Brave New World of Marriage

Being somewhat of a traditionalist I am saddened when an institution is changed or marginalised (for no good reason). Even though I am an atheist I still respect the history and allure of the Church. Many men have been motivated to perform great deeds by her tenets. I still have a soft spot for the Crown and the time-honoured controls that we place on that office. Commonwealth countries benefit from the civility and identity that the Crown bestows upon them. Many in the United States, with her shared history, have adopted the Crown as a symbol of the Mother Country. It should, then, be no surprise that I do not agree with the changes in definition of the institution of marriage.

We are all individuals with our own hopes and aspirations for a happy and successful life. Far be it for me to promote the use of governmental force against those who practice a non-traditional lifestyle. Live and let live is the only reasonable position I can perceive. Relationships between human beings exist for as many reasons as there are people. Companionship, dependence, fear, love, money and tradition are all compelling reasons why people choose to bond with each other.

The fundamental reason for a union between a man and a woman is survival of the species. We must procreate or die off. Perhaps science will find a way to dramatically extend our life spans, but in the mean time we must reproduce as we always have. The institution of Marriage has for centuries been our solution for Man’s endurance on this Earth. It is a tradition with great merit that has stood the test of time. It has many subsidiary benefits as well; a stable environment to raise children, protection against sexually transmitted disease, the support of pooled resources and the passing on of inherited wealth. Marriage has been interwoven with history, giving families a sentiment of pride and glory. It allows individuals to have a sense of continuity with the past and a base of support to affect the future. Why would anyone want to change such a force for good in our lives?

We can garner the answer from history as with most modern conundrums. The individualist philosophy that predominated during the 18th century Enlightenment has suffered two hundred years of persistent and innovative attacks. The great parliamentary traditions of Great Britain that have been transplanted throughout the world matured under the tutelage of this period. The Constitution of the United States began here. The oligarchic enemies of individualism have schemed and plotted the destruction of the enlightenment ever since.

Who are these enemies? Who stands to lose from the evolution of the sovereign individual? Could it be those who wield the power of the state and those that benefit from that power? Make no mistake; these Stateists have been very clever in their reaction. They have invented many arguments with which to enhance the power of the state and assail the individual. This was no easy task, as the Aristotelian logic of the Enlightenment is grounded in reality and cannot be defeated without contradiction. This did not deter them however; they merely dispensed with reality and used reason’s antithesis emotion as their tool of persuasion.

The Stateists began with state sponsored religion as a primary method of control. One only has to look at the Province of Quebec in Canada as an example of the use of religion to enhance centralized political and cultural manipulation that lasted well into the 1950’s. But non-hierarchical religions can lead to decent and are not suited to centralized control.

Philosophy became the new battleground in the 19th Century. With the twisted coils of Emanuel Kant’s theories, reality became a figment of one’s imagination. William James’ work professing pragmatism was able to dispensed with principles and form the underlying foundation for modern political movements in the 20th Century. With reality gone and principles viewed as a form of mental illness the world was ripe for a flood of political “isms” that were to lead to untold suffering. Global Socialism or Communism, Racist Socialism or Nazism, Anarchism or Nihilism and the subtlest movement; the Mixed Market Economy all are founded to enhance the power of the state and assail the individual.

What has all this got to do with the institution of Marriage one might ask? In order to understand why there is pressure to change the definition of Marriage one must understand the mindset of those who wish to change it. Marriage (and the resulting family connections) is the buttress of individualism and self-reliance in the world today. It is an obstacle to centralised state control and thus has come under attack by stateists.

The state is determined to become the paternal overlord of many aspects of our lives. Most modern stateists support an incremental approach to the destruction of individual rights. They will tolerate enough freedom to pay the bills and keep people from going to the barricades.

Marriage is to become no more than a financial arrangement sanctioned by the state. It will no longer serve as the potential bastion of the individual and anchor one’s place in history. It will be open to or forced on any combination of people. Many think that the new definition has something to do with homosexuals wishing to call their relationships a marriage. While they are included in the new definition it is preposterous to presume the State will care if one has a sexual relationship in order to be married. It is the destruction of the historical tradition of marriage that is important. An example of how traditional marriage will be debased is the new single purpose marriage that might look something like this:

John and James went to school together and shared an apartment. Upon graduation John obtained employment with a large unionised firm, which had a generous spousal benefits program. James wished to extend his education by obtaining a Masters degree so he remained a student. On his way to school James falls and breaks his leg and must have months of expensive therapy to recover. John and his girlfriend feel sorry for James so they go to the Internet and download the latest do-it-yourself marriage kit and presto John and James are married. The spousal benefits flow to James as long as he requires the convalescent care. Once James is back to normal John simply downloads the do-it-yourself divorce Kit and ends the financial arrangement.

The new single purpose marriage will have a dramatic impact on all forms of spousal benefits. Since the cost of benefits will then rise out of reach for most people, the government will claim the high ground and step in to make them equally available to all. Of course taxes will have to be raised to pay for the new infrastructure and the power of the state is enhanced once more.

The institution of Marriage is debased and becomes a convenient legal manoeuvre for the extraction of financial benefits. The historical impact of Marriage on our culture and our Country will be changed into the Brave New World of State control. It is not hard to follow the logical conclusion that will accompany the destruction of the tradition of marriage – Just read Huxley!