And what about the children?

The die was cast in the 1960s when the law began to view there as being no intrinsic connection between sex and procreation or between marriage and procreation. Marriage is not only "the voluntary union for life of two persons;" it is also the best place for begetting children and nurturing children to responsible adulthood. That can best happen with a good mother and a good father who are united for life.

It is true there are poor marriages; some couples are unable to procreate; some couples choose not to procreate; some children are born outside of marriage; and some children are conceived through technology, not through a sexual union. None of that negates the fundamental union between sex and marriage; these are exceptions to what ought to be.

Marriage is not an institution created by human invention. It is found, in some form, in all cultures - a sign that it is an institution natural to being human. Some societies severely punish breeches of the marital union such as adultery. Such punishment need not be viewed as good for it to be seen as a sign of the importance of the marriage bond for the common good.

The natural connections between sex and procreation and between marriage and sex have been whittled away to our detriment. Artificial birth control was the first attempt to sever the link. Abortion followed closely. We also opted for no-fault divorce which meant either spouse could dissolve - without having to give a good reason - what was intended as a life-long relationship. We have moved on to in vitro fertilization as a way to have children without sex.

To order homosexual relationships to be treated as marriages is a black day for Canada.

In all of this so-called progress, the desires of adults are given priority over the needs of children. Children, when they are thought of at all, are viewed either as unwanted burdens or as things made by humans, not created by God. It is little surprise that our courts (and public opinion) decide that marriage is a "voluntary union of two persons."

To view marriage this way is to undermine society's future. Marriage becomes a place where children are secondary, not the finest fruit of the relationship. Is it any wonder that children's lives are blocked by contraception or killed by abortion? Is it any wonder that their upbringing is handed over to the TV set or deeply jeopardized by marital breakups? Is it any wonder that we think it is just as good for two people of the same sex in a sexual relationship to raise children as it is for their parents?

Is the family threatened by such developments? In a way, no. The coming together of a man and woman in a marital union is something so rooted in the human person that it cannot be easily dislodged. It will always be that most men and most women yearn to be married. Once married, they will long for children. They will also long to stay together for life, raising their children and enjoying old age together. No court can stop that.

But in another way, marriage is undermined by all occurrences that do not respect its inviolable link with procreation. Anything that moves marriages between men and women away from the centre of society hurts the family. It says the family is less important than it was once thought to be, that it doesn't deserve special protection and that children also don't need special protection. A society that doesn't make the family and children absolutely central is a society careless about its own future. It is a society in decay.

Canadian society is playing fast and loose with the common good by redefining marriage. It claims to be respecting the happiness of some individuals. But the good of other individuals and of society itself is being compromised. Someday, Canada will come to regret all that it has done to separate marriage from procreation and the nurturing of children.

Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 -- Western Catholic Reporter