“Police-State” Tactics Replace Traditional Moral Restraint

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert


Legal Stringency vs. Legal Laxity:

Not everything that is immoral is illegal in the West. There would be insufficient numbers of police and prosecuting attorney’s to process all of the crimes were that to be the case. As a result, some behaviors which are clearly immoral based on tradition moral precepts[1] are not made criminal e.g. adultery, homosexual activity, fornication etc (in Muslim countries which observe Sharia law however, many of these immoral behaviors are considered crimes and punished severely meaning their societies are legally stringent). The degree to which immoral behavior is not made criminal is a measure of the legal laxity of a society. For a detailed discussion of the relationship of the "Common Good" to Civil Law and human virtue see: Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae, I-II, 96, 1-6 HERE...

Not all Immoral Acts are Illegal and Vice-Versa:

On the other hand, most things that are illegal are immoral, e.g. murder, rape, theft etc. Clearly there are some minor crimes e.g. failure to pay a parking ticket in a timely fashion which are either morally neutral or of minimal significance compared to major criminal activity. For all intents and purposes then, there exist few crimes which are not immoral as well. If too many clearly moral acts were punishable by law, not only would enforcement be impossible but justice would be unattainable as the civil law would be capricious and confidence in it would be destroyed.

The Correct Balance of Civil Laws and Moral Code:

The ideal balance in society is for major immoral actions/behaviors to be punishable by law as well. However, as a society loses its traditional moral integrity, it becomes necessary to substitute increasingly more and more stringent laws to serve as a substitute for the moral restraint which was once practiced by the populace. Taken to the extreme, a “police-state” will be required in cases where there has been a significant repudiation of traditional morality in practice. Such societal moral depravity simply cannot be controlled by stringent police-state tactics. There is no effective substitute for individual and societal moral restraint since it is impossible to place a police officer in every home, on every street corner and so forth.

Inverse Relationship between Morality and Civil Law:

For ease of handling, one might think of morality and civil laws then as being inversely proportional to one another. Where there is a high degree of morality in a population, there is less need for prohibitive laws and large numbers of police to enforce them. Where there is moral depravity, more and more legal impediments must be erected to control human behavior and a larger number of police and prosecutors are required to enforce them. This of course assumes that it is possible to determine right and wrong in the first instance which many Post-Modernists/Utilitarian’s/Hedonist’s/Moral Relativist’s often deny. [Not only do they argue that there is no truth (an epistemological claim) but that there is no fixed morality (a moral philosophical claim)]. Most proponents of post-modernism adopt some sort of Moral Relativism or Utilitarianism in which determinations of right and wrong become reflections of what is socially acceptable at a given time. Needless to say, that is a prescription for moral anarchy but unfortunately describes quite well the current situation in the “developed” West.

The Need for a Fixed Moral Code:

In any case, despite the claims of self-professed nihilists and other non-traditional moralist’s everyone behaves in their interpersonal relations as if a fixed moral code exists. For example, we all appeal to fairness if we believe that we are being treated inequitably. To say that we must be accorded fair treatment is to imply that a standard exists by which to determine fairness. That standard might be thought of loosely as the Natural (moral) law, what for example C.S. Lewis termed the Tau in his Mere Christianity, (San Francisco: Harper, 1952).
[2] In order for there to be a standard by which all can be equally judged, there must be a universal reality to which all may appeal. That reality can be thought of as our human nature or anthropology which is fixed by virtue of our being members of the human race. In a certain sense it is specific to our DNA although not simply an epiphenomenon of it. That fixed human nature or “being” then which exists in every person is the standard or template the “is” from which all behavior or “ought’s” must be derived.

It is pointless to argue that human nature or “being” is fluid and not fixed. Quite apart from the ontological implications which have been debated ad nauseum in the biological realm, if we do not assume a fixed human anthropology, it is impossible to devise a workable moral code to which all human beings can be held. The result is to render meaningless such statements as: “All human beings are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” or “all human beings should be treated equally” or “it is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.” Under such a rubric (fluidity of human nature) it is impossible to derive any human rights at all since they become nothing more than claims which certain people advance from time to time against the ruling authority, which ultimately have no basis in fact or reality.

Their existence is as impermanent as the political power possessed at a given moment by the reference group or individual in question. That is to say even if a given human right is granted temporarily there is no basis upon which to believe that it will remain so. Moreover, when it is impossible to determine right from wrong because it is constantly changing we induce a societal form of cognitive dissonance. People assume a sort of “every man for himself” mentality. The result is selfishness, greed and often all encompassing hedonistic pursuits instead of selflessness, generosity and the seeking of the “common good.”

Human Rights must be based on a Fixed Human Nature:

What we have then is the truth that human rights must be tied to the fixed reality of human "being" or nature. If we assume instead that human anthropology is fluid, that human nature is not fixed or is indeterminate; we have moral anarchy due to the lack of a suitable universal referent. Tragically that is pretty much the case currently in the “developed” West and is also the main reason that much of the so-called third world a large percentage of which is Muslim finds us to be morally repugnant.

Quite apart from what we may see as the repressive nature of fundamentalist Islamic mores’, the actual moral code (as separated from the sanctions which enforce it) is much more compatible with traditional (Aristotelian/Thomistic) morality than that which is practiced in the West since it is based upon a more accurate assessment of human nature.[3] The Islamic moral code is simply closer to traditional (what was once termed Judeo-Christian) morality than is the Moral Relativism and Utilitarianism which has overtaken us.[4]

Where Christianity is different is that it proposes a complete or total spiritual conversion of the individual (through the power of the atoning death of Jesus Christ on the Cross) as the deterent against evil rather than the severe system of corporal punishment which is associated with Islamic Sharia law. In the former it is the positive transformation of the human person into an entirely "new creature in Christ" in the latter the negative reinforcement of physical injury or death. The Christian emphasis is on conversion and mercy while still maintaining a strict moral code, the Islamic emphasis is on an Old Testament form of severe retributive attempt at justice.

Historically over the past 50 years traditional (Aristotelian/Thomistic) morality has been progressively replaced in the United States and much of the West by a combination of Utilitarianism and Moral Relativism. This has been combined with a marked change in the judicial system from what was primarily Natural Law based jurisprudence to one of Legal Positivism or Pragmatism.[5] With the loss of traditional moral precepts there has been the expected increase in immoral behavior which to wit has been associated with a marked increase in law-breaking on the part of individuals and powerful group entities (such as major corporations, the Congress and the Executive branch of the US government).

Societal Moral Depravity Promotes Advent of Police State:

Some in the research community contend that Neo-fascist tactics are the result primarily of authoritarian personalities who periodically come to power and that fascist governments represent the occasional outlier or idiosyncratic development. Little recognized perhaps is the fact that when traditional morality is abandoned by a society, it becomes much easier for nefarious forces to introduce police-state tactics.

For example, in the wake of the 911 terrorist attacks, fascist neo-Nazi tactics were quite easily adopted e.g. USA Patriot Act, attempted suspension of Habeas Corpus, Torture of Prisoners, and Rendition etc. In part this was due to the fear which gripped the nation. The fact however that for decade’s traditional morality had been degraded adds to the ease with which heretofore unimaginable infringements were made on human rights. We had in a sense become accustomed to the need for prohibitive laws which took the place of traditional moral behavior in the aggregate. The corporate media was enlisted to convince[6] average Americans that we must even surrender certain of our basic human rights and liberty in order to ensure our national and individual security. Of course that would be unnecessary if as neighbors we trusted each other to do right and to be virtuous. The fact that we don’t should tell us something profound about our moral climate currently.

