Marriage - the Bigger Picture

It is not just practising Christians who should be vitally interested in the proposed national plebiscite on ‘same-sex ‘marriage’.  As the outcome of such a move would eventually affect the very foundation of this nation, Australians one and all should be concerned.

I see Andrew Bolt is more concerned, along with many another journalist, about the spat between the group of Christians and Turnbull than the proposed plebiscite:
“Turnbull vs Christians: which do you think is lying?”
But I don’t want to go into ‘who said what and when’, I am more interested in how the issue will eventually be played out for the Australian people to understand the real issues.

The practice of monogamy, the union between one man and one woman goes back much further than the two thousand years of Christianity.   Psychologist Kevin MacDonald in “Monogamy and the Uniqueness of European Civilization” quoting from to highlight the ‘uniqueness’ of monogamy in European Civilisation had this to say:

“… socially imposed monogamy was first established in ancient Greece and Rome, centuries before Christianity even existed. Greco-Roman laws prohibited any man from having more than one official wife at a time. It's true that forms of de-facto polygamy (e.g. concubinage, sex with slaves) continued to be tolerated in these societies. Nevertheless, anti-polygamy laws made Greco-Roman society relatively sexually egalitarian (Scheidel, 2009), because by preventing elite men from legally acquiring multiple wives, they improved the ability of lower-ranking men to acquire wives of their own. So by the time Christianity began spreading through the Roman Empire in the first centuries AD, monogamy was already well-established. But even though Christianity did not introduce socially imposed monogamy to the West, it did fully embrace this institution, and as noted above, it was this embracement that ultimately led to monogamy's spread throughout the Western world…”

As to the Christian concept of monogamy, marriage and family, Richard O’Sullivan KC in “The Christian Philosophy in the Common Law” explained:

“…Throughout the Middle Ages marriage was a sacrament, hallowed by the Church, and protected by the Courts Christian.  In the classical philosophy which was still current, the family (which is the source of life and being of men and of States) was recognised as a unit intermediate between the individual and the community.
“It is evident that a household is a mean between the individual and the City or Kingdom, since just as the individual is part of the household, so is the household part of the City or Kingdom.”

And the diverse ends of the individual and the family and the State were served by different sciences or kinds of prudence:

‘The individual good, the good of the family, and the good of the City and Kingdom are different ends.  Therefore there must needs be different species of prudence corresponding to these different ends, so that one is prudence simply so called, which is directed to one’s own good, another economics or domestic prudence which is directed to the common good of the home, and a third, politics or political prudence, which is directed to the common good of the State or Kingdom.’
‘The classical and Christian respect that was thus paid to the institution of marriage and the family was a marked feature of medieval life in England and gave rise to the saying which is older than its expression in Semayne’s case that ‘an Englishman’s home is his castle.’
More than once even in modern times the highest courts have recognised the father’s undoubted right ‘as master of his own house, asking and ruler in his own family, to enforce his command by his own authority within his own domain.’

‘The Common Law,’ said Lord Atkin, one of the greatest of the English judges of our time, in 1919, ‘does not regulate the form of agreements between spouses (living in amity). Their promises are not sealed with seals and sealing wax.  The consideration that really obtains for them is that natural love and affection which counts for little in these cold courts.  The terms may be repudiated, varied or renewed as performance proceeds or as disagreements develope and the principles of the Common Law as to exoneration and discharge and accord and satisfaction are such as find no place in the domestic code.  The parties themselves are advocates, judges, Court, Sheriff’s officer and reporter. 
In respect of these promises, each house is a domain into which the King’s writ does not seek to run, and to which his officers do not seek to be admitted.’…”

Yes, yes gentle reader, I know that times have changed and attitudes have changed towards women’s roles and place in society, but that is another issue for another day.  The point I wish to emphasise is that the traditional concept of marriage between a man and a woman is much older than we are being led to believe – and the coming discussions shouldn’t be based on a confrontation between
“Christians vs the Rest of Us”.   
We must take into account the long-term effects should the traditional concept of marriage be abandoned for ‘same sex’ marriage.   

On Sep 10, 2016, at 6:35 PM, Bill Whatcott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

Dear Friends,
This is a packed Whatcott update. Good news, University of Calgary sold me a table for my
"Born Again That Way" ceremony, Bad News University of Regina didn't, but with your help we can remedy that, read my "open letter" and find out what you can do,a volunteer opportunity next week for pro-life Christians if you live in the Vancouver area, and a well written defense of free speech by a homosexual writer who says he likes me, hates my opinions, wants to have a coffee with me and believes I should have the freedom to speak!
- - In Christ's Service, Bill Whatcott
Go to:


Thanks for your latest report, Bill. 

Your new-found “friend” sounds like a genuinely fair-minded individual—one among many who are anything but fair, who are narcissistic, want only their own way and seem to have no concept of free expression and debate in an intellectually honest milieu where people have the full right of uninhibited access to all available information in the interests of truth.  Such people do not care about truth, or think that they alone possess it and are intent to force their version on everyone else.  In other words, they consider society to be a battleground or "war theatre" where policy is enacted by force and all opposition is to be squelched, i.e., where "might is right." If that is not Marxism in action I would like to know what it is. 

I am not familiar with the provisions of the law but if I were a judge or magistrate and had the authority or power granted by law, I would come down hard on anyone who attempted to abuse the court for purposes of seeking redress against an opponent in the arena of debate properly residing in the court of public opinion.  Such political and ideological expressions and issues should be ultra vires of the courts. 
Only in tyrannies. e.g., Bolshevik “People’s Courts", where guilt is presumed or preordained, do the courts pass judgement on matters of opinion.  At this stage of history one would have thought that this whole discussion would be too absurd even to warrant discussion.  Apparently we seem condemned forever to be under the necessity of re-inventing the wheel.  How unfortunate that we cannot just get on with using the wheel to society’s betterment. 

Your new friend talks as though he is neglected or ignored by his supposed allies.  Perhaps they sense in him an objective tendency which they worry might make him an unreliable tool to use in enforcing their wills upon others.  Any assumption that their goals have been reached would appear to be very naïve and ill-informed because what is involved is a fundamental and far-reaching transformation of society, to be achieved in incremental but relentless steps, i.e., “two steps forward, one step back."

A generation left behind: Millions of Chinese chil...