Sunday, 7 July 2013

The 'Redefinition' of Marriage is its Abolition

What is a marriage?

Catholic teaching on Matrimony's purpose is known and clear. Catholic teaching on Marriage is that it is the union of man and woman - two loving souls forming one flesh and a single undivided nature. The natural end of this perfectly sound definition of marriage is that of love overflowing into reception of the gift of new life and for this love to share its nature among new persons within a family.

In our times, this definition is being challenged across the West. So, instead, let's go by a generic secular acceptable definition of two individuals wishing to enter a contract which expresses their mutual exclusive love and sexual fidelity. Does that sound about right?

This new definition is proposing that two people of the same-sex should be permitted and recognised in law as having a mutual exclusive commitment? Yes? Do you believe in this definition? Well guess what - you've been duped! What's all this 'love and commitment' stuff? Surely you've seen the SSM legislation?

The legislation must be read in order for it to be properly understood and in these times, few, even in the Press are rigorously going through the actual legislation. Primarily this civil contract will not recognise, acknowledge, confirm or endorse the following:

Any mutual recognition between partners: Let alone short or long-term loving recognition prior to the ceremony there need not be any mutual recognition between 'spouses'. Yes - incredibly - both partners do not even need to know each other or even to have met each other before the ceremony (presumably unless immigration get involved).

Co-habitation: The same-sex spouses do not need to interact on any level - even on the same continent - before or after the ceremony - only during [and even then there is a proxy service].

Sexual activity/Consummation: Even if one were to define this merely as as genital activity, it is neither a criterion nor a pre-requisite for marriage to have taken place.

Sexual Fidelity: In this legislation, each partner may engage in sexual activity with any other person or any amount of persons of the same sex and this will not legally compromise or jeopardise the marital contract. Adultery will not be a formal legal concept for this new brand of 'marriage'? The only sexual criteria within same-sex marriage is that a partner can sue for divorce should their spouse engage in sexual activity with a person of the opposite sex. Confused? The only commitment a homosexual makes in 'same-sex marriage' is an oath of fidelity to maintain their homosexual activity and never try 'batting for the other team'.

Is this marriage? Can it be recognised as such? Would those who came before us recognise anything of marriage in this legislation? Of course, it is no such thing. Behind this new vision of marriage is something perhaps even more sinister since it frames these bizarre concepts in the State's vision of marriage.

For example, it is actually going to be illegal to make those vows of mutual exclusive sexual fidelity - and because it's illegal for 'same-sex couples', in order for true 'marriage equality' it is by implication going to be made illegal for heterosexual couples as well - and thus marriage will be abolished.

European Law [Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights in the European Union] states that although 'same-sex marriage' is within the remit of the State upon which to legislate - if it does exist - it must be absolutely equal under the law. Technically, therefore, what exactly is 'same sex marriage' in legal terms?

The only extended 'right' gained from SSM rather than a Civil Partnership is automatic joint custody and parental rights over any children involved. That has massive legal ramifications in itself and, already, 'parent 1 and parent 2' is replacing 'mother and father' everywhere on official documentation. This is, however, a mere exigent to the real problem.

The real problem is the State's legal recognition of what 'same-sex marriage' is. This 'redefinition' cannot touch anything in marriage without destroying its essence. One issue was, for example, consummation and in order for 'same-sex marriage' to be passed through the House of Commons this hurdle had to be eliminated. It could not be modified. It had to be eliminated. Obviously, our parliamentarians could have been intellectually honest and could have replaced the idea of 'consummation' with 'exclusive mutual masturbatory intimacy' but they, in their rush to deny that there could be any conflict between 'same-sex' and real marriage, decided otherwise.

In the 'same-sex marriage' legislation there is no recognition of any mutual understanding between partners to exclusive sexual fidelity. Partners do not need to know each other, live with each other, love each other or be sexually active with or faithful to each other. Indeed, the only sexual promise a homosexual makes within the proposed marriage vows will be to not engage in any sexual activity with a memberof the opposite sex. Bizarrely, this forbids old-fashioned 'consummation' outside the marriage as it invalidates the marriage contract and are thus grounds for divorce. 'Same-sex marriage' is technically an oath to maintain one's practised homosexuality.

Now, at present there are many husbands and wives suing their spouses for divorce on grounds of adultery - grounds which are impossible for the 'same-sex couple' in similar infidelity circumstances (unless one party was on the receiving end of a heterosexual 'betrayal').

Remember that European law states that marriages must be equal. Ergo, the principles of consummation, mutual exclusive sexual fidelity and adultery will be eliminated from all forms of marriage to conform to the SSM-legislation. We are not being told this by the mainstream media or those who we are governing the nation.

A spouse will no longer be able to be granted an annulment for non-consummation, nor will he or she be able to sue for divorce for adultery because once European law has been enforced, the universalised civil marriage vows they make will not include any recognisition of mutually exclusive sexual fidelity.

Now, for Catholics and for any sane person's understanding of marriage, including the vast majority of same-sex couples who want to be 'married', the law is now going to technically thwart and prohibit them from making the natural, common-sense vows they wish to make when entering marriage - the mandatory aspects which define marriage.

The State technically acts under the principle of non-clandestinity. In other words, the State is the legal Witness to the vows of mutual exclusive bonding. Now, however, in this new arrangement, the State wishes to solely act as the witness or guarantor of the exigent legal aspects of marriage - but not marriage itself.

