I bet he has noticed that money doesn't grow on trees. I wonder how he would be getting on as a non-graduate or living in the South.

James said...

All manner of contracts are signed every day but they are not all Marriage. Marriage is clearly more than just a contract. It involves certain duties towards society which society has no right to expect of homosexual couples.

Don't get me started on the housing situation - the high house prices we currently "enjoy" constitute the extortion of wealth from younger generations in to the pockets of the older ones. Fortunately, it's not sustainable. There are simply not enough of us to buy all the houses.

I would find it very difficult to have a family if I were living down south even as a graduate. This is yet another way in which our society is failing to support marriage.

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

We won't agree on gay marriage & I won't bother arguing it further, yourself & another commenter having already noted that the Christian ideal of marriage was watered down by heterosexuals long before gays had a go at it. Not all marriages bear children & not all children are raised by married parents. I know many here will turn their noses up at married gays but I doubt it will change the number of children, marriages or divorces straight people have. Plus they always end up playing YMCA at wedding receptions, so it may as well be for people who know the dance properly.

I would happily get you started on the housing situation. I agree with you 100%. It is a national disgrace & I could go on all night about it myself.

Nicolas Bellord said...

In English civil law marriage is a status and not a contract. A contract is a private matter between the parties to a contract. A marriage is not a private matter as society has an interest in it.

Philip said...

James - excellent post, but you have, in a sense, unwittingly provided some reasoning for those who do not wish to make this issue the really crucial one on which they take on the government. The argument runs essentially like this. The government has - in all the ways you identified - dismantled marriage and replaced it with pretend marriage. Having done that, it is a trivial issue whether we allow homosexual couples (or, for that matter any two people who may or may not have a sexual relationship) to have a pretend marriage. After all, the covenant aspect is gone (even the contractual aspect is gone) and the link between marriage, sex and children has gone (in the eyes of the state). Meanwhile, Christians can continue to build civilisation on the back of real marriage and Catholics even have their own judicial processes to deal with it.

In other words, this battle has been lost and the position cannot be rebuilt by preserving one aspect of marriage (a union between heterosexuals) given that real marriage has gone out of the window. I don't agree with that position (and I have signed the petition) but you have made a convincing case that the issue of homosexual marriage is not really the most important one. The really important things to destroy marriage (both in culture and with regard to the state) were done and dusted some time ago.

Ttony said...

What an excellent post! No comments (because you've said everything that needs to be said) but congratulations.

Catherine said...

the battle over the word 'marriage' was lost some time ago .....certainly as far back as the government funded Diversity and Equality Guidelines issued by the Bishops of E and W [2005] which preceded the onslaught against Catholic adoption services in the wake of the Sexual Orientation regulations of April 2007.
This is one of the reasons why the annual Mass of Thanbsgiving for couples celebrating jubilee anniversaries in Westminster diocese is an act of thanksgiving for 'Matrimony' because the explicit sacramental identity of Christian spouses and the ecclesial dynamic of ALL valid Catholic marriages that embody matrimony cannot be supplanted by any amount of neo marxist ideologically driven legislation attempting to equate same sex "unions" with them. It's also good to see virtually every diocese now having an annual diocesan celebration for marriages. It ought to be an annual liturgy in ALL parishes every year.

Salisbury John said...

We should flood letters and emails of appreciation as well as our prayers to the courageous Bishop Mark Davies of Shrewsbury...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9078004/Bishop-calls-on-Christian-MPs-to-rebel-over-gay-marriage.html

and Cardinal Dolan of New York has in his decree of 2011 provided an excellent template for ALL dioceses to ensure their homophilic friendly clergy and parishes do NOT abuse church property or status to accommodate those entering civil partnerships or pretend marriage

http://www.archny.org/media/files/Archbishop's%20Decree%20-%20Diocesan%20Policy%20Regarding%20Same-Sex%20Civil%20Marriages.pdf

Catherine said...