In the absence of a return to traditional morality as a nation, we will find it increasingly necessary to adopt more and more draconian laws by which to control human behavior. That is simply an inevitable outcome which results from the existence of the Natural (moral) law. If human beings will not voluntarily submit to the precepts of the Natural Law, then they will be forced to do so at the point of a gun or from behind prison walls.

The only other option is complete societal dissolution/anarchy where all positive civil law is suspended and where violence and a “might makes right” vigilantism is in force. The latter development is unlikely as long as our current oligarch’s maintain authoritarian control through progressively more stringent laws and prohibitions. The institution of Marshal-Law would be the logical next step or end-result of a further degradation in societal morality.

911 and a Constitutional Coup d'état Facilitated Police-State:

Professor Francis A Boyle a leading light in the area of constitutional and international law maintains that the US constitution has already been subjected to a Coup d'état in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the signing of the USA Patriot Act, attempted suspension of Habeas Corpus and the practice of Torture and Rendition.[7] If he is correct than we are further along the path outlined above than I would have hoped. Boyle of course sees the problem as our not being willing to abide by international law and the treaties we have signed which have made them a part of US domestic law. He is certainly correct as far as it goes. The more fundamental underlying reason in this writer’s estimation however is the increasing moral depravity of the ruling elites which has now percolated down to the level of the average American. The “ruling class” should be very nervous now that the so-called “common man” has adopted their immoral code and jettisoned traditional morality. Historically, this is when “the natives get restless” and the Oligarchical regime is most potentially threatened by the masses who are no longer governed by a desire for justice rather than vengeance or a love of the common good.

To put a finer point on this concept; people often assume that is, take-on the morality of the civil law in which they reside. When the oligarchical regime intentionally adulterates the traditional morality of a society by moving it in the direction of Hedonism/Utilitarianism/Moral Relativism through the legislative process and the courts, the new “moral code” is eventually embraced by the masses. If something is made legal which previously was not, it is assumed to be moral and vice-versa. For example, after abortion was legalized in 1974; many Americans insufficiently grounded in traditional moral precepts decided it must be moral. This was made easier due to the fact that the political class and special interest groups engaged in a form of rank sophistry[8] rather than a probative analysis and debate regarding the actual biological, philosophical and religious implications involved. That sadly is still the case today.

Another example is the issue of gay “marriage” which while illegal in a majority of states and previously thought to be immoral by a majority of Americans, is rapidly becoming acceptable and is in the process of being legalized throughout the United States. The national trajectory is now in the direction of the legalization of gay “marriage” and along with it the assumption that gay “marriage must be morally licit.[9] The point is that the ruling elite’s who have abandoned traditional morality are able through their control of the political process and the media to normalize virtually any aberrant or immoral behavior. As they do so, they must enact increasingly more stringent laws to control the choices (many of which are largely immoral from the perspective of traditional morality) which the populace wishes to make and act upon.

Conclusion:

As a nation we have abandoned traditional morality in favor of a hodge-podge of non-moral philosophical theories including Utilitarianism, Moral Relativism and Hedonism all of which ultimately translate to personal selfishness. We no longer care about the “common good.” This has made it necessary and easy to establish a more and more stringent “police-state” domestically in order to control our now unbridled passions. Such things as “hate-crime” legislation are a good example of the result where the law now attempts to ascertain the moral intention of a given perpetrator of a crime. Needless to say this is not only legally improper but is unlikely to be effective. The proper place to consider “intention” is at the level of the moral analysis which should take place prior to the performance of a given act.

Just as in the case of gay “marriage” bans, the problem is not a legal one it is a moral one in this case the repudiation of traditional morality at the level of nation-state. In the history of the world, there is no precedent at the nation state level for reversing the current situation in which the common morality has been so seriously adulterated. Moral depravity of a nation predisposes to its self destruction from within and the foolhardy overextension of empire from without. For more see THIS... and THIS... That reality (US moral depravity) means that the survival of the American experiment (barring a fundamental change in national morality and or Divine intervention) is in doubt.

NOTES:

[1] When I refer to “traditional morality” or traditional moral precepts I mean Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophical principles, what some have called the Judeo-Christian ethic in the past although technically, the latter is less precise than the former in terms of performing a proper moral analysis of a given moral question. Some have utilized the phrase “golden-rule” ethic to summarize what they mean by traditional morality which is also less concise than the Aristotelian/Thomistic Synthesis. Human actions which are immoral from the perspective of traditional morality are not arbitrarily so characterized. The determination is made on the basis of what it means to be human or have a human nature and how a given human being is best able to actualize the attainment of the ultimate goal which is the Sumum Bonum or supreme good.
[2] Lewis made a variant of the so-called Moral argument for the existence of God and demonstrated that it was this that in large part was responsible for his conversion from atheism first to pantheism and then to Christianity. Today we have the interesting development that a notorious atheist philosopher has converted to Theism based primarily on the Design argument reworked in light of contemporary Astrophysics data which demonstrate that the physical constants of the universe are incredibly “fine-tuned.”
[3] This is to be expected since the Muslim philosopher’s were aware of the work of Aristotle’s metaphysics, philosophy of nature and his Ethics. In fact it is they who preserved his teaching throughout the Dark Ages prior to the time of Albert Magnus (St. Albert the Great) and Thomas Aquinas who combined Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity. For an excellent treatment of the Philosophy of Nature see William A. Wallace O.P. THE MODELING OF NATURE: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE IN SYNTHESIS.(The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C. 20064, 1996). Click HERE...for a short video by Professor Wallace.
[4] The irony here is that the Neoconservative/Neo-Nazi political right which has taken over the Republican Party and the Neo-liberal left the Democratic Party are both further away from traditional morality than Muslim morality based as it is in Aristotle’s metaphysics and ethical theory. In Islamic societies in which there is no Radical Jihadism and absent Sharia, the moral climate is much closer to traditional morality than is the current immoral one found in the United States. Moreover, the Neoconservatives and Neoliberals largely embrace the Neo-Nazi moral philosophy of the Radical Zionist’s who now control modern Israel e.g. all accept the immoral “Bush Doctrine” of preventive war.
[5] John P. Hubert, “The “Fruits” of Legal Positivism: Utilitarianism in Action”, Intellectual Conservative, 09 December 2005, HERE....
[6] The FCM have taken on the role of the ancient Greek Sophists in manipulating public opinion on behalf of the ruling oligarch’s.
[7] Francis A. Boyle. Tackling America’s Toughest Questions, (Atlanta Ga: Clarity Press, 2009), pp. 39-47.
[8] Rather than asking if abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being (which is always and everywhere wrong according to traditional morality), proponents framed the issue as one of a women’s “right” to control her reproductive process. Such a “right” however does not exist in traditional morality based as it is on a fixed human anthropology. The USSC has said that such a “right” exists in the Constitution of the US (a debatable issue in itself) even though no such moral “right” could be found unless the court abandoned Natural Law jurisprudence in exchange for Legal Pragmatism. See footnote # 5 for details.
[9] See my blog post “The Problem with Gay Marriage Bans” HERE.... For additional background on Traditional Marriage contrasted with Gay “Marriage see THIS....