In the new vision of marriage, the State is technically forbidding the recognition of marriage as any vows are legally worthless. Ironically, the Government hasn't realised this and, almost certainly, one of the first laws to be cast aside by Europe will be the 'sex with the opposite sex grounds for divorce' in the 'same-sex marriage' law. I ask you, what is more absurd than a law which when legislated for will abolish itself? Marriage is being abolished and replaced with a 'rights for those who are married' scenario. Yes, this is absurd, but let us not be under any illusions. That is what is going to happen.

Previously, Catholics could materially co-operate with civil marriage as it endorsed (witnessed/was guarantor for) marriages for those who sought to be married. There was still grave immorality in the civil marriage law in that one could divorce, the divorced could remarry and this contradicts the Church's vision of marriage. What this arrangement did not do was to thwart marriage entirely. It did not prevent what Catholics determine as mandatory to validate a marriage. It did not prevent the vow of mutually exclusive sexual fidelity. Once this legislation is equalised and settles it will be thwarting it absolutely.

Baptised non-Catholics who underwent a civil marriage ceremony were validly married as they made that  in the presence of the State as witness. If this legislation and subsequent European equalisation is enacted then they will in future be forbidden from making that specific vow - therefore the Church cannot recognise that marriage as valid until they die together and are radically sanated.

This thwarting of marriage and the prevention of recognition of vows turns an already unjust Civil Marriage law into an intrinsically unjust law. Yet again, we have the absurdity of a marriage law that stops people from making marriage promises. This is gravely unjust. The Catholic Church expressly forbids co-operation with an intrinsically unjust law (Evangelium Vitae 73.2 & the CDF's clarification in 'considerations' make this clear). Parliament is at this moment crossing the rubicon. Previously, they scandalised marriage with Civil Partnerships, but now, now they will be wilfully preventing it.

Now here's the big problem. The Church cannot stand by and allow a law that prevents those able to be married from being validly married (i.e forbidden from making marriage vows). This doesn't merely mean the Church will eventually have to remove itself from the civil marriage process and perform religious ceremonies which will have to be legally confirmed in a separate civil ceremony.

It means that Catholics - as they are forbidden from conspiring and co-operating with an intrinsically unjust law - will not be allowed to go through the civil marriage process at all! Civil Marriage ceremonies for Catholics will be banned by the Church as they intrinsically prevent marriage for baptised non-Catholics. In this new situation we cannot in conscience condone or co-operate with the State.

And here is an even bigger problem. You might think, 'Oh well that just means Catholics will no longer be able to go through a civil marriage but they can still have a Church marriage - they can still be married in the eyes of God and the State can go forth and multiply.' Er no - it doesn't! Article 95 of the 1949 Marriage Act forbids clandestinity. In other words, it is a criminal offence to undergo a religious marriage ceremony without undergoing a civil marrage as well.

Nobody seems to be getting the ramifications of this law and above all, the people of the United Kingdom are not being told what it all means. Catholics are on the brink of being forbidden from getting married. The Church forbids co-operation with an intrinsically unjust civil marriage ceremony that denies marriage to those seeking it vows of mutually exclusive fidelity and the State has made it a criminal offence to solely have a Church marriage without its civil counterpart.

Is there a way out?

Maybe the Vatican could endorse a Church marriage as a national civil marriage under the auspices of the Holy See? Perhaps, but nobody seems to be considering - let alone discussing - this potential looming nightmare and the implications of what is certainly the abolition of marriage in the making.

Once state recognition of 'vows to mutual exclusive fidelity' is universally invalidated by the enforcement of European 'equalisation laws' to make all marriage follow the remit of the
provisional 'same-sex marriage' legislation it will certainly stop those who can marry from being validly married. This will include both baptised non-Catholics and non-baptised couples who remain together unto death. This is, therefore, an intrinsically unjust law with which we are forbidden to co-operate under the Church's law. Despite this, the law makes it impossible to marry without co-operating. Therefore the Government will be technically both abolishing marriage and banning the last residual real marriage (with valid vows) for Catholics.

We have to try and stop this abolition of marriage! We must stop talking of this as the 'redefinition' of marriage and describe its effect by its real name. This is abolition. We must stop referring to this as mere 'redefinition' as if this is a scandalous immoral extension of a marital contract to those who cannot be married - as if it's similar to the divorced remarrying. We are not talking about 'equal marriage' for anyone. We are talking about the abolition of marriage for everyone!


  1. "The 'Redefinition' of Marriage is its Abolition"

    In a way marriage was already abolished by the welfare system. They pay whores to stay unmarried. Have a kid out of wedlock, and stay unmarried, and you get a salary from uncle same even if you're living with a man. Just so long as they don't get married, the woman in a living in sin relationship can draw a salary from your tax money for nothing else than having a kid and refusing to marry her baby-daddy.

  2. SuperTradMum,
    "The 'Redefinition' of Marriage is its Abolition"
    Thanks for this!
    Is it possible for you to pinpoint in the legislation where these anomalies actually occur (page, paragraph, titles, numbers etc) so I can identify them and forward to my MP, who is fast asleep? I am not legally minded at all and find the reading of these documents unbelievably difficult!!
    Many thanks!


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...