James
you are absolutely right about the need to actively defend and promote tradition al marriage. Here is the clip of several addresses at the recent ecumenical event Talk Marriage event .... www.talkmarriage.co.uk

the clip is here...

http://scpro.streamuk.com/uk/player/Default.aspx?g=8aee2c74

The Catholic input begins at 21mins.30 and ends at 35mins.45 -

Mark Dobson said...

This is great stuff. I'm glad it came after your recent mea culpa too; these things still need saying.

Cavalier said...

One of Fr Ray's posters has put a link to a Guardian article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/22/catholic-church-reject-uk-christians-persecuted

shieldsheafson said...

Even though a majority of citizens still happen to oppose the redefinition of marriage, the more important thing is that the very idea of 'same-sex marriage' is a metaphysical absurdity. What is at issue here is a matter of objective fact that it is the business of reason to discover what 'marriage' is, or whether religion is a good thing or not, rather than the law to stipulate.

It may help for those unfamiliar with the concept of natural law to read the following article:-

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

The metaphysics underlying natural law theory that marriage is, not by human definition, but as an objective metaphysical fact determined by its final cause, inherently procreative, and thus inherently heterosexual.

New Friend said...

Oh dear, "natural law" raises it's ugly head again as a justification to circumvent the real law. A favourite tool of Catholics it cuts no ice in the real world, so cannot play any part in this debate, other than the one you have with each other.

shieldsheafson said...

Can you see no contradiction in your statement?

Clue: To what law or authority do you justify your statement?

New Friend said...

Exactly the same law and authority to which we are all subject. Whether you accept it, or not, is another matter but if you don't and you fall foul of it, then you will learn the hard way.

Those who claim that "Gods law", or "natural law" somehow permits them to modify enacted law are delusional. If there is no conflict, there is no problem. Where there is State law is, and must always be, superior.

I have read attempts at a justification of the "natural law" being above State law made by very senior figures in your faith. Suggestions that democracy can be set aside if "God's will" is being challenged. They are all nonsense and it is really difficult for a non believer, as I am, to understand how any rational thinker can reach such a conclusion.

Mark Dobson said...

Do you think Gandhi had the wrong idea? We're basically talking about civil disobedience now, and he's pretty much the most famous representative of that.

If you accept Gandhi's version of civil disobedience, I'd like to know what it is that makes his disobedience acceptable and ours (mostly theoretical in any case) unacceptable.

New Friend said...

Mark

There is a very fine line to be drawn. So fine that it is sometimes difficult to see. Civil disobedience can be achieved within the law and when it is it is OK. So far as I am aware Gandhi's protests were always non violent and accepted the possibility that if laws were broken arrests would follow.

No-one can force anyone to obey a law. They can only apply the appropriate penalty when it happens. So long as you accept that if you break the law you will suffer the consequences then peaceful civil disobedience seems an acceptable form of protest.

If that protest interferes with the rights of others then you must expect to be restrained. What you cannot do is try to claim that the law does not apply to you, because you hold a belief in something else. The law applies to us all.

Mark Dobson said...

Well, it seems to me that you get off to a bad start with a pretty clearly paradoxical statement:

"Civil disobedience can be achieved within the law"

I think most people would consider that civil disobedience is, by definition, defiance of the law. Wikipedia seems to agree.

Apart from that, we more or less agree. What's the problem exactly? Obviously we face legal consequences for our actions; that's not our choice, it's reality. And what we want is to change the law rater than defy it; in a democracy we can seek to do that, although you seem to prefer your democracy without dissenting voices.

I remember someone pointing out that while the government is The Queen's Government, the opposition is The Queen's Opposition; in a true democracy, minorities have a voice and in British democracy, the opposition is an important counterbalance to the majority government.

I suppose, in a sense, that as a minority, we too are the Queen's opposition.

New Friend said...

Mark

We are indeed in agreement! The, not very important, point about civil disobedience sometimes being within the law is that not everything which can be disobeyed is actually subject to a law. Sometimes it might simply be a rule, or requirement, which is ignored on mass. When done individually no law is being broken but when done collectively the effect is disobedience.

