Where is Marriage Headed?

If you only go by what the activists, and much of the mainstream media, are saying you could be forgiven for thinking that the whole world is wildly in favour of same-sex marriage, and that most of the world has in fact been there and done that. One could be excused for thinking that most countries already allow homosexuals to marry.

Such is the propaganda value of the militant homosexual lobby and their MSM supporters. They create the impression that there is a steamroller of support under way, and soon the entire world will have homosexual marriage. While it certainly is true that the homosexual lobby and their media pals are doing their best to steamroll this issue through, the reality is a bit different.

In truth, there are actually very few countries which have legalised same-sex marriage. At last count there were only ten nations around the world which have gone down this path. Given that there are some 200 or so nations in existence, this is a very tiny minority indeed.

The math is very simple. What we are talking about so far is a mere five per cent of all nations which have embraced this radical social experiment. While it is bad news for all those countries, it is hardly any sort of majority. The overwhelming majority of the world’s nations have not gone for this activist agenda.

And it should be borne in mind that many, if not most, of these nations which passed same-sex marriage legalisation did so because of activist judiciaries, and not because of the popular will of the people. It is most often the case that a handful of judges have brought in these very revolutionary social changes.

And it has been all rather recent in human history. The first nation to approve of same-sex marriage was the Netherlands, back in 2001. Holland was followed by Belgium in 2003, Spain in 2005, and Canada, also in 2005.

Iceland and Argentina, of all places, were the most recent nations to move in this direction, both in 2010. Also, in America a handful of states have legalised same-sex marriage as well, such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire.

It is not surprising that the US states which have moved in this direction are amongst the most politically progressive and liberal in the whole nation. And again, in most cases these decisions were due to the judgment of a very small number of unelected judges.

But the real story here is about all those places which have not legalised it, and/or have fought against it. The media tends not to play up these stories. But there have been a number of defeats for the homosexual lobby on this issue. For example just recently in France the Constitutional Council has ruled that there is no conflict between the current law banning homosexual marriage and the rights enshrined in the nation’s constitution.

Here is how the story has been reported: “France’s Constitutional Council, its highest court for constitution issues, ruled on Friday that the country’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is valid under French constitution.

“The definition was challenged by two lesbians who conceived children by artificial insemination and wanted to legally call their relationship a ‘marriage.’ They battled for rights reserved for married couples, including inheritance rights and joint custody. The case was passed to the Council by the French Court of Cassation in November and the court decision was issued on Friday.

“The Council ruled that the ‘difference in situations of same-sex couples and couples made up of a man and a woman … can justify a difference in treatment concerning family rights.’ The panel’s decision was supported by two articles in France’s civil code ‘in conformity with the constitution’ that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, reported the Globe and Mail.”

If you have not heard about that recent decision, it is not surprising. The MSM will happily give a victory for homosexual activists front-page coverage, but any setbacks or defeats are either relegated to a few inches of column space in the back pages of the paper, or are not covered at all.

Consider also the number of American states which have passed legalisation declaring marriage to be only between a man and a woman. At a recent count, around 43 – out of 50 – US states have passed such laws. This includes some 30 constitutional amendments. And in California the will of the people reversed the decision of some activist judges.

Finally, we need to be reminded of a few fundamental truths here. Mere numbers alone do not determine if something is right or wrong. Majorities can and do err. As has been said, we do not have a right to do that which is wrong. Given the overwhelming importance of heterosexual marriage to individuals, to society, and to children, we should look beyond just numbers and trends.

Indeed, even if every nation on earth did opt for same-sex marriage, one still has to ask if this is right, proper and in society’s best interests. Mere numbers alone cannot determine this. Recall that at one point almost all nations were in favour of human slavery. Sometimes all or most nations can be morally adrift.

And of course over time things can change – for good or for ill. Some of the nations which have same-sex marriage today may repeal their laws tomorrow, as took place, for example, in California. So this supposed “tidal wave of support” for same-sex marriage needs to be looked at a bit more closely.

While the activists are certainly doing their best to create such a tidal wave, for the moment the great majority of nations are not falling for it. How this pans out in the future remains to be seen. As always, vigilance is the order of the day.


[983 words]