Axioms to grind.

So this guy comes out of the liquor store with a case of beer, only to be accosted by a beggar. The man thinks for a moment, then pulls out a bottle and hands it to the mendicant, saying, "Eliminate the middle man." The phrase came to mind as I read press coverage of the Liberals' attempt to draft legislation to codify homosexual, um, relationships as marriages. That homosexual relations could form the basis for marriage is ontologically impossible, but what is curious, and I would venture to say, unprecedented in the history of our august dominion is the federal government's handling of the affair. The Liberals did not appeal the Ontario Supreme Court ruling that homosexual persons have the right to marry--each other, that is. Instead, they drafted a bill, which purportedly legalizes "same-sex marriages", and referred that to the Supreme Court for approval.

Am I missing something here? Why not just invite the guys and gals in the groovy gowns up to the Hill to write the wretched bill? The next thing you know, the Supreme Court has fobbed off the parliamentarians. Certainly, it would be heinous if the politicians were able to meddle in the doings of the impartial Court! No, the judges issued an order that they would not expedite "the case"--what case, I say?--on "gay marriage" (National Post, Aug.2/03). Well, no matter who writes it, this bill will be noxious crap; now there is time to lobby MPs, who apparently will have a free vote on the matter. In the meantime, homosexual persons who so choose, in Ontario at least, can be pronounced legally wed--to each other, that is. Things just get weirder.

Having the Supreme Court vet draft legislation is judicial activism, a.k.a. Charter politics, taken to its dismal but logical conclusion. Despite Madame Justice Bev McLachlin's assurances to the contrary, the judges rule--this time, at the direct behest of the politicians. No doubt there are those among these latter who will have the courage to oppose the bill, when it finally arrives in Parliament. They need our support.

Speaking of taking things to their logical conclusion, what is this whole sorry mess--I speak of the drive to recognize "gay marriage"--but the fruit of our society's wholesale acceptance of contraception. Whoa, you may say, leaping logic or what? It's axiomatic that if sex is willfully and deliberately severed from procreation and pursued for pleasure solely, it becomes a rapacious and howling monster, seeking to devour all it will. Sound too dire? I don't think so. Lust, it has been observed, demands infinity. The truth of our sexuality is rooted in our very nature; some misuses of sex are worse than others. Fornication is gravely immoral, but it's not unnatural, whereas masturbation and sodomy are. (I once heard it said that homosexual activity "de-natures" a person.) The use of contraception? A radical violation of the integrity of the sex act--this last, a bitter bill for many, Catholics included, to swallow. (These, I must add, are objective moral norms; subjective culpability can be mitigated for a number of reasons.)

The question then arises, what does all this have to do with civil society? It is axiomatic that Christianity does not need democracy, but democracy needs Christianity, or more accurately, it needs Catholicism. (See Jacques Maritain, Christianity and Democracy, and John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, just for a start.) Western democracy, with its undoubted debt to Enlightenment thought, invests heavily in natural rights. These indeed pack a punch liberty, equality before the law, pursuit of happiness few would argue against such precepts. But, natural law? No, the Enlightenment boys, intoxicated as they generally were with high humanism, weren't so keen on the notion that man, by his very nature, is subject to a law--written on his heart, no less--that he contravenes to his peril.

It was, and is, left to the Catholic Church to proclaim what it is to be fully human. The Church cannot but point out that any putative democracy that passes laws in contravention of the natural law no longer exercises its legitimate authority, which derives from God, but moves into the use of raw power (cf Evangelium vitae, #72.) This is particularly evident with regards to legalized abortion. Arguably, the legalization of same-sex "marriages" is not in the same league as the horrific and barbaric state-sanctioned killing of unborn children, but it does constitute, as the Vatican has pointed out, a grave threat to the civil order.

Living as we do in a society collectively devastated by the misuse of sex, with the majority of people therefore utterly confused about the truth and meaning of human sexuality, we will be hard pressed to make any appeal to natural law coherent to the modern mind. But guess what? We have to try. Please God that by His grace, we will achieve some success.

Lianne Laurence is a regular columnist, who writes from Calgary. Her biography of Joe Borowski will be out soon. Watch for it!