Other than that we are on the same page. The rights of minorities must always be respected and, where possible, accomodated. Like everyone else you have the right to campaign to change the law, but like everyone else you also have the duty to abide by it. It is the latter point which I find is sometimes not well accepted within the Catholic community. This appears to me to be especially true of issues, like abortion, where you have such a passionate commitment to your cause, and such certainty that you are right, that some of the actions taken to promote your opinions go too far.

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend: What do you make of lawyers appealing to natural justice? Natural law is as much a part of English civil law as say legislation. What do you imagine Judges are doing when they create precedents other than believing that they are based on their idea of natural law?

New Friend said...

Nicholas

I am not a lawyer so can only offer my opinion. I suspect any lawyer making such an appeal is really making a plea for common sense to prevail. They would not be appealing to the "natural law" as defined by Catholics. I also think that maybe you are confusing the "common law", which is part of English civil law with your "natural law", which isn't. I believe there are similarities in certain aspects but that they are not identical.

As to Judges creating precendents all they are doing is placing their own interpretation of the law, which then stands as a guide for future judgements by others. Where they draw their inspiration from, for their interpretations, is a matter for them. I guess it comes from their own legal experience and knowledge of other relevant judgements. I cannot believe they rely on any reference to "natural law".

Mark Dobson said...

It would be quite the misnomer if "common sense" were to be decided in the courts.

Whether or not the Catholic interpretation of natural law is correct isn't actually the most important aspect of the question; it's about whether or not there is indeed a natural law to which appeal can be made.

New Friend said...

Mark

That is a loaded question because it all depends what you mean. Natural Law does not mean the same thing to everyone, but as this is a Catholic blog I am assuming you mean it according to Aquinas. Where this held to demonstrate that a state law is unjust, and therefore should not be followed, I do not believe it exists, other than as a moral guide within your own community. It should not be introduced in Court.

As a general rule if by the "natural law" you mean a set of moral standards which apply within a particular community, then within that community, and without any official sanctions being involved, such an appeal would be acceptable. Within the laws of the State, they cannot. Any form of natural law must always be subservient to state law.

Mark Dobson said...

"Where [natural law] is held to demonstrate that a state law is unjust, and therefore should not be followed, I do not believe it exists, other than as a moral guide within your own community."

With that in mind, I'd like to repropose a question: was Gandhi wrong? He held that state laws were unjust and should not be followed. He acted accordingly. Should he have acquiesced? And if not, why not?

New Friend said...

Mark

We are talking about two different things. Gandhi, or yourself, have the right to protest, and to disobey laws, provided the consequences are accepted. Those who make the laws have a right to expect that they be obeyed and to introduce penalties on those who don't. They also have the responsibility to ensure those penalties are both effective and proportionate, which can sometimes be a difficult balance to achieve, when the rights and duties of all are being considered.

This has no bearing at all on "natural law". You can use whatever reason you like for your belief that a law is unjust. That is your personal decision, but no personal belief should be introduced in court and hope to succeed. The law is the law, equally and for all.

Mark Dobson said...

We are indeed talking about two different things, since when I ask you one question you answer a different one.

Because you evidently wish to avoid saying whether or not you think Gandhi was right (a question dodged twice now) you talk to me about his right to protest.

What kind of a right would that be? Obviously not a legal one; would it be a natural right?

You obviously don't have a lot of time for personal belief, but if the law which must be respected is determined by the majority, what is it but a mere accumulation of personal beliefs?

New Friend said...

Mark

I am not dodging your question at all. I am answering it, but just not in the way you want me too! It is not for me to judge whether Ganhdi was right or not, for that was his own personal responsibility. What I have said is that provided he, or anyone else, accepts the consequences of breaking a law, no-one can force them to obey it. Society as a whole has the right, and the responsibility, to provide sufficient deterrents and penalties to ensure that the law is followed and that, whilst respecting minority opinions, society runs smoothly and without harm to the people.

The right to protest is indeed lawful, under the Human Rights Act, but it has long been a part of our democracy. What you seem to want to do is place "natural rights", "natural law" and "personal beliefs" all in the same basket and consider they mean the same thing.

My issue is not with anyone holding a personal belief, or a moral stance on an issue, or having a right to protest, established by common or enacted law.

