Quo Vadis?

Well, it’s finally happened. “Civil unions” has morphed to include three people. The BBC recently ran a story about a notary who issued a licence authorizing a union between a man and two women in Sao Paulo, Brazil. “Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues has said the man and two women should be entitled to family rights” the BBC reported. “She says there is nothing in law to prevent such an arrangement.” She’s right of course. When the definition of marriage no longer means a union between one man and one woman, it can mean anything, theoretically. Why not? Ms. Domingues is simply following the idea to its logical conclusion. And if one man/two women, why not two men/three women?

When marriage can mean anything, it ultimately means nothing. In that case “marriage” means whatever I say it means. When we’ve arrived at that point then marriage as a meaningful institution is, for all practical purposes, dead. When marriage dies, then the family dies and when the family dies, then society dies. The family, defined as a mother, father and their children, is the basic building block of society. But when the ‘cement’ that holds that building block together, namely marriage, dissolves, the whole edifice collapses because the ‘building block’ has lost its integrity. That’s where we are now as a society. Night is falling. The walls are crumbling. A hundred years from now, or maybe much sooner, marriage and family will be a footnote in history books. For progressives, marriage is an oppressive, medieval institution destined to go the way of feudalism, which cannot happen fast enough.