More on Gay "Marriage"

Editor's NOTE:

In response to my editorial comment of yesterday regarding the overturning of the California Proposition 8 ban on Gay "Marriage" several readers have asked that this essay which I penned a while back be posted again in order that they might have access to critical philosophical concepts located therein. This may be seen as a companion piece to what was posted yesterday where a link was provided to the article I wrote for the Intellectual Conservative in 2005.


What of Non-Traditional Marriage?

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert


Over the past several years marked interest has grown in what must for the sake of intellectual honesty be termed non-traditional “marriage.” By this is usually meant “civil unions” or arrangements in which same-sex couples formalize their relationship and in so doing derive the benefits usually reserved for married heterosexual couples. To date, little organized interest has been expressed for other kinds of non-traditional “marriages” such as polygamous ones or those involving animals and humans (bestiality). In any case it has now become necessary to flesh-out the philosophical implications of marriage including the nature of what it means to be a human person and what is meant by “tradition.”

As mathematician/physicist and philosopher Wolfgang Smith has taught, “traditional” when used as an adjective before anything connotes the transcendent not simply ancient or of historical significance. To say that marriage for example is traditionally a life-long commitment between one man and one woman is to say in part that it is based in the transcendent “other” which theists understand as God (being personified from a philosophical perspective); that it “embodies an element of revelation.” According to Smith, a “doctrine is traditional by virtue of the fact that it partakes somewhat of eternity.” In this sense traditional marriage is not only a horizontal but a vertical relationship (metaphysical reality) with God as one of the “partners.”

To develop this concept a bit further, traditional marriage (TM) is a microcosm/reflection of penultimate being that is, non-derivative being in much the same way that man was created in the imago Dei (image of God, Gen. 1:26). Orthodox Catholics understand it as a recapitulation of the Trinity [tri-unity (“3” who’s in one what)] that is the Blessed Trinity—wherein the “two (male and female possessing complementarity) become one flesh” (Gen. 2: 24) in the sense of giving life to a child (the third member of the human triad/family, not simply copulation between the 2 adults). From the perspective of human anthropology (nature or essence) marriage, in a traditional sense can join only one man and one woman in a permanent (covenant in religious terms) or exclusive relationship if it is to retain any semblance of meaning. As such the Traditional marriage union is a metaphysical (outside of space and time) reality as well as a physical one which is unbreakable by human means. It is this facet of traditional marriage which has been expunged in large part from post-modernity by the way.

The notion that individuals of the same sex or that multiple partners (in the sense of the simultaneous pleural marriages practiced by polygamists) could “marry” is to rob the term “traditional” marriage of any real meaning. These and other “unions” such as between humans and animals are non-traditional in the extreme. Not only do they fail to mirror in microcosm the transcendent other (GOD) as understood in Christianity, they for the most part lack complementarity (anatomically at least) as well. While pleural marriage (simultaneous or serial) on an anatomic basis may possess complementarity, it clearly lacks exclusivity. Traditional marriage then for Christians must contain the elements of complementarity and exclusivity. This is true because of the essence of what it means to be human and because traditional marriage has both a vertical and a horizontal dimension, one in space and time; one outside of or beyond it. Unfortunately, the Enlightenment, much of modern philosophy (particularly the Utilitarianism of J. S. Mill) including Cartesian Dualism followed on by Baconian notions of science including Darwinist philosophy (philosophical naturalism) have emptied traditional marriage of its true meaning. The details of these assaults on traditional marriage (TM) are beyond the scope of this short essay. However, suffice it to say that as a result of the above--human nature is no longer considered “fixed.” It is simply assumed that one can create their own nature and for that matter reality itself. This reduces marriage to a completely horizontal “arrangement” of our own making that can be undone at will--resembling something more akin to a business transaction.

Admittedly, the idea that marriage is a recapitulation of the Blessed Trinity is unique to Christianity as it is predicated on a unique and divinely revealed understanding of the nature of God. Both Judaism and Islam which either tacitly or explicitly reject the Blessed Trinity; have historically allowed simultaneous pleural marriage between human beings, (multiple wives with one husband) usually on economic, or other utilitarian grounds including custom. Nevertheless, over time, each has moved away from the practice of polygamy. It is safe to say that no monotheistic religion has endorsed non-traditional marriage between adult human beings of the same sex or between humans and animals presumably because of the issue of lack of complementarity and the recognition that traditional marriage (TM) in order to be legitimate/genuine must contain no impediment to the natural generation of children which would ensue from a lack of complementarity. This is another way of saying that marriage arrangements must not be incompatible with the Natural Law. Procreation--and with it the education and rearing of children--has traditionally been seen as either the primary/only or dual reason for marriage (along with the obvious positive unitive benefit for the spouses). Clearly this is an impossibility in the natural for same-sex and human/animal “unions.” Moreover, incest (parent/child) in recorded history has universally been sanctioned in all of the “3” monotheistic religions at least in part for reasons having to do with complications arising as a direct result of copulation and procreation (genetic disorders for example among other severe psychological problems).

While heterosexual incest is correctly ordered anatomically, it is clearly disordered from the perspective of lacking exclusivity (parents already have or should have a monogamous and exclusive relationship), genetic complications and behavioral problems. Since traditional morality holds that sexual intercourse is proper only within the bounds of marriage, it is apparent that incest could never be morally acceptable. Even in the event of death of one of the marriage partners, incest (sexual relations with one or more of the children) would be immoral on multiple other grounds including on the basis that in doing so, the remaining marriage partner would be guilty of a sin against charity with respect to the children. This would be true even if for some misguided reason the offspring were said to have given “consent.”

Some would argue that while same-sex human or opposite-sex human/animal “unions” are not marriage in the Traditional sense, pleural marriage between for example one man and multiple women should be afforded the designation “traditional marriage.” There is a certain logic to this contention in that complementarity is preserved and with it the ability to procreate. The difficulty comes in that there is no exclusivity of the partners or of their offspring for the biological parents, thus not as organically related families in these arrangements. Such “unions” fail to recapitulate the divine pattern in microcosm and are inherently horizontal in nature; important criteria by which marriage is ultimately to be judged traditional where Christians and most monotheists are concerned. Atheists and agnostics or other nominal or fallen-away theists who embrace traditional marriage presumably do so in a more limited sense, one in which the historical, economic and conventional aspects of heterosexual marriage (in the horizontal sense only) are desired.

There is of course a certain collective wisdom of the ages which supports so-called traditional marriage. It has not been by chance that this kind of marriage has existed as the most frequent marital arrangement in virtually all cultures and time periods. TM has many obvious advantages and arguably the fewest negatives. Pleural marriage is associated with many hardships particularly where it is illegal. Even where polygamy is legal the natural tendency toward conjugal fidelity/exclusivity which is a natural part of human anthropology is difficult if not impossible to suppress and can lead to disastrous problems associated with jealousy of one or more of the spouses for each other. Attempting to preserve an equitable relationship with multiple marriage partners would seem to be an impossible undertaking. It is truly difficult to imagine how one could honor the biblical imperative to treat their neighbor fairly under such a circumstance.