My concern is all about those who claim that their own moral code and beliefs are not just something personal to them, and to the others who share them, but are superior to those held by everyone else. Such people claim to be able to ignore the law because of this, and I think this attitude needs to be challenged and exposed for the fraud it is.

It is only when the law is attempted to be ignored that I have any concern. In most cases there is a convergence of view. To kill or to steal, for example are universally regarded as unacceptable human behaviour. Believers think this morality is installed in us by God, whilst I feel it is just part of our evolutionary progress. No matter, we agree.

The problem comes when you go beyond this and start to put your own interpretation onto things and then claim they are justified under "natural law". The obvious example is the frequently made claim that abortion is murder. Whilst we can all agree that murder is wrong, we don't agree that abortion fits such a description.

There is no problem with you, or anyone else, seeking to judge enacted law by a set of moral standards, and you calling them by whatever name you wish. The problem comes when some wish to go further than that and replace the law with those standards before you have convinced everyone else of their value.

Actually I have a lot of time for personal belief, provided it is kept personal and then counted, along with everyone else's, to determine the view of society. I therefore completely agree that the law is the result of our accumulated personal beliefs. Do you, and, if it conflicts with your own view, do you accept it as superior to your own?

Mark Dobson said...

I think I should probably clarify, since being right and having a right are two different things but, unfortunately, employ the same word.

Gandhi thought that the law was unjust. I would like to know whether or not you agree, or whether you think that he had no justification for subverting the law.

Nicolas Bellord said...

New friend: I suggest you google natural law and natural justice. Also try the article in wikipedia on natural law.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I have before at length, and have just done quickly again. What point are you trying to make? It doesn't matter what you call something. For the avoidance of doubt the point I am making is that it is not reasonable, or lawful, for anyone to seek to claim "natural law" (or "natural justice") as a defence. Too often I hear Catholics claim that they answer to a higher authority than the laws of the state, and that, as a consequence, they can ignore them, because their allegience is to the "natural law" which arises from their beliefs. This is just wrong. If you believe it to be right, please explain it, without any references to God.

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend: The point I was trying to make is that natural law is a concept which is not exclusive to Catholics but is something which is regarded widely as being the basis of all law.

Sometimes Judges are not just interpreting the law or following precedents but are actually creating new law and I would suggest that when they do this they apply what they see as natural law.

Take the question of natural justice. You will not find any legislation to the effect that both sides must be heard in any dispute. It is judge made law.

The common law is what is believed to have come down to us from the remote past and at times has been seen as harsh. It has been tempered by the introduction of the law of Equity as administered in the Chancery Courts. In fact it was the application of Christian principles. None of this came from the legislature but is held to come from natural law. The equitable maxim "Equity abhors a forfeiture" prevents a tenant being evicted just because he is a bit late with his rent. This was judge made law tempering the harshness of the Common Law. The theory is that such law is based upon natural law. One can argue about what natural law lays down but surely one has to acknowledge its existence which I think you were denying.

Of course the legislature can go against the natural law. It might for instance decree that in certain cases there is no right for both parties to be heard. However to legislate in that sense would be profoundly wrong and people would be justified in ignoring such a law.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Laws, like everything else, evolve. I don't have a problem with anyone describing it's earlier evolution, before it was written down as "natural law". I also realise that the concept is not exclusive to Catholics. My issue though is only with the way Catholics interpret their own version of "natural law".

You are quite wrong about Judges making law. Only in the US Supreme Court is that true. In the UK Judges interpret and apply law. In so doing they may make precedents which serve as a guide for future cases, but this is not making law at all.

Please don't confuse the common law with "natural law". They are very different. One might have sprung from one version of the other, but that is all. Judgements made under common law are not making new law, they are just interpreting it. When parliament acts to codify an law everything ought to be come much clearer.

As I just replied to Mark on this issue maybe you could read what I said to him as it is relevent. I don't have an issue with anyone seeking to judge the value of any law against their own moral code, and calling that code by whatever name they like. I do have an issue with anyone who seeks to replace that law with their own moral code before they have connvinced a majority of us that they are right.

