Just and the Justifier

A Christian Distinctive

Archive for the tag “Marriage”

The Varied Enemies of Marriage

Perusing the news nowadays becomes a masochistic exercise as we face a quickening accumulation of human folly and travesty. It is little wonder that many prefer to stick their heads in sand to safeguard their very psychological equilibrium.
So while this nation heaves a wearied sigh of relief from an electoral rebuke of the more blatant forms of petty-minded nativist bigotries in Quebec, along comes a broadside against the Estate of Marriage and by extension civil society. But from the ‘Conservative’ Party of Canada!

52. (1) Subsection 4(2) of the Canada

Evidence Act is replaced by the following:

(2) No person is incompetent, or uncompellable, to testify for the prosecution by reason only that they are married to the accused.

It was always my expectation that the bit-by-bit weakening of the spousal immunity laws over the years would invariably lead to a total blanket overthrow of this legal protection from the creeping tyranny of statism. But it was not to be expected from the ‘Conservative’ Party of Canada in this Amendment to the Canada Evidence Act as part of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

The whole point of spousal immunity is to provide one corner in this gotcha dog-eat-dog social jungle, where a person can be psychologically naked, open and vulnerable and without inhibition, that is intimated in the very metaphor of sex. Having at least one venue of protected confidentiality is a primary contributor of mental health. Having at least one person, one can trust, can act as check against one’s own folly and even criminality.

However, it is not only a matter of psychological well-being. This yet another intrusion into the bedrooms of the nation, enervates the cohesion, unity and strength of the nation’s marriages, and by extension families. It attacks trust, which is the fundamental foundation to all social relationships. Indeed, emotive and erotic passion, is, in large part, a function of such trust. Spouses must now be courageous enough to suffer judicial penalties to protect the sanctity of their marriages.

By extension, it further diminishes the distinction between all-consuming, fierce loyalties of committed and united lovers from the mindset behind atomistic hook-up sex culture. It undermines its very raison d’être for getting married.

It extends that late Roman Empire policy of pitting every man to spy on their neighbour and every man to distrust his neighbour into the very midst of erotic union. It brings to mind the state exploitation of the Hitler Youth, to report on their parents. It furnishes yet another statist assault on the private civic entities, which can provide checks against this encroaching totalitarian Leviathan.

Yes. I know that there exists this half-wit, self-righteous form of conservatism of the Vic Toews and Britain’s William Hague who pontificate that “the law-abiding citizen has nothing to be worried about”. However, this obtuse form of conservatism is ignorant of history. Even cursory perusal of Quebec politics should disabuse such a notion. It presumes the virtue of the judicio-political authorities. But why should anyone think that the propensity to folly and foible in humanity becomes transformed upon entrance into public service or that the governors will not use such overriding of immunities for less than noble ends?

The ‘Conservative’ Party of Canada has sought to radically reduce judicial discretion in sentencing because of radically widespread inconsistencies, which undermine the moral authority of justice. Does it now wish to sic these judges on married couples; giving judicial discretion as to what constitutes a valid and acceptable violation of marital confidentiality? Does the notion of rational consistency ever creep into their caucus meetings?

This type of policy emanates from the simple-mindedness of single-issue morons, who cannot balance in their mind, more than one consideration at a time.

First of all, it is the last vestiges of a very antiquated area of the law.

Peter Mackay, Justice Minister, April 7, 2014

What a curious and sophomoric argument from a ‘conservative’. The agedness or newness of a principle or attitude surely has little correlation to its virtue. Should we also abrogate democracy, rule of law, chain of command, principles of justice and due process and other concepts and practices that gave rise to Western civilization, because of their antiquarian pedigree?
Such “first of all” modernist arguments can only emanate from the arrogant stupidity of a pampered child of hardier ancestors who fought to extract such restraints on statist overreach. In what way exactly has human nature or the sociopolitical dynamics of societies changed over the last couple hundreds of years, to justify such a sophomoric sophistry?

♦     ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦

I, as committed Evangelical, cultural conservative, and small-r republican, social contract libertarian, find it difficult to comprehend any silence from the Conservative Party’s religious supporters. It is too important an issue to disregard and comply with. Any professed Christian, Jewish or Muslim adherent, who fails to remonstrate against this spousal immunity provision, is unfaithful to a primary concept of marriage within their own Holy Writ; namely of the one-flesh oneness of spouses, which this abrogation undermines.

I, as committed Evangelical, cultural conservative, and small-r republican, social contract libertarian, will defy this law, if called upon; in the name of a Christian, even universal (i.e. pagan Roman, Babylonian) understanding of the ingredients, necessary to marriage.

I cannot conceive how this abrogation represents any normalized and healthy form of conservatism? Conservatism has traditionally sought to strengthen the civil intermediaries between state and individual as a bulwark against statism; whereas Rousseauian liberalism reduces all civic intermediaries to become adjuncts and executors of the public will. And the 20th Century is full of examples of the atrocities of this latter mindset.

This provision is every bit statist sentiment as those of their liberal statist counterparts, which conservatives rail about. It is not conservative in any sense. Those, who have true conservative and/or theist sentiments, should at minimum, sit on their hands and let this monstrosity of a conservative party pass into the ash heap of history.