Same-sex “marriages” are perhaps the most difficult to justify philosophically. Not only is there no complementarity of the sexes, statistically there is a high incidence of non-exclusivity of homosexual partners (particularly among men) which exceeds those of heterosexuals in which the marriage is considered a civil contract only and where they are not bound by the notion of indissolubility which comes with traditional marriage through verticality (covenant). If civil contract marriages between heterosexuals are removed from divorce statistics, overall divorce rates are much lower indicating that the problem in heterosexual marriage dissolution lies in the concept of a breakable civil contract. Therefore, in the interest of the common good it would be better to limit marriage to those who intend to form a traditional marriage rather than some other “arrangement” especially same-sex ones. Heterosexual couples considering marriage would be best served by exposure to traditional marriage and all of its obvious benefits since civil contract marriages fair so poorly over the long run.

Not to be underestimated are the potential medical complications predominately among male same-sex couples due to their incompatibility anatomically. For example since anal intercourse is usually involved in male/male same sex “unions”, the columnar lined rectal epithelial mucosa which is not suitable for intercourse (the vaginal mucosa is composed of squamous epithelium and designed for intercourse) is frequently damaged predisposing it to disease including anal warts, HIV/Aids, anal gonorrhea, fissures, fistulae and incontinence etc. Corresponding pathologies are invariably seen in the male partners of those who are frequently sodomized. This should alert us to the fact that something is inherently wrong with anal intercourse (heterosexual or homosexual) even if we had no other way of knowing it—fortunately, a careful study of human anatomy and physiology coupled with an adequate grounding in Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophy assures that other ways of knowing do exist.

As the reader may have deduced, from the moral perspective, traditional marriage follows the general construct that the “ought” should follow the “is” meaning that the proper moral formulation should flow from the reality of being in this case the human anthropology (including anatomical complementarity and the deep desire of human beings for exclusivity) of the partners. Only if one assumes that human nature is an accident, evolving or otherwise irrelevant would the nature of human being not be of critical consideration. According to the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis human nature is fixed not evolving, meaning it is unchangeable by man. As a result only traditional marriage as described herein can be judged morally licit. All other so-called “arrangements” would lack one or more necessary key elements in order to be considered marriages at all, or traditional marriages in particular--including polygamist ones which are closer to traditional marriages than are those between individuals of the same sex. Despite this reality, it is noteworthy that public (political) pressure in the West is increasingly in favor of same sex “marriage” rather than polygamous ones, a fact which given the realities of human anthropology is difficult to comprehend. While neither should be legalized in the interest of the common good, polygamist “marriages” are less deranged from the perspective of the natural law than are those of a homosexual nature.

The most commonly proffered justification for same-sex “marriage” is that each human person should have the “right” (a claim advanced on society; the result of a personal choice) based on Western notions of freedom, equality and autonomy to marry anyone they wish. Given the necessary elements of traditional marriage as herein defined, it is clear that same-sex “marriage” could never be considered marriage in any meaningful sense without doing damage to the English language and thousands of years of history including that which is common to all “3” monotheistic religions presently encompassing the vast majority of global inhabitants.

In helping to focus the morality involved in non-traditional marriage some critical questions might be waged as follows;

To what extent should individuals be allowed freedom to act if those actions debase the common good and transgress established moral norms?

Only if no harm (direct or indirect) is done to other individuals and or the common good.

Do we as individuals have a moral responsibility to act personally in ways which are compatible with and enhancing of the common good?

YES.

Does personal freedom include the ability to act in ways which while not directly or immediately harmful to others are nonetheless indirectly so and eventually very injurious to the common good?

NO.

It is clearly in the common good for healthy life-long marriages between one man and one woman to be strongly encouraged if not codified in law. Moreover, it is beyond doubt in the best interest of our children to be reared in stable, two parent biological families. The sociological data strongly establish that this is the case irrespective of protestations to the contrary by those who advocate for non-traditional marriage.

Moreover, certain behaviors are not only immoral but have been made illegal as well. This is to protect individuals from injury and to insure the common good. Murder is both immoral and illegal as is rape for good reason. While homosexual activity and sexual activity with multiple sex partners is not illegal throughout the United States, it is currently illegal for multiple partners to marry (polygamy), for animals and humans to marry and in all but one state for same-sex partners to marry (Massachusetts, Editor's note: since originally written, other states have followed Mass.). The latter reality is extremely regrettable. Since homosexual behavior and sex with multiple partners is immoral and destructive of the common good, non-traditional marriage in these circumstances should remain illegal. Massachusetts should repeal its current same-sex marriage law on the grounds that it represents poor social planning where a commitment to the common good is concerned. The wishes of some individuals especially when they are violative of the natural law should not be allowed to eclipse the interest of the common good. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has transpired in the case of US laws allowing abortion on demand and destructive embryo research.

From a traditional (scholastic) moral philosophical perspective, sex with multiple partners, between humans and animals (bestiality) and between individuals of the same sex are all morally illicit. This is true because of the nature of what it means to be human (unique and fixed human anthropology) and because of the principles of the natural law (they cannot be expunged in the same way that the 4 fundamental forces of physics cannot be denied) which includes complementarity of the sexes. The record of the last half century in the United States stands as a testament to the fact that the natural moral law cannot be revoked—it is immutable. Nothing but misery comes from denying or breaking it particularly on a massive scale e.g. at the level of nation states. Those who are familiar with the so-called perennial philosophy are well aware of this reality. Obviously, those who are steeped in Modern and post-Modern philosophy find this exceedingly difficult to accept.

Therefore, a key question remains; Are non-traditional “marriage” arrangements morally licit?

No, because; they are contrary to the common good and established moral norms including those between heterosexual couples who arrange civil contract marriages. The answer is simple but not easy given post-modern confusion with respect to what constitutes truth, reality and morality. In a pluralistic secular society such as ours, it would be impossible to make heterosexual non-traditional marriages illegal (although they should be discouraged) given the nature of current civil and human rights laws. On the basis of these, proponents of same-sex marriage have made similar appeals the results of which are in flux. From the perspective of the common good of society it would clearly be best if all marriages were “traditional” in the sense utilized herein that is, both vertical and horizontal and understood as a life-long commitment between one man and one woman. The fact that this is not possible in the developed West is a testament to the disadvantageous nature of living in a pluralistic society. This negative development which can be traced to the Enlightenment is extremely regrettable.

Finally, should non-traditional marriage be legalized?

No, it is unwise public policy to legally allow behavior which is; destructive of the common good and contrary to well established moral norms. The balance between individual desires on the part of individuals and the common good is too tipped in favor of the individual to the detriment of society.

Momentum Builds for Homosexual (Gay) "Marriage"

Moral Anarchy Reins

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert

The momentum has now increased and the pendulum turned nation-wide in favor of homosexual "marriage." Civil Union's short of "marriage" while providing legal survivorship and other protections to same-sex couples have been seen as inadequate by homosexual activists who purport that the ability to marry is a civil right. By that they mean the right to marry whomever they wish--irrespective of the sex of the partners. This of course is a clear violation of the Natural (moral and biological) Law--as I have written elsewhere. While heterosexual simultaneous pleural marriage (bigamy or polygamy) however is not contrary to the natural law (biologically [and morally for several millennia prior to the ministry of Jesus Christ]), there is no hew and cry for the legalization of polygamy. Why? Presumably because bigamists in the US lack an effective lobby and or too few Americans prefer that arrangement--although many more might be interested in it if given the opportunity the way active homosexuals currently are.

