Was that fastest or fascist?

Sometimes pointing out certain truths seems unhelpful--particularly when discussing the homosexual "marriage campaign, which at the time of this writing is rocking the nation. To note that same-sex "marriage" is the consequence of contraception is not particularly helpful, but admittedly it puts the present crisis in context: after 38 years of legal contraception and 36 years of legal abortion, really, does this latest aberration come as a surprise? All the ingredients were there: a population that had long ago ceased to understand the real meanings of sex, love, and marriage, a widespread disregard for the sanctity of human life and the beauty of motherhood, and the trivialization of true masculinity.

But on the helpful side, after penning letters to our MPs, we would all do well to write our bishops, to thank them for their leadership. Most noteworthy is Edmonton's Archbishop Thomas Collins, whose masterful refutation of the flawed arguments used to defend same-sex "marriage" is a must-read (see the Western Catholic Reporter's website).

Calgary's Bishop Fred Henry's characteristically forthright style brought acrimony swiftly on his head. Responding angrily to his observation that "since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution, and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good" were homosexual couple Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell who, on www.samesexmarriage.com, excoriated the bishop for his "toxic and prejudiced preaching." Besides which, they wrote, Bishop Henry's point that the battle is not about same-sex marriage, but rather, "the goal is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society's rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance" is in fact true. "We know from firsthand experience, as we've documented in our book Just Married, that gay marriage is leading Canadians towards acceptance of homosexuality," enthuse the two.

Bishop Henry has been "compared to a fascist" (by whom, they do not say), the reason being that he has "a shared love of coercive power." (Well, ask any pro-life activist who's been dragged away from an abortion clinic and thrown into the crowbar hotel about coercive power, and who really loves it.) Now, fascism is one of those unhelpful words, but it is a word, and has a meaning. How does one recognize fascism, or proclivities thereof?. Catholic politician Rocco Buttiglione, a close friend of Pope John Paul II, spoke recently on the matter (his remarks, given at the Sixth Congress on Catholics and Public Life, can be found on godspy.com).

Mr. Buttiglione was rejected for the position of commissioner of the European Union for, as he put it, "expressing my Catholic beliefs on sexuality and marriage" at the confirmation hearing. Worryingly, his experience has now established that "a Catholic who says that perhaps it is possible that homosexuality is a sin can be discriminated against" in the Europe of today. He quoted "that expert on totalitarianism," Benito Mussolini, who wrote "that fascism is the political expression of the most modern currents of contemporary philosophy, that is to say, of relativism. Because if there is not an objective truth that we must respect, then each individual will have the right to utilize whatever power he has: physical power, intellectual power, the power to manipulate through media communications, in order to impose on others his vision of the world. And this is not what we consider to be democracy. This is the beginning of totalitarianism."

Mr. Buttiglione also warned that "today, the family is the subject most discriminated against in Europe." Europe also faces a campaign to legalize same-sex marriage, he noted, but "this is not the problem. The problem is the abolition of marriage." While opposed, naturally, to unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons, he sees no reason for the state to "sustain" or grant "social relevance" to domestic arrangements that do not have "a social function." The homosexual couple "is not a family. It is something different from a family. And to say that everything is a family is to say that nothing is a family."

Back in Canada, it is not unreasonable to suppose that, should "same-sex marriage" be legalized on grounds that it is a human right, the coercive power of the state will be called upon to enforce that right, despite what the Liberals say about protecting religious freedom. But, as Archbishop Thomas Collins pointed out, "same-sex marriage" is not a matter of human rights, and despite Paul "I'll-defend-the-Charter" Martin's histrionics, marriage legitimately remains moored in un-Chartered waters. Writes Archbishop Collins: "Marriage and the family form a natural community which is more fundamental than the artificial community that is the state. The state has no authority to change a society more fundamental than itself."

So what would you call a state that abused its authority and made use of raw power in order to enforce an arbitrary and unnatural legal definition of marriage? Well, that would be a state with alarmingly fascistic tendencies, to put it mildly--but it's probably not that helpful to say so, is it?

Lianne Laurence write from Burnaby, BC, and is the author of the fascinating book Borowski: A Canadian Paradox.