By: Russell Kirk

Russell Kirk — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:24:11 +0000

Civilization has developed over many, many thousands of years, and certain features of human behavior have been institutionalized in churches (religions) and social structures (governments and communities). One example is liturgy, which–more than a single gifted or not-so-gifted preacher–conveys the essence of the spiritual experience and beliefs of Christianity. The nuclear, or for that matter the extended family has been an essential form also, and for a longer time. The Romans worshipped at the home altar, and their devotion to their country was modeled on their devotion to their family. Fathers and mothers care for their children and this is how the children are instructed, protected, and taught the meaning of love. The question is, what does the government have to do with this? To the extent that the government models what the time-tested human responsibilities are, it has a lot to do with it. So when the concept of homosexual marriage becomes a government institution, and of course, many in society already are practicing it on their own, then children are taught in the government schools that there are many kinds of families, or families aren’t important at all. Thus, the structure of our civilization is being changed, and, many would say, broken down. If the government were not reaching into all of our schools and personal lives to such an extent, then civil unions and “marriages” blessed by some privage or religious institutions could exist without substantially changing our society. Since the government *is* reaching everywhere to a greater or leser extent, legal homosexual marriages will contribute to changing the structure of our society. Or perhaps the intrusions of government and other forces already have thoroughly changed the structure of our soicety and the legalization of homosexual marriage is just a reflection of that.

Comments on: Why is it that extremely good intentioned and very intelligent social conservatives are seemingly incapable of understanding such a simple concept, such as this?

By: Russell Kirk