The real question of course is to what extent is the ability to marry a civil right vs: a legally valid union in which the government preferentially (for practical reasons involving procreation, proper child-rearing etc.) favors traditional male/female coupling--theoretically for life--the traditional marriage arrangement?

If marriage is in fact a civil "right", then to remain intellectually consistent, the government must accept any arrangement an individual or group of persons wishes to codify as "marriage." That includes of course, polygamy, human/animal pairings and the like. Again if marriage is a "right" not a societal privilege, one can even question to what extent one person has the "right" to marry their child, sister, brother or even a minor provided the other party is willing. Once same-sex "marriage" is legalized, there is no logical way other than by a form of ad-hoc and completely arbitrary and capricious decision-making, to limit marriage to 2 human adults.

As can be seen here the legalization of same-sex "marriage" creates unresolvable philosophical and political problems which cannot be rectified by alterations in the law. Marriage (from a Natural Law and Christian moral perspective) should be limited to a life-long commitment between one man and one woman. Moreover, the fact that divorce is now available on-demand in the US adds to the difficulty of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples only. Widespread liberalization of state divorce laws in the mid 20th century (to the current on-demand status without the requirement of demonstrating adequate "grounds") no doubt prepared the way for the current same-sex "marriage" movement.

The great concern from the perspective of the common good should be that Traditional Marriage (TM) will become inherently weakened as an institution. If virtually any social arrangement among humans is legally to be considered marriage, (the clear direction that current momentum is taking) then what is unique or to be specially valued from a personal or societal standpoint with regard to TM? If males may legally marry males and females-females while both groups are increasingly able to adopt children what is there that is superior about a life-long heterosexual monogamous relationship that anyone should prefer it to any other arrangement including marital or non-marital infidelity? Will not many heterosexual couples simply avoid marriage altogether assuming that the entire concept has become vacuous/meaningless? If the sociological data establish that children benefit from stable heterosexual two parent families--and they do, what are we subjecting our children and grandchildren to while we carry out social experimentation on the institution of Traditional Marriage?

The entire same-sex "marriage" issue stems from an inability of post-modern man to recognize/accept the existence of "essences" that is, "natures" in the classical/scholastic sense. Post-moderns believe that man's basic "quiddity" or "whatness" is evolving and not fixed i.e. human anthropology is a work in progress. Of necessity then, morality is fluid, variable or relative to what the most politically powerful group(s) can inflict upon the majority from time to time. Such a scenario is the very definition of moral anarchy which very quickly devolves to a tyranny of the temporary majority.

Maine Governor Signs Same-Sex Marriage Bill

By ABBY GOODNOUGH
The New York Times
Published: May 6, 2009

BOSTON — Gov. John Baldacci of Maine signed a same-sex marriage bill on Wednesday minutes after the Legislature sent it to his desk, saying he had reversed his position because gay couples were entitled to the state Constitution’s equal rights protections.

“It’s not the way I was raised and it’s not the way that I am,” Mr. Baldacci, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview. “But at the same time I have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. That’s my job, and you can’t allow discrimination to stand when it’s raised to your level.”

Yet gay couples may not be able to wed in Maine anytime soon. Laws typically go into effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns, which is usually in late June. But opponents have vowed to pursue a “people’s veto,” or a public referendum, in which Maine voters could overturn the law.

The opponents would be required to collect about 55,000 signatures within 90 days of the Legislature’s adjourning to get a referendum question on the ballot. If they succeeded, the law would be suspended until a vote could be held. Depending on how soon signatures were collected, that would be in November or the following June.

The Rev. Bob Emrich, a leader of the Maine Marriage Alliance, one of the chief opposition groups, said he believed the law would be overturned but not without an intensive campaign.

“It’s not automatic by any means,” Mr. Emrich said. “The proponents of changing the law and redefining marriage, they are very well funded, they have a great organization, and they’ve been at this a long time.”

Maine is the fifth state to legalize same-sex marriage, and the bill’s enactment comes almost five years after Massachusetts became the first in the nation to do so. The other states are Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont.

The New Hampshire legislature gave final passage on Wednesday to a same-sex marriage bill, but Gov. John Lynch has not said if he will sign it. Mr. Lynch, a centrist Democrat, has said in the past that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. Once the bill reaches his desk, he will have five days to act on it.

Mr. Baldacci announced his decision in Augusta, Me., about an hour after the State Senate gave final passage to the bill, which codifies marriage as a legally recognized union between two people regardless of sex. Under state law, the governor had 10 days to sign the bill, veto it or let it become law without his signature.

But Mr. Baldacci, who cannot seek re-election because of term limits, said he had spent considerable time researching the legal ramifications of denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry.

Mr. Baldacci earlier supported civil unions for gay couples, which are legally recognized and provide many of the state rights and privileges that marriage does. Civil unions are legal in New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont, but the latter two states are phasing them out after adopting same-sex marriage laws.(Editor's emphasis throughout)

Since Vermont became the first state to allow civil unions in 2000, gay-rights supporters have increasingly said they relegate same-sex couples to a separate and unequal category.

Mr. Baldacci said his past opposition to same-sex marriage stemmed from his Roman Catholic upbringing. Exploring his feelings on the matter — and listening to those of other Maine residents — was, he said, “very emotional, very much a sort of baring of the soul that you’re listening to and going through yourself.”

He described voters as “the ultimate political power in this state,” and said it was important for them to weigh in, too.

“I think they will see the reasoning that I had in regards to the issue,” he said, “but it’s their right to put their stamp on it.”

NOTE:

Tragically, Governor Baldacci not only failed to follow the Natural Law, he violated Traditional (orthodox) Roman Catholic Church teaching. This is particularly unfortunate since he is purportedly a member in good standing.

Catholic social teaching holds that same-sex "marriage" is not only contrary to the natural law, it is destructive of the "common good." The Roman Catholic Church also opposes same-sex unions primarily because they contribute to the destruction of the nuclear family which is created in the Triune image of God (imago Dei). Moreover, Catholic teaching holds that the souls of those who engage in homosexual activity are in mortal danger left unrepented which applies to those who continue such relationships/unions.

According to Catholic teaching there can be no human "right" which is incompatible with the Natural Law including of course homosexual activity, homosexual "marriage" or homosexual "unions". Political figures who claim to be Roman Catholics in good standing engage in rank hypocrisy when they support or otherwise facilitate the passing of same-sex "marriage" legislation. Governor Baldacci should either have resigned (rather than sign the same sex "marriage" bill in Maine) or cease referring to himself as a Roman Catholic in good-standing.

The Roman Catholic Church has the duty to properly discipline wayward members--including excommunication if necessary--especially those who occupy high-profile political positions. The fact that none to date have been so-disciplined severely detracts from the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States and the world.

Patently immoral behaviors, civil arrangements and public policy positions which are incompatible with the Natural Law have been deemed human or civil "rights" in the United States by both the Judiciary and the Legislative branches of government. This is primarily because human "rights" since the Enlightenment are ungrounded by anything other than temporary wants or desires--as currently expressed by those in power. Prior to the Enlightenment, human rights were grounded in the Natural Law. In the absence of the Natural Law human rights are fictitious that is, they are objectively non-existent.

