It was Irish EU troughers that won gay marriage referendum
Gay marriage is one of those issues that excites strong emotions. With Ireland in mind, as interesting as the issue itself is how it got on the agenda. This sceptic about gay marriage says it was down to a radical liberal ideology running riot through modern Europe, and it's the lawyers who have most to celebrate
Same-sex marriage is to be legalised in the Republic of Ireland, the first country to introduce it by popular vote. To many people around the world, this must have come as a surprise.
If there was one country with a reputation for strong traditional beliefs, Ireland was that country. So what happened?
Why has Ireland, of all countries, decided to dismantle what traditionalists see as the natural institution of marriage between a man and a woman -- an institution that has been integral to human society throughout most of human history -- to be replaced by state recognition of what some would see as inherently sterile unions and what, in many cases, would be assumed by such traditionalists as frivolous commitments from those playing at being parents?
Well, strange as it may seem given the vote in favour of same-sex marriage, the Irish people did not ask for or demand a change to the legal status of marriage. It’s a safe bet that the vast majority of Irish people, just like the majority of British people before Mr Cameron accepted gay marriage were not even aware that their political masters were determined to legislate in favour of same-sex marriage.
The truth is that the Irish referendum on allowing same-sex marriage did not originate in the will of the Irish people, but in the corridors of power in Europe, specifically that shadowy institution the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.
According to the Sunday Telegraph’s Christopher Booker, implementing same-sex marriage throughout Europe was and continues to be essentially a social engineering project by gay lobbies and their political sympathisers in the Council of Europe and its adjunct, the European Court of Human Rights.
Of course, they have a perfect right to lobby for their cause just as everyone else does. It isn’t the legalisation of gay marriage per se that is interesting, it is the way in which it has got onto the agenda.
The fact is that the political ideology that drives the political engine of the EU project is an extreme form of radical liberalism. The EU is committed to gender and identity politics in their most radical forms and same-sex marriage has always been a big part of the EU’s secular liberal project.
That’s why Sir Nicolas Bratza, one time head of the European Court of Human Rights, indicated that the court was ready to declare same-sex marriage a “human right” as soon as enough countries could be persuaded to fall into line.
Irish politicians were the perfect well-fed guinea pigs to fall into line.
The Irish political class, practically without exception, is entirely uncritically pro EU. That includes the great Catholic “nationalist” party Sinn Fein, whose president Gerry Adams shared a platform with gay activists to celebrate the yes vote, giving the impression that gay rights were the reason for all those Provo car bombs.
Irish politicians -- perhaps with some honourable exceptions -- were just what the EU bureaucrats needed to push through their gay marriage agenda. If Ireland voted for gay marriage (and with the Catholic Church still reeling from sex scandals, it just might) then perhaps other socially conservative countries might do the same.
The truth is that the EU gravy-train has turned virtually the whole of the Irish political class into a bunch of troughers and yes men. As Nigel Farage put it, Irish politicians are “the pin-up boys of Europe.” When asked to jump, they ask, “How high?”
And Brussels offers good career prospects for its political prison-bitches and good boys. There are strong rumours that the Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny (a mediocrity, even according to his own party) is in line for a big job in Europe when he’s finished in Ireland
Considering that same-sex marriage is one of the most controversial issues in Europe and around the world (several European countries have rejected it, with even the French out on the streets demonstrating against it), it’s a very strange fact that every political party in Dublin supported gay marriage in the referendum.
The only explanation for this catastrophic collapse of democracy on such a vital question is obedience to Brussels. And obedience to Brussels came not only from politicians. The Irish police officially supported the gay marriage side in the referendum, while those who campaigned for a no vote were under constant accusations of “homophobia” and “hate crimes”.
After Brussels’ success with Ireland’s Yes vote, the public face of a jubilant “marriage equality” Ireland was broadcast around the world. But the reality is very different.
There is no such thing as marriage equality between same-sex couples and different-sex couples, because there cannot be.
Marriage is not a religious or a civil ceremony in which any relationship can partake. Nor has it anything to do with rights for gays or anyone else. Marriage is fundamentally about male and female fertility and birth through the generations. It is certainly not a happy-clappy celebration of happy-clappy “love”.
The only way the government can make same-sex marriage equal is to take the reproductive sex act out of the legal definition of marriage. That’s what Britain did and it is what Ireland will do. The proposed amendment to the Irish Constitution will read: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”
So there you have it. The only way to get equality in marriage is to destroy the very concept of marriage as traditionally understood.
Marriage in this new definition has nothing to do with the sex act. In the new definition, what is to be understood by the consummation of marriage? What would adultery be? There isn’t even a requirement for same sex couples to be homosexual. The marriage contract is merely a legal recognition of virtually any self-declared relationship.
Such a concept of marriage will cause legal havoc, with challenges to the ECHR to establish all sorts of financially and other convenient “marriage” arrangements.
With such a hollowed-out concept of marriage, why should a sister not marry her sister? If sex is no part of the definition of marriage, there can be no objections on genetic grounds.
And why not marry more than one person? If sex and children are not part of marriage, why stick with one person? A sex-irrelevant legal definition of marriage is effectively an “any-relationship-will-do” arrangement and Polygamy is a likely outcome, particularly as Islam is a growing force in the new xenophiliac Ireland.
The Irish people celebrated their Yes vote as a vote for equality. In fact it was a vote to destroy marriage as traditionally understood.
But the people who are really celebrating are the lawyers. The proposed new definition of marriage will give rise to endless money-spinning legal challenges, with the legal establishment applauding the Yes vote all the way to the bank.
Vincent Cooper is a regular contributor to The Commentator
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.