Politics of Sex and Marriage – Preamble

If marriage and family are in states of dysfunction, deterioration and deviance, the fault lies not in the Estate. If marriage is in decline, so is intellectual integrity, the state of mind and culture, concern for neighbours and for the common good, social cohesion, the state of free market economies, public finances, political will and wisdom, justice, the vitality and virtue of the Christian Church, etc. There exists an underlying demise of ethics and ethos that pollutes, corrupts, corrodes, erodes and destroys all endeavours and social entities in which ethical conduct and attitudes are integral and important.

To fault marriage or its ‘traditional’ principles is akin to claiming friendship as being now obsolete and flawed because contemporaries reduce friendship to networking; means of self-advancement and self-aggrandizement. Or that many abandon friends in a lurch or when they falter or undergo foul weather. Or that many ‘friends’ betray.

However, that greater concern exceeds the scope of this enterprise. The thesis of this project proposes that another reason for marital deterioration is the enervating and detrimental effects of external interference upon this most private estate and mini-society. In almost clearly delineated historical succession, external interference emanated from family lineages, ecclesiastical organizations and now civic authorities. Although the notions and principles upheld by these entities are often sound, the overall effects of coercive intrusions on the independent autonomy of the participants of marriage or on the Estate itself, whether in negation or in ‘positive’ role, always weakens and spawns travesty and deterioration.

Obviously writing in the context of an apparent winding down of the same-sex marriage debate in the last remaining bastions of resistance in the West; the terms of that debate has been framed in simple-minded mantra and muddle-headed reason by both factions. Contrary to the self-delusional propaganda that legalizing same-sex marriage constitutes a liberalization of the institution in the name of individual autonomy and civic equality, it is as much a detrimental intrusion upon the Estate of Marriage as every other element, foisted by Enlightenment liberalism.

I would contend that marriage more properly belongs to those non-enumerated, inalienable Rights (Ninth Amendment) upon which civic authority shall make no law respecting (First Amendment). And although a purist implementation of non-interference of marriage is practicably impossible, as has been found for all inalienable Rights; wisdom recommends that external authorities should strive to minimalize intrusive regulation over the Estate.

These are not mere echoes of libertarian sentiments, although I will not deny a personal desire to self-govern, free from mediocre notions imposed by Lilliputians. But these sentiments are accompanied by concerns that the imposition of any single vision about marriage upon society and all factions within it, by either hard legal proscriptions or soft economic incentives/disincentives, constitutes social tyranny that is bound to unravel social cohesion and disturb the civic peace. The same-sex marriage issue becomes just another flashpoint in an accumulating bag of flashpoints of a hitherto cold Kulturkampf (culture war).

Sexuality and this most intimate of interpersonal relationships are of profound importance to the individual person. A mutinous resentment to external interference will be more acute in this aspect of human existence than in others, even economic affairs. But the importance of sexuality and conjugal relationships, contrary to the obtuse and ill-informed assertions of social and religious conservatives, is not as immediately threatening to the survivability, viability and prosperity (in the greatest sense of that term) of society and the state. The noticeable decline of the family in ancient Rome (1st Century B.C.), for instance, preceded Rome’s social chaos and political crisis by four centuries (3rd Century A.D.). However, civic discord, caused by the arrogant folly of factions attempting to impress their interests and consciences upon all others, whether they be secular and liberal or religious and conservative, does pose a grave and immediate threat to civic unity and peace.

Explicit legalization of same-sex marriage or even its prohibition threatens social cohesion and peace, which will become more apparent in years to come. For, contrary to the self-deluded belief and propaganda by same-sex advocates, who modeled their campaign on the coattails of the black civil rights movement, this issue will not go away. Unless there is a complete collapse of the conservative and religious faction; like the Roe v Wade issue, it will remain a divisive and schismatic bone of contention.

Black civil rights ultimately triumphed, largely because both Bible and Constitution was on its side. Despite hermeneutical contortionism by same-sex advocates, the Bible is consistent and clear about its perspective on sexual relations between same sexes. Unless a sect or denomination is already in self-destruct mode, compromising or capitulating on this issue cannot be but seen as tantamount to the existential annihilation of the vitality, orthodoxy and viability of that denomination.

Legalization of same-sex marriage indirectly threatens the constitutional and inalienable right to belief and conscience, to expression of belief and assembly; amongst other considerations. Expectation, that encroaching statist governments and social opprobrium with economic and sociopolitical consequences will cripple the livelihoods of religious and conservative factions, cannot help but result in social and civic tumult. Most, who purport to be Christians, are not pacifistic. And history finds that the insidious motions of human nature tend to undermine and overcome, even religious beliefs and spiritual values for most; even pre-existing pacifist belief.

The problem is less about same-sex marriage. Rather the problem lies in the arrogant folly of any external entity to zealously define and legislatively regulate the Estate; or to be given the right to define and legislatively regulate the Estate. Attempts at increasingly minutiae regulation of marriage has historically only caused uproar, ultimately brought disgrace to the external entity that attempted it, led to travesties and some atrocities, and devastated the state of marriages and collaterally families. It is utter stupidity and madness for modern busybodies to attempt to repeat the same mistakes and expect different outcomes.

Copyright © 2013 John Hutchinson

Post Navigation