I therefore completely reject your last paragraph. Just because you feel something is "profoundly wrong" is not a justification to ignore a law and not to suffer any consequences, which is what I sense you are implying. You have every right to protest but if you ignore the law you need to accept that there may well be penalties sufficient to encourage you to restrain from your action. The will of the people must be superior to any personal moral code.

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend: I must say that in over 50 years of practising law I have never heard anyone denying that English judges make law. It is not just a case of interpreting law and following precedent. Take the very important case of Hedley Byrne v Heller. Wikipedia says: "Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 is an English tort law case on pure economic loss, resulting from a negligent misstatement. Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected,[1] with the only remedy for such losses being in contract law.[2] The House of Lords overruled the previous position, in recognising liability for pure economic loss not arising from a contractual relationship, introducing the idea of "assumption of responsibility".

The judges thus changed the law but in the light of what? Presumably they thought the previous law was unfair - a natural law concept.

The way precedent law works is that often judges look at the precedents but then find that applying them will lead to an unjust decision in the particular case. They then find a distinction they can make in the particular case and enunciate that in order to arrive at a fair decision and that distinction becomes part of precedent law. They make new law.

I think the problem with your position is that if you deny that judges make law and say that judges are merely applying precedent law where does that law come from if not from natural law way back in the past? It is that natural law that they regard as still valid.

But then the House of Lords have expressly said that they are not always bound by precedent as in the above case. So where does their right to change the law come from?

I have not equated common law with natural law. Indeed what I was trying to show was that the law of Equity - enunciated by the Lord Chancellor - always a cleric prior to St Thomas More - acting as the conscience of the King - moderated the effect of Common Law in the light of principles which derive from natural law.

I know there are members of Parliament who object to Judges making law but of course Parliament can always overrule the Judges by enacting legislation. When you and Miss Featherstone talk about "the will of the people" I am reminded of Rousseau's Contrat Social where he claimed that the will of the people is always right - an idea which Voltaire profoundly disagreed with. Anyone who opposed the will of the people was an enemy of the people and deserved death.

The problem is that if you believe in the absolute sovereignty of Parliament what do you do when Parliament does something that is wrong in the light of natural laws e.g. enacting that 2 + 2 = 5, that elephants are really whales or that a same-sex couple can enter into marriage. I assert there is a right to disobey such laws. One may have to suffer the consequences as Catholics and many others have done in the past - e.g. St Thomas More. Nobody is arguing that they may not have to accept the consequences of breaking the law.

There is such a thing as natural law and it is important to discuss what it is. To deny its existence does not seem rational to me.

Ben Trovato said...

John Finnis, in his book Natural Law and Natural Rights explains the principles workings and importance of Natural Law very clearly and cogently.

Of course, he doesn't have New Friend's level of expertise, as Finnis is only a Professor fo Law at Oxford...

Ben Trovato said...

Or, of course, looking beyond these shores, one could point to Jacques Mauritain as a philosopher whose interest in, understanding of, and commitment to Natural Law enabled him to be one of the most important drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But hey, what would he know, compared to New Friend who has read an article on Wikipedia about Natural Law...?

New Friend said...

Ben

My last reply serves for this too. That this guy did some good work on human rights doesn't mean he wasn't Catholic, and that this didn't influence his viewpoint. He was. Enough said!

New Friend said...

Ben

It is said that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit! Read my reply to Nicolas. I don't claim special expertise. I am merely stating an opinion about the application of "natural law" as defined by some Catholics and not about how it is either historically or currently regarded by others.

I do note though that John Finnis, who I had previously not heard of, writes as a Catholic and seems to have something of an attitude about homosexuality. His work is clearly controversial.

As a non Catholic, with an adversion to the whole concept of such a "natural law", it is therefore hardly surprising that my opinion is different. It is also unsurprising that you seek refuge in his work.

Ben Trovato said...

I don't seek refuge in his work: I merely prefer informed debate. It seems faintly ludicrous for you to attack Natural Law and the Catholic application of it based on a quick perusal of Wikipedia and in ignorance of any of the real thinking underlying it.

