Whatever else may be said about same-sex unions, if they attain the same status as heterosexual marriage, it will mean the destruction of marriage. This is not to say that this is the intent of the homosexual lobby, but there is something called the law of unintended consequences.

Homosexual people fondly imagine they will end so-called discrimination against themselves. But, success in their campaign to win “marriage” rights will put into motion a process that will change traditional marriage beyond recognition.

One preserves and upholds marriage by guarding the integrity of the institution. Historically and traditionally, marriage has meant that one man and one woman come together in an exclusive relationship for the purpose of companionship, and procreation. Marriage is not an individualistic institution, but has always been recognized as the foundation of the state, since only through legal marriage and healthy families is the state guaranteed a constant supply of healthy citizens. Homosexual liaisons, in and of themselves, cannot produce children. Since an integral part of marriage is procreation, then a liaison that is incapable of producing children – both potentially and actually – cannot possibly qualify as a marriage.

Marriage in the Western tradition (I don’t regard the Mormon idea of plural marriage as part of accepted tradition) has always had the quality of exclusivity and fidelity between the spouses. It seems that for homosexual couples, however, sexual fidelity and exclusivity are not as important as they are to heterosexual couples. In fact, in a book entitled, The Male Couple, published in 1984 by Dr. David McWhirter and Dr. Andrew Mattison, the authors relate that of 156 male couples studied, 95 per cent had an arrangement that allowed for outside sexual activity. The authors indicate that fidelity for the male “couple” relates to emotional commitment, but does not mean sexual exclusivity. In short, what is regarded as ideal and normative in heterosexual marriage is seen as “arbitrary” in homosexual liaisons. A marriage relationship for homosexuals therefore would embrace a norm of sexual infidelity that would spell the end of most heterosexual marriages.

Homosexual marriage will destroy traditional marriage by fundamentally redefining what marriage means to society. For once marriage is redefined in any of its basic elements, there is no magical line in the sand to prevent further redefinition.

Rome as a civilization and an empire declined slowly over a period of 200 to 300 years. In like manner, in our beloved Canada, nobody will feel the earth tremble as the first foundation of marriage disappears. But there will be nothing to stop the further deforming of this venerable institution, and as surely as the night follows the day, it will be eroded into irrelevance.

What logic will prevent marriages where there are multiple spouses? I know of at least one Canadian MP who has been asked by a recent immigrant to Canada to try and have both of his wives recognized in Canadian law. What logic will prevent men selecting and marrying young girls? This is already happening in some parts of the U.S. and Canada, where certain sects of Mormonism encourage multiple “spouses” and age appears to be of little consequence. What logic will prevent men from finding and espousing young boys as marriage partners? Is it not significant that the American Psychiatric Association, at its May 19 conference in San Francisco, proposed removing pedophilia from its manual of mental disorders?

The magically effective word of our politically correct age is the word “discrimination.”

Absolutely any sexual orientation one can think of will eventually claim an equal right to marry, on the basis that it is wrong to discriminate against anybody’s sexual orientation.

Unless we speak now to defend marriage, we will see it destroyed in our day. It will not be desecrated and deformed beyond recognition by its proscription, but by redefining it so broadly that ultimately any conceivable relationship will qualify.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien, by caving in to our activist court system, doubtless hopes that posterity will thank him for giving more “rights” to the homosexual community.

But leaders who leave a legacy of destruction and decay by immoral and foolish decisions are more likely to be cursed than thanked.

Let us hope and pray that the Liberal government will re-evaluate its assault on marriage. But in the meantime, let us phone our local MPs and warn them that we will seek to defeat them if they take part in destroying this venerable institution.

Let us scorn passivity and inaction in the face of such great danger. The foundations are being destroyed. If ever there was a time to act, it is now.

Rev. R. Hamel is an ordained minister living in Guelph, Ont. He currently devotes his time to pro-life, pro-family ministry.