A radical form of Secularism now controls the public square in the United States and much of the West meaning that the Natural Law has been replaced by a kind of tyranny of the temporary majority. Legal positivism in the courts has greatly contributed to this phenomenon of course. As a result, it has become impossible for any serious Roman Catholic person to hold political office in the United States without engaging in obvious hypocrisy.

For more background information see my essay: "What of Traditional Marriage?" HERE...


--Dr. J. P. Hubert

Guest Opinion: Why Marriage is Inherently Heterosexual

By Patrick Lee
12/21/2008

Public Discourse: Ethics, Law and the Common Good
A recent story in Newsweek claimed that the only reasons for opposing same-sex “marriage” are religious. This is not true.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Public Discourse), original HERE... - In the December 15th edition of Newsweek, both Jon Meacham in his editor’s note and religion editor Lisa Miller in her front-page article mock arguments from scripture. At the same time, they invoke that same Bible’s authority for a “more general” message of “inclusivity,” in order to lobby for making gay marriage a sacrament. Meacham and Miller paint all opposition to the radical re-definition of marriage as hateful bigotry, comparing it to racism, and labeling appeals to the authority of the Bible against homosexual “marriage” and homosexual acts as fundamentalism. Indeed Meacham goes further: it is “the worst kind of fundamentalism.” How much worse than suicide-bombings and beheadings he does not make clear.

Others can dissect the theological and factual howlers in these essays. Here I want to correct the assumption made by Meacham and Miller that the case against same-sex “marriage” must be a Biblical one. Instead, both by faith and by reason one can see that genuine marriage must be heterosexual, that sexual acts outside of marriage are immoral, and that the state, therefore, should not declare any same-sex unions “marriages,” nor actively encourage sexual acts outside of marriage.

Consider some facts.

In every society we find the following type of community: men and women committed to sharing their lives together, in the sort of community that would be naturally fulfilled by their conceiving, bearing, and raising children together. This is marriage. That such a community does exist in every society is indisputable.

In every culture men and women are attracted to each other, wish to commit to each other in a stable relationship, and perform sexual acts that might result in children. Hence every society encourages men and women—ideally, before they perform such sexual acts—to form the sort of community that will be a suitable environment both for the flourishing of their romantic love and for the flourishing of whatever children they may produce: marriage.

Sound philosophical reflection helps us identify what is going on here. The marital communion of the spouses is both good in itself (and so not a mere means to bearing and raising children) and at the same time intrinsically fulfilled by bearing and raising children together. Genuine marriage is sexual in nature and includes a bodily union: without sexual intercourse the marriage has not been consummated, that is, completed. But this sexual relationship is intrinsically linked, indeed, fulfilled, by the procreation, bearing, and raising of children.

By contrast, co-habiting same-sex couples form one relationship. If later they decide to collaborate in raising an adopted child, they form a new and distinct relationship, since there is no intrinsic link between their sexual relationship, on the one hand, and their cooperation to raise a child, on the other. Unique to marriage is the fact that the bodily, emotional, and volitional relationship between the man and the woman is intrinsically oriented to being prolonged and fulfilled by their becoming a family. It is the same community that begins between the spouses on their wedding day, and may be prolonged and enlarged by becoming a family later on.

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” often argue that since marriage is a community oriented to raising children, and same-sex couples sometimes do raise children, such couples should qualify as marriages. But if having the purpose of raising children were sufficient to qualify as marriage, then orphanages, and some groups of religious women or men, could also be labeled as “marriages,” which is absurd. Likewise, other arrangements are sometimes called “marriage,” but in reality these are different types of relationship. For example, men and women often cohabit and view children as an optional extra or as burdens to be avoided. Or two or more individuals sometimes form alliances for the sake of raising children (for example two sisters, or several celibate religious men or women). But neither of these relationships are marriages: they have distinct purposes or goals.

Other advocates of same-sex “marriage” view marriage as only an emotional relationship, and the sexual acts as extrinsic symbols of that emotional connection. Since same-sex couples can intend their sexual acts to symbolize their love or affection, these unions (they contend) qualify as marriages. But, as just noted, genuine marriage is in fact a multi-leveled relationship that encompasses the bodily, emotional, volitional, and intellectual aspects of the spouses.

In genuine marriage the bodily sexual acts are part of the marital union, not just extrinsic symbols. In sexual intercourse between a man and a woman (whether married or not), a real bodily union is established. Human beings are organisms, albeit of a particular type. In most actions—digesting, sensing, walking, and so on—individual male or female organisms are complete units. However, with respect to reproduction, the male and the female are incomplete. In reproductive activity the bodily parts of the male and the bodily parts of the female participate in a single action, coitus, which is oriented to procreation (though not every act of coitus actually reproduces), so that the subject of the action is the male and the female as a unit. Sexual intercourse is a unitary action in which the male and the female complete one another, and become really biologically one, a single organism. In marital intercourse, this bodily unity is an aspect of, a constitutive part of, the couple’s more comprehensive, marital communion.

When a couple have mutually consented to marriage—the kind of union that would be fulfilled by bearing and raising children together—then the biological unity realized in their sexual intercourse embodies that community. In sexual intercourse they unite (become one) precisely in that respect in which marriage is defined and naturally fulfilled. They have consented to a communion procreative in kind, so their acts that are procreative in kind embody their communion. In that way the loving sexual intercourse of a husband and wife realizes a basic aspect of human flourishing: the good of marital union.

Given the above considerations, it is clear that the charge that the denial of same-sex “marriage” is unjust discrimination, or hateful bigotry, is a canard. In order to be genuinely married, a couple—any couple—must: (a.) commit themselves to the type of personal union that would be fulfilled by bearing and raising children together; and (b.) perform the conduct by which they become biologically one, conduct that, with the addition of conditions extrinsic to that conduct, might result in procreation (and even if those extrinsic conditions do not obtain, as in infertile couples, their act has still biologically united them). (a.) and (b.) together constitute the beginning of a marriage and are necessary for consummated marriage. Any couple who is unable to fulfill those conditions is unable to marry. Not only same-sex couples, but opposite-sex couples who are too young to form a commitment and opposite-sex couples who (because of impotence) cannot consummate their union are unable to marry.

Along these same lines, we can also understand by reason that sexual acts outside marriage—including therefore homosexual acts—are immoral. Within marriage, sexual acts embody (consummate or renew) the marriage. By contrast, in non-marital sexual acts, either the participants do not become biologically one, or they have not committed to sharing their lives in a way that can be embodied by a sexual act. People build up friendships or personal communions by pursuing together a common good. In marital intercourse the common good is their marriage, embodied (consummated or renewed) in that sexual act.

But if a sexual act does not embody marriage, it does not embody any other community (sexual acts do not embody sports communities, scholarly communities, or generic friendships), and no genuine good is realized in the sexual act. (Pleasure alone cannot be the common good of their act, since pleasure is a genuine good only if it is attached to a condition or activity that is already genuinely fulfilling. Their experience of embodying union when they are not actually doing so is not a genuine good but is illusory.) Thus, in nonmarital sexual acts, the couple (or, in cases of polyamory, the group) instrumentalize their sexuality (their bodies-as-sexual) for the sake of a mere experience—either the experience of pleasure or the illusory experience of the bodily-personal union without its reality.