You are right about sarcasm, of course. My poor attempts at humour are the despair of those who love me... The problem is I would rather be witty (even at the lowest level) than boring.

More seriously, to say Finnis is controversial is actually an endorsement, if one understands the way in which British Academia works. Academic researchers are judged on the number and quality of their publications, in the Research Excellence Framework (formerly the Research Assessment Exercise).

To get published in the best journals is increasingly difficult; one route is to write an article contesting the work of another academic (and indeed that is the way learning is often pursued anyway: thesis: antithesis and all that...). The more prominent the work of the academic you contest, the higher the likelihood of publication - so Finnis is much commented on, and much contested, precisely because his work is important, influential and respected.

If you are implying that because it is controversial, it is not worthy of examination, you are disagreeing with the academic consensus.

Likewise, if you are implying that because it supports Catholic orthodoxy, it is not worthy of study, then you have undermined any real credibility you may have had as a regular critic of Catholic thinking.

New Friend said...

Ben

As someone who frequently uses sarcasm myself, although I do try to avoid it on here, I forgive you.

My knowledge of Finnis is indeed very slight, and unlikely to get much deeper for I have many other things to do at the moment. I am not suggesting that his work is not important, or much commented upon by his peers. All that I observe is that as he is, as you say, an orthodox Catholic, that very fact suggests his starting point is not going to be one I share. As soon as anyone starts from a position that God directs things, for me their conclusions automatically are tainted.

If he, as a Catholic, were to come to the conclusion that "natural law" cannot exist, then this I would find interesting and worthy of further study. That a Catholic concludes that Thomas Aquinas was right, and produces scholarly documents to support his view, is hardly surprising.

I am a non believer. I prefer rationality and reason to be our guide, and not to place any reliance upon concepts of good and evil being implanted within a human soul.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

As I have repeatedly said I am not a lawyer and my only concern is how Catholics apply their principal of "natural law". I have acknowledged that all principals of justice spring from shared personal beliefs and always have. The label you put on these is a matter for you.

How the Law Lords arrive at their decisions are a matter for them, but I would not equate it with a Catholic version of "natural law". I would describe it as a mix of experience and conscience. To try to blend that with your own version of "natural law" is to seek to mix chalk and cheese by calling them by the same name. If we simply rename chalk as cheese it will then taste good.

I am not convinced by your argument that setting precedent equates to making law and if the Law Lords ever really attempted to step away from prececent and modify a law, then parliament has a duty to immediately overrule them. Such an action would, in my opinion, be an intolerable interference in the democratic process. As someone who is much in favour of a majot overhaul of our second chamber, revising the status and responsibilities of the Law Lords would be part of that. Making sure that they understand, and adhere to, their role is essential.

You example of why elephants cannot be whales and then equating that with the status of marriage is exactly what is wrong with this whole approach. I trust our parliament not to make any ridiculous decisions, such as an elephant being a whale, for that is something that 100% of the people would find completely obvious. Whether same sex couples can enter a marriage does NOT fall into such a category. You have an opinion, based on your own version of "natural law". Others disagree. The right place to decide is in parliament without any influence from your, or anyone else's "natural law".

Lazarus said...

Your comment avoids any question as to how the conscience should be informed (in your 'mix of experience and conscience') and what the process of reasoning is to be in the Parliamentary discussion.

'Natural law' is really just philosophical reflection on human nature and human flourishing. To demote questions on this area to 'personal beliefs'is to abandon any attempt rationally to engage with central questions of human welfare.

New Friend said...

Lazarus

If that is all you understand by the term, then I would not have too many arguments with it. I would call it something else, but that doesn't really matter.

Individual parliamentarians must find their reasoning within themselves and from whatever inspires them, whether that be religion or anything else. My issue is not about where individuals find their sources for their reasoning. It is about the institutionalised version of "natural law" which Catholics fall back upon as their justification for claiming their opinions are superior to state law whenever there is a conflict between the two. There is frequently a claim made that a particular law is considered as unjust because it conflicts with "Gods law", or "natural law", and that this is sufficient for it to be disregarded. You might, in times past, been able to get away with such claims but not today.

