There is a mistaken perception that the only function of the law is to regulate behaviour and bring about retributive justice. However, the law has another very important function which is often overlooked. This is the pedagogical or teaching power of the law that compels human behaviour and, in this respect, the law should lead not follow society.
For example on the issue of the law regulating civil unions, the law should not just regulate the behaviour that is practiced by a certain sector of society but it should also lead in establishing norms or values of behaviour, those norms which society and the state would consider as beneficial for it for the establishment of the common good. The law is not a vassal of human behaviour but should also show people what the state and society wishes from them and how they should behave so that society is properly ordered and the common good brought about.
It is not in the interests of society and the state that the law regulating civil union is put on a par with marriage which reflects itself the differences in body complimentary and the power of procreation – differences that are natural and may not be erased without going against natural reason. Going against natural reason is never in the interests of the common good, as it breaks the reasons for our behaviour based on basic human goods, the foremost amongst which is practical reason. Acting outside reason is never in the interests of ordre public.
I have noticed that many members of the homosexual lobby – and also, unfortunately, members of the government – are seeing this law as just the first step towards the introduction of homosexual marriage. In fact, the law is already this in everything but name. The concept of taking the finger now so that later I can take the whole arm is a very unfortunate one, and one that does not contribute to an equal and fair playing field as far as honest political discussion is concerned. In effect, some people are saying that their agendas are different from ours, but since reason does not fit their picture as it does ours, they are going to be dishonest in their dealings with us because that is what suits them. Very utilitarian! This attitude really gets in the way of seeking real solutions to problems in society because the second party, having got wind of this and not wishing to be a pawn in a chess game, may simply refuse to seek genuine solutions that are rational and attainable, but will rather entrench itself in a position that could result in confrontation and stalemate!
A second example of where the compelling power of the law should be obvious is in the determination of citizenship. Citizenship should be conferred on those who have earned it, rather than those who have the money to buy it. Citizenship should not be reduced to a basic commodity to be bought and sold on the whims of the state, but should be conferred on those who earn it. Some earn it by birthright, some earn it through marriage, some earn it by hard work, but now some will buy it! There is something wrong in both the conceptual ethics here and also in the message that the state will be sending to those seeking citizenship. Citizenship should not only be an acquired right but should also be part of a responsible endeavour consonant with the contribution to the make-up of civil society and its concepts, built on its evident good.
For example, why should the state, in effect, decide that some millionaire in a detached part of the world merits membership of our society, rather than any of the poor immigrants that land on our shores penniless, having risked life and limb, many of whom are being granted political refugee status? The message given by the sale of citizenship is that our legal rights may be bought and sold at will and that therefore those rights are now worth nothing as they can be sold to the highest bidder – in effect signalling inequality rather than the equality that citizenship is supposed to confer on us!
It is, in effect, a return to a subtle slavery not very different from Roman times, when citizenship was not conferred on merit but could be bought and sold according to the whim of those in power and the financial circumstances of those who could afford it. What has happened to the concept of citizenship granting justice and equality, based on our natural rights and in turn based on natural reason and our basic good?
Again, something here does not tally with reason and when reason is the casualty, so is the good of society as a whole. Practical reason and the common good go hand-in-hand and are inseparable. Ethically, something about the whole matter stinks, especially in a small country like ours, where we could be setting events in motion without ever being able to put the clock back!
[email protected]