What does all of this mean for public policy? In a well-ordered society, the state should give legal recognition to real marriage, promote it, protect it, and privilege it over other sexual arrangements—as a good for the spouses and the children their union may form. The state has an essential interest in the health of marriage. Generally speaking, children will receive the best and most loving care if they are raised by their biological parents, who have formed a community aimed at providing the most suitable environment for any children they may help bring into being. Almost always, children can count on their mothers to care for them when they are young; the institution of marriage is dedicated to ensuring, as much as possible, that fathers also will fulfill their responsibilities to the children they help procreate, and to the mothers of their children. Furthermore, where the institution of marriage is strong, people’s sexual passions and energies—frequently difficult to control, often leading to self-centeredness and exploitation—are channeled toward intelligible goods, namely, marriage and family.

If the state declares same-sex unions to be equivalent to marriage, it will profoundly obscure the nature of marriage. In effect, it will send the message that marriage is centrally about the romantic attachment and sexual relationship of adults to each other rather than about a relationship which by its nature is oriented to and suited for becoming family. Doing that would almost certainly further weaken the institution of marriage.

These points are open for all to see, whatever faith one has, or if one has no faith at all. To pretend that only religious “fundamentalists” oppose the radical re-definition of marriage advanced by same-sex “marriage” advocates is doubly distorting: first, the biblical and theological cases are not fundamentalist; second, there are reasoned arguments that do not presuppose faith against that proposal as well.

NOTE:

Patrick Lee has provided an excellent review and discussion of the Traditional (Aristotelian/Thomistic) view of marriage grounded as it is and must be in the Natural Moral Law--the so-called "ought must be determined by the "is" despite the protestations of some "New Natural Lawyers."

Unfortunately, in light of the generalized "dumbing-down" of the American populace, his piece will likely be ignored in favor of the reigning Western gestalt--rank Utilitarianism. For more on this topic see my prior article:
HERE...

What of non-Traditional Marriage?

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert

Over the past several years marked interest has grown in what must for the sake of intellectual honesty be termed non-traditional “marriage.” By this is usually meant civil unions or arrangements in which same-sex couples formalize their relationship and in so doing derive the benefits usually reserved for married heterosexual couples. To date, little organized interest has been expressed for other kinds of non-traditional “marriages” such as polygamous ones or those involving animals and humans (bestiality). In any case it has now become necessary to flesh-out the philosophical implications of marriage including the nature of what it means to be a human person and what is meant by “tradition.”

As mathematician/physicist and philosopher Wolfgang Smith has taught, “traditional” when used as an adjective before anything connotes the transcendent not simply ancient or of historical significance. To say that marriage for example is traditionally a life-long commitment between one man and one woman is to say in part that it is based in the transcendent “other” which theists understand as God (being personified from a philosophical perspective); that it “embodies an element of revelation.” According to Smith, a “doctrine is traditional by virtue of the fact that it partakes somewhat of eternity.” In this sense traditional marriage is not only a horizontal but a vertical relationship (metaphysical reality) with God as one of the “partners.”

To develop this concept a bit further, traditional marriage (TM) is a microcosm/reflection of penultimate being that is, non-derivative being in much the same way that man was created in the imago Dei (image of God, Gen. 1:26). Orthodox Catholics understand it as a recapitulation of the tri-unity (“3” who’s in one what) that is the Blessed Trinity—wherein the “two (male and female possessing complementarity) become one flesh” (Gen. 2: 24) in the sense of giving life to a child (the third member of the human triad/family). From the perspective of human anthropology marriage in a traditional sense can join only one man and one woman in a permanent (covenant in religious terms) or exclusive relationship if it is to retain any semblance of meaning. As such the Traditional marriage union is a metaphysical (outside of space and time) reality as well as a physical one which is unbreakable by human means. It is this facet of traditional marriage which has been expunged in large part from post-modernity by the way.

The notion that individuals of the same sex or that multiple partners (in the sense of the pleural marriages practiced by polygamists) could “marry” is to rob the term traditional marriage of any real meaning. These and other “unions” such as between humans and animals are non-traditional in the extreme. Not only do they fail to mirror in microcosm the transcendent other (GOD) as understood in Christianity, they for the most part lack complementarity (anatomically at least) as well. While pleural marriage on an anatomic basis may possess complementarity , it clearly lacks exclusivity. Traditional marriage then for Christians must contain the elements of complementarity and exclusivity. This is true because of the essence of what it means to be human and because traditional marriage has both a vertical and a horizontal dimension, one in space and time; one outside of or beyond it. Unfortunately, the Enlightenment, much of modern philosophy (particularly the Utilitarianism of J. S. Mill) including Cartesian Dualism followed on by Baconian notions of science including Darwinist philosophy (philosophical naturalism) have emptied traditional marriage of its true meaning. As a result human nature is no longer considered “fixed.” It is simply assumed that one can create their own nature and for that matter reality itself. This reduces marriage to a completely horizontal “arrangement” of our own making that can be undone at will--resembling something more akin to a business transaction.

Admittedly, the idea that marriage is a recapitulation of the Blessed Trinity is unique to Christianity as it is predicated on a unique and divinely revealed understanding of the nature of God. Both Judaism and Islam which either tacitly or explicitly reject the Blessed Trinity; have historically allowed pleural marriage between human beings, (multiple wives with one husband) usually on economic, or other utilitarian grounds including custom. Nevertheless, over time, each has moved away from the practice of polygamy. It is safe to say that no monotheistic religion has endorsed non-traditional marriage between adult human beings of the same sex or between humans and animals presumably because of the issue of lack of complementarity and the recognition that traditional marriage in order to be legitimate/genuine must contain no impediment to the natural generation of children which would ensue from a lack of complementarity. This is another way of saying that marriage arrangements must not be incompatible with the natural law. Procreation--and with it the education and rearing of children--has traditionally been seen as either the primary/only or dual reason for marriage (along with the obvious positive unitive benefit for the spouses). Clearly this is an impossibility in the natural for same-sex and human/animal “unions.” Moreover, incest (parent/child) in recorded history has universally been sanctioned in all of the “3” monotheistic religions at least in part for reasons having to do with complications arising as a direct result of copulation and procreation (genetic disorders for example among other severe psychological problems). While heterosexual incest is correctly ordered anatomically, it is clearly disordered from the perspective of lacking exclusivity (parents already have or should have a monogamous and exclusive relationship), genetic complications and behavioral problems. Since traditional morality holds that sexual intercourse is proper only within the bounds of marriage, it is apparent that incest could never be morally acceptable.

Some would argue that while same-sex human or opposite-sex human/animal “unions” are not marriage in the Traditional sense, pleural marriage between for example one man and multiple women should be afforded the designation “traditional marriage.” There is a certain logic to this contention in that complementarity is preserved and with it the ability to procreate. The difficulty comes in that there is no exclusivity of the partners or of their offspring for the biological parents, thus not as organically related families in these arrangements. Such “unions” fail to recapitulate the divine pattern in microcosm and are inherently horizontal in nature; important criteria by which marriage is ultimately to be judged traditional where Christians and most monotheists are concerned. Atheists and agnostics or other nominal or fallen-away theists who embrace traditional marriage presumably do so in a more limited sense, one in which the historical, economic and conventional aspects of heterosexual marriage (in the horizontal sense only) are desired.