Lazarus said...

'Individual parliamentarians must find their reasoning within themselves and from whatever inspires them'

Indeed they must, but this isn't the end of the matter. You seem to be suggesting a rather subjective understanding of ethical reflection. Many things inspire many people, but equally many of those things are objectively quite empty. Philosophical, natural law reasoning would subject those inspirations to rational critique.

I'd agree with you that a simply reference to 'natural law' as an authoritative explanation isn't enough: we have to explain why it's against natural law. But a) James has done this (albeit in the limited space of a blogpost; and b) you'll find a whole community of Catholic philosophers out there (John Finnis, Edward Feser, John Haldane etc) who are quite willing to engage on the detail without simply asserting it's natural law. John Finnis (eg) has spent his entire career developing a theory of natural law (and actually one that is quite different from the Scholastic arguments that I suspect you mean by 'the institutionalised version'). But didn't you just dismiss him as not worth reading because he was a Catholic? Not sure what can be done if you're not willing to engage with the detail of the natural law arguments that are being offered simply on the grounds that any Catholic is ipso facto unable to argue philosophically.

New Friend said...

Lazarus

Thanks for a thoughtful reply.

As I have tried to explain I really don't have a problem with anyone, Catholic or not, philosopher or not, drawing their reasoning and inspiration, from whatever source they choose. They can also call it whatever makes them happy. They can write as many papers as they like to justify themselves and to seek to inspire others.

That, for me, is not the issue. My gripe is solely with those Catholics who make extravagant claims for their particular version of "natural law", which is claimed comes from "God". If a state law is passed which they feel is in conflict with their "natural law" then for some reason they feel their belief is sufficient for them to ignore the real law. For Catholics "God" comes above everything and everyone else. For non believers this is just nonsense and believers cannot be allowed to get away with it. The law is the law, equally and fairly, for everyone.

There is no need to argue on any detail for it is the basic principal which is in question, not the detail.

Lazarus said...

'For non believers this is just nonsense and believers cannot be allowed to get away with it. The law is the law, equally and fairly, for everyone.'

I would hope that a moral non-believer or believer would examine the positive law in the light of their knowledge of truth and act accordingly. That doesn't mean that a bad law should necessarily be disobeyed (although I'd hope you'd concede that there are occasions when this is necessary). But to confuse positive law with moral truth and to privilege the former is the way to tyranny.

Now I'd accept that moral knowledge is achieved only with great difficulty -but that is a good reason for governments not to seek to force people's consciences. But your handwaving over the need to argue these issues through thoroughly and rationally is a dangerous attitude and one that I've found regularly in the anti-Catholic side.

Catholics have a long tradition of moral reasoning based in the Graeco-Roman philosophical tradition. (It is simply the Western tradition of philosophy.) By all means critique it and seek to find its flaws. But simply ignoring it and dismissing because it is advanced by philosophers who happen to be Catholics is not an argument.

New Friend said...

Lazarus

You misunderstand, or misrepresent, me. I don't dismiss any argument produced by anyone and have said so. All I have said on that subject is that I personally don't have any great interest in, or time to, study the work of such people.

My position is not about who produces the argument. It is about the general principal followed by some Catholics. I don't need to be convinced that some people believe that "natural law" exists. That is up to them. I describe what they regard as "natural law" in different ways. I prefer to think of it as mankind's evolved intelligence which, when blended with his experience, produces a sense of right and wrong. What is more important, and the subject I am discussing, is how and when, whatever it is called, is applied.
The Catholics who describe it as "natural law" do so because they feel it is "God" given and therefore trumps man's law. I don't. I am perfectly prepared for man's law to be relentlessly scrutinised under it's fierce glow, but never for it to be permitted to be ignored as a consequence.

