It is hardly surprising that after 35 years of abortion, contraception, and no-fault divorce, marriage is no longer the norm or even the ideal. Hence, the same-sex “marriage” lobby has been successful for the same reason that many of those who defend traditional marriage have failed – the definition of marriage has been lost. To give an adequate defence of marriage, it is necessary to fully define it first.

Without a definition, both sides are uncomfortable with the possibility of a full, open and honest debate. This is why advocates and timid opponents of SSM echo the same refrain about not reopening this “divisive issue.” Pusillanimous MPs who support traditional marriage now wring their hands about acting on their beliefs. It cannot be long now until an MP uses the familiar formula of cowardice: “Although I am personally opposed to SSM, I can’t impose my personal beliefs on others.”

The cloud hanging over the debate about marriage is that it has not been defined either by its critics or by its defenders. But evasion is no remedy for ignorance: those who think that a timid vote for the status quo will end this debate are gravely mistaken. For it is ridiculous to discuss whether to “re-open” an issue that, in fact, has never been settled. Indeed, our current situation, halfway between meaningful marriage and arbitrary social couplings, is impossible to maintain.

The debate about marriage scheduled to open in Parliament this fall is not only about recovering what has been lost, but about preventing the end of marriage. The problem is not that marriage has been redefined, but that it has been un-defined.

Marriage cannot be merely two (or more) people who love each other with no responsibility, no commitment and no ability to procreate children.

Quite recently, group sex in public places was legalized by the Supreme Court and two government-funded studies found that polygamy is all but inevitable. This is the future for Canada, unless the meaning of marriage is recovered. The only way to defend marriage from its un-definition is to recover its deepest meaning. Without marriage, society has no name special enough for the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, for the procreation of children, the unification of spouses and the sanctification of all its members. It is the full promise between a man and a woman that unites a life-long commitment of love and trust with the possibility for the renewal of society. Marriage is not only the foundation of society, it is also its fountain of youth.

As such, the battle to defend marriage cannot be left to politicians alone. As an issue, marriage will fade from the public eye, unless it is defended not only by those who understand it, but also by those who live it. The only way we can restore marriage is by living it privately and defending it publicly. The battle for marriage is not merely a struggle for justice, but also for self-preservation. We must decide where the front line of the debate will be, because what we cherish will need to be defended.

As such, it is our duty to make marriage an issue. So long as there are proponents on either side, the issue will not go away. We know that the advocates for SSM will not give up.

The question is whether or not we will.