There is of course a certain collective wisdom of the ages which supports so-called traditional marriage. It has not been by chance that this kind of marriage has existed as the most frequent marital arrangement in virtually all cultures and time periods. TM has many obvious advantages and arguably the fewest negatives. Pleural marriage is associated with many hardships particularly where it is illegal. Even where polygamy is legal the natural tendency toward conjugal fidelity/exclusivity which is a natural part of human anthropology is difficult if not impossible to suppress and can lead to disastrous problems associated with jealousy of one or more of the spouses for each other. Attempting to preserve an equitable relationship with multiple marriage partners would seem to be an impossible undertaking. It is truly difficult to imagine how one could honor the biblical imperative to treat their neighbor fairly under such a circumstance.

Same-sex “marriages” are perhaps the most difficult to justify philosophically. Not only is there no complementarity of the sexes, statistically there is a high incidence of non-exclusivity of homosexual partners (particularly among men) which exceeds those of heterosexuals in which the marriage is considered a civil contract only and where they are not bound by the notion of indissolubility which comes with traditional marriage through verticality (covenant). If civil contract marriages between heterosexuals are removed from divorce statistics, overall divorce rates are much lower indicating that the problem in heterosexual marriage dissolution lies in the concept of a breakable civil contract. Therefore, in the interest of the common good it would be better to limit marriage to those who intend to form a traditional marriage rather than some other “arrangement” especially same-sex ones. Heterosexual couples considering marriage would be best served by exposure to traditional marriage and all of its obvious benefits since civil contract marriages fair so poorly over the long run.

Not to be underestimated are the potential medical complications predominately among male same-sex couples due to their incompatibility anatomically. For example since anal intercourse is usually involved in male/male same sex “unions”, the columnar lined rectal epithelial mucosa which is not suitable for intercourse (the vaginal mucosa is composed of squamous epithelium and designed for intercourse) is frequently damaged predisposing it to disease including anal warts, HIV/Aids, anal gonorrhea, fissures, fistulae and incontinence etc. Corresponding pathologies are invariably seen in the male partners of those who are frequently sodomized. This should alert us to the fact that something is inherently wrong with anal intercourse (heterosexual or homosexual) even if we had no other way of knowing it—fortunately, a careful study of human anatomy and physiology coupled with an adequate grounding in Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophy assures that other ways of knowing do exist.

As the reader may have deduced, from the moral perspective, traditional marriage follows the general construct that the “ought” should follow the “is” meaning that the proper moral formulation should flow from the reality of being in this case the human anthropology (including anatomical complementarity and the deep desire of human beings for exclusivity) of the partners. Only if one assumes that human nature is an accident, evolving or otherwise irrelevant would the nature of human being not be of critical consideration. According to the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis human nature is fixed not evolving, meaning it is unchangeable by man. As a result only traditional marriage as described herein can be judged morally licit. All other so-called “arrangements” would lack one or more necessary key elements in order to be considered marriages at all, or traditional marriages in particular--including polygamist ones which are closer to traditional marriages than are those between individuals of the same sex. Despite this reality, it is noteworthy that public (political) pressure in the West is increasingly in favor of same sex “marriage” rather than polygamous ones, a fact which given the realities of human anthropology is difficult to comprehend. While neither should be legalized in the interest of the common good, polygamist “marriages” are less deranged from the perspective of the natural law than are those of a homosexual nature.

The most commonly proffered justification for same-sex “marriage” is that each human person should have the right (a claim advanced on society; the result of a personal choice) based on Western notions of freedom, equality and autonomy to marry anyone they wish. Given the necessary elements of traditional marriage as herein defined, it is clear that same-sex “marriage” could never be considered marriage in any meaningful sense without doing damage to the English language and thousands of years of history including that which is common to all “3” monotheistic religions presently encompassing the vast majority of global inhabitants.

In helping to focus the morality involved in non-traditional marriage some critical questions might be waged as follows; to what extent should individuals be allowed freedom to act if those actions debase the common good and transgress established moral norms?

Only if no harm (direct or indirect) is done to other individuals and or the common good.

Do we as individuals have a moral responsibility to act personally in ways which are compatible with and enhancing of the common good? YES.

Does personal freedom include the ability to act in ways which while not directly or immediately harmful to others are nonetheless indirectly so and eventually very injurious to the common good? NO.

It is clearly in the common good for healthy life-long marriages between one man and one woman to be strongly encouraged if not codified in law. Moreover, it is beyond doubt in the best interest of our children to be reared in stable, two parent biological families. The sociological data strongly establish that this is the case irrespective of protestations to the contrary by those who advocate for non-traditional marriage.

Moreover, certain behaviors are not only immoral but have been made illegal as well. This is to protect individuals from injury and to insure the common good. Murder is both immoral and illegal as is rape for good reason. While homosexual activity and sexual activity with multiple sex partners is not illegal throughout the United States, it is currently illegal (in most states but this is rapidly changing) for multiple partners to marry (polygamy), for animals and humans to marry and in all but one state for same-sex partners to marry (Massachusetts). The latter reality is extremely regrettable. Since homosexual behavior and sex with multiple partners is immoral and destructive of the common good, non-traditional marriage in these circumstances should remain illegal. Massachusetts should repeal its current same-sex marriage law on the grounds that it represents poor social planning where a commitment to the common good is concerned. The wishes of some individuals especially when they are violative of the natural law should not be allowed to eclipse the interest of the common good. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has transpired in the case of US laws allowing abortion on demand and destructive embryo research.

From a traditional (scholastic) moral philosophical perspective, sex with multiple partners, between humans and animals (bestiality) and between individuals of the same sex are all morally illicit. This is true because of the nature of what it means to be human (unique and fixed human anthropology) and because of the principles of the natural law (they cannot be expunged in the same way that the 4 fundamental forces of physics cannot be denied) which includes complementarity of the sexes. The record of the last half century in the United States stands as a testament to the fact that the natural moral law cannot be revoked—it is immutable. Nothing but misery comes from denying or breaking it particularly on a massive scale e.g. at the level of nation states. Those who are familiar with the so-called perennial philosophy are well aware of this reality. Obviously, those who are steeped in Modern and post-Modern philosophy find this exceedingly difficult to accept.

Therefore, a key question remains; Are non-traditional “marriage” arrangements morally licit?

No, because; they are contrary to the common good and established moral norms including those between heterosexual couples who arrange civil contract marriages. The answer is simple but not easy given post-modern confusion with respect to what constitutes truth, reality and morality. In a pluralistic secular society such as ours, it would be impossible to make heterosexual non-traditional marriages illegal (although they should be discouraged) given the nature of current civil and human rights laws. On the basis of these, proponents of same-sex marriage have made similar appeals the results of which are in flux. From the perspective of the common good of society it would clearly be best if all marriages were “traditional” in the sense utilized herein that is, both vertical and horizontal and understood as a life-long commitment between one man and one woman. The fact that this is not possible in the developed West is a testament to the disadvantageous nature of living in a pluralistic society. This negative development which can be traced to the Enlightenment is extremely regrettable.

Finally, should non-traditional marriage be legalized?

No, it is unwise public policy to legally allow behavior which is; destructive of the common good and contrary to well established moral norms. The balance between individual desires on the part of individuals and the common good is too tipped in favor of the individual to the detriment of society.