When Angela Merkel recently proposed changes to the marriage act in Germany, she immediately stated that there would be a free vote on the issue. The Germans are very wise when it comes to ethical discourse in politics and practise caution! We can learn much from them. It is because they have learnt the lesson the hard way and, after having descended into the depths of hell in the last world war, are very careful and open about allowing the existence of ethical spaces in political discourse.
The present legislation on changes to the Marriage Act currently before the House creates a situation which does anything but. First of all, it is a retrograde piece of legislation. It is retrograde because it goes against thousands, perhaps millions of years of human physical and social evolution. Man has always been born into a natural family and has always had a mother and a father who, for better or worse, has raised them. Our genetic parents give us a necessary social and genetic personal identity. This concept of family naturally becomes a norm incorporating the differences of gender important to the raising of family and the building of society. It becomes the norm. Now I understand that certain individuals constituting a clear minority may have contingent issues fitting into this norm as all individuals may have difficulties fitting into other norms of society. So society becomes understanding and makes it easier for these individuals to fit in the norm of society by creating legislation such as civil union. No problem with that. What society does not do, because even if legally possible it will never be physically possible, is try to remove the norm!
The Marriage Act changes being discussed in Parliament now actually tries to do this. Not only does it try to change the concept of marriage by applying it to homosexual couples which is unwise and has far-reaching consequences on society, but also actually removes all concepts of gender from legality. No mother, no father, no grandfather, no grandmother; just neutral free parents to fit the current political discourse. This is madness of the first order because instead of accommodating individuals with problems, we are simply trying to change a norm to make them feel more comfortable, at the same time relegating all who fit the norm. Instead of lifting everybody up, we are putting everybody down a couple of social degrees. Evolution and reason in reverse!
Last week I pointed out the dangers to children, fundamental human rights and the concept of a nuclear family by the present legislation, mostly by people who have never picked up a biology book in their life! The manifest dangers to the production of human products such as surrogacy or even worse are staring us in the face in the way the legislation is written! The consequences for educators in the future are also obvious! Many authors such as Aldous Huxley, Chesterton, George Orwell and others have tried to alert society to this issue.
Many people are asking me why bring up the issue now when the PN’s electoral manifesto clearly stated this objective during the electoral campaign. There are two reasons. First of all the PN leadership foisted this issue in the middle of the electoral campaign even though they knew many individuals in the PN and its supporters had their objections or doubts. They did so after the nominations for candidates had closed so there might not be issues there. This made it impossible and unrealistic to counter this measure, especially when other issues of governability were at stake during a political campaign. Secondly, our electoral programme was resoundingly rejected by the electorate so party members can now talk freely about this issue. I have always vociferously objected, advised caution to the party on this issue, and have written in the press several times about this! However now after the election, we are dealing with the issue in its singularity, an issue which cuts across the social and religious beliefs of many PN party faithful and supporters! Consequently, now is the time to speak.
I was surprised last week, as this had never happened to me in the PN, that I was invited to speak on the PN’s Radio 101. However, when the management realised what I was going to speak about, among other things, they promptly censored me and pulled the programme off the air giving some lame excuse. Now when the PN starts to censor people on their personal political opinion, the issue assumes a more serious and sinister dimension. It then became an issue of liberty of expression which induced me to speak out more vociferously. So here I am, 40 years in the PN having occupied various posts in the past and I am censored for speaking my mind on an issue I find very important not to say anything of my beliefs. This raises further questions about the way the PN’s media is run (Labour is much worse mind you)!
During the electoral campaign, I had issues convincing certain people to vote because of this very item in our electoral programme. I managed to convince some to vote because of the corruption issues. Some I did not manage to convince. Other voted for other parties more in line with their thoughts and beliefs, even parties with dangerous agendas. We in fact pushed them there ourselves. When things such as this issue of marriage come up and many people have very set beliefs on them, then one must be very careful about ramming things down their throats! I have objections to this legislation from purely rational ethical perspectives. However, both others and I have objections for purely religious matters too. Many Catholics and Christians vote for the PN as do others for other parties, which is as it should be! We believe however that God is family (Trinity, Father, Son and the maternal aspects of the Spirit) with obvious different personalities involved in community and common will. The Son on earth also had a mother and a foster father. We are created in that image as human beings; we also are family with different gender personalities reflecting that of God. The human nuclear family is a reflection of the Trinitarian reality of God! This is a very profound and fundamental Christian truth which knowingly or unknowingly pervades our society. Forcing people to accept the legal denial of this is causing problems and will cause further ones. People are not trees. Trees do not walk, people walk! If we do not respect fundamental aspects of thoughts or beliefs of our supporters, do not expect them to stay or vote for us! This also true if the PN wants to attract people from other faiths such as Muslims. This law would be anathema to them too as it would be to Jews! It is also anathema to people with no beliefs but who apply natural rational law!
I know that there are others in the PN who have a more liberal agenda. We have always co-existed for the purpose of the common good by respecting each other’s opinions, finding common ground and co-operating for the common good to bring our country forward. This is why there should be a free vote on the third reading of this infamous bill. Declaring a priori, that come what may, the PN will vote in favour of the third reading is ridiculous and disrespectful to many PN supporters and members! Only in this way can we counter the arrogance of the Labour Party which has bought off all its MPs with financial and power related perks. They are drunk with success and power and are an ethical basket case, but as in Mintoff’s cry of a century for Labour, or Hitler’s thousand-year Reich, the pendulum of political power swings and swings rather quickly! The PN’s job is to respect both existential lungs of its supporters and keep the essence of the party whole. Having lost the election it would have made infinitely more sense for the PN to give a free vote on this issue from the outset. The time, and I underline time, will come when people will be fed up and will look elsewhere for political inspiration. As someone I study well says, “Time is greater than space! Time is physically space’s fourth dimension, but socially superior in magnitude.”
[email protected]