Too often Catholics justify their position by suggesting that what I propse is a "route to tyranny" or similar expressions. Indeed that seems to be the platform for many of the current claims being made for the continuation of faith as a central pillar in our society. I believe that to be complete nonsense. In the west we have moved past the days when tyrants could rule without challenge and overthrow. In other parts of the world it remains possible, but this modern interconnected world is rapidly exposing those who try to cling onto power. You don't need me to cite the examples, for they are obvious.
We no longer need to have any kind of imposed morality sitting above our democracy. We have evolved our own way of ensuring we get it right, which is fairer to all, and more diverse. As a society we no longer need religion, inspite of what you believe. Doubtless you disagree and that is your right, as it is for you to continue with your personal beliefs. What is not OK is for any one minority group to either impose their standards on the majority, or to ignore the standards determined by the majority. Minority standards are tolerated and accommodated wherever possible. Laws are written in a way to achieve that, but ultimately they have to be followed. All of them, by all of us, all of the time.

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend: I do not claim to be in the same league as John Finnis or John Haldane or any other academic writer on natural law. My understanding is not that natural law is based on shared beliefs but that it is actually ascertainable by reason in the same way as say mathematics is ascertainable; though perhaps rather more easily. It seems to me that there are basic principles engraved on the heart of every human being. One just has to listen to children in the playground crying "That's not fair" to know that there is some innate sense of what is just and what is not. I would equate that with conscience. Of course who does the engraving is something upon which we will disagree.

As to judge made law, I am not suggesting that a judge can overturn statute law but within my lifetime the House of Lords has decided that it can overrule a previous law based upon precedent. I forget the name of the case! But they did just that in Hedley Byrne v. Heller.

I think again your position is that a majority view should prevail against a view that is based upon a rationally ascertained view of what natural law decrees. You seem to go as far as to say that anyone with a view based upon natural law should not be allowed to influence laws decided by Parliament. That sounds to me pretty extremist.

I know you object to the Pope having a say in these matters but I do think he had a point when he said to our Parliament: "If the moral principles underpinning the democratic process are themselves determined by nothing more than social consensus the fragility of the process becomes all too evident - herein lies the real challenge for democracy".

The problem is that that social consensus varies from one time to another. I suspect that there is a social consensus that capital punishment should be reintroduced - it would be unfortunate if that view were to prevail.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

You and I togther then, for I only speak as I find and not from a lifetime of study. I think we have agreed that everyone has an inbuilt sense of right and wrong, but disagree how it arises. Call it what you will, but it is not what I am concerned about. It is the application of a particular set of rules which are described as "natural laws" that concern me. They seek to replace the sense of right and wrong, found in everyone, with their own version of that. In many cases it will be identical, but in some it strays into areas based on belief and it is to this to which I object.

I most certainly don't object to anyone believing in a particular type of "natural law" participating in the democratic process. That is both their right and their duty, as individuals. What I don't wish to see is their collective organisations seeking any influence beyond the number of voting members they have.

I do object to the Pope being allowed to have a say in these matters. However I don't blame him for taking his opportunity, even if what he said was completely wrong. I blame those who allowed it to happen, and in particular Gordon Brown. I think it was a mistake of enormous proportions which has set in motion a movement from the religious lobby which we are now witnessing. This movement is doomed to fail, but it is distracting and wasteful to have to counter it. The idea that religion is central to the life of Britain, and has a role in it's politics, will certainly be rejected by the people as a throwback to days we are grateful to have put behind us.

For sure the social consensus varies from time to time but if you charted it on a graph, it would all be in one general direction. For that reason I have no fear at all that capital punishment would ever be re-introduced. Our democracy is evolving and becoming more sophisticated, not less so. Only in undemocratic America, where right wing groups sieze power in the name of the people, do reversals of capital punishment laws happen. As right wing groups, and Church groups go hand in hand there, that ought to give us pause for some thought.

Salisbury John said...

It won't stop at 'gay marriage'

The current legal policy spokesman of the German Green Party demanded as early as 1988:
�The cementing of a sexually repressive climate� can only be prevented by a mobilization of
the gay movement for equality between homo - and heterosexuality which, unlike
paedosexuality, is totally unproblematic. The achieving of this is a prerequisite for the future
battle to ensure at least the partial decriminalisation of paedosexuality.