|(Photo: Joshua Trujillo/AP)|
For years now, defenders of traditional marriage have argued that the current push to legalize same-sex "marriages" - while already contrary to natural law - represents but the first in a chain of events which will eventually lead to the destruction of civilized society. In 2004, Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D. of the Family Research Council published a pamphlet entitled "The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex Marriage" which outlines the ways in which the attempt to redefine marriage would undermine the "wellspring of society and culture", the family. Ten years on, and we've seen state after state strike down laws protecting traditional marriage. The sky has not fallen. Not yet, at least.
Last year, we saw a federal court decision abolish most of Utah's anti-polygamy law as being unconstitutional. Advocates of same-sex "marriage" were quick to ridicule suggestions that we have now officially set our foot on the classic "slippery slope". The openly "gay" and professedly Roman Catholic aberro-sexual-rights activist Andrew Sullivan shunned any association between changing same-sex "marriage" legislation and polygamy, as, according to Sullivan, "it's straight people - and mainly straight men - who are the prime movers behind polygamy as an ideal anyway." Since it's not "gays" who want polygamy, the two things are entirely unrelated. Right. Well, somebody needs to explain this logic to the Germans.
This week, the German Council of Ethics - by a vote of 14 to 9 - recommended that current laws forbidding incest should be abolished. According to the majority position paper, the right of the individual to "sexual self-determination" should be given more weight than any "abstract legal protection of the family." The report justifies its position by citing research which claims that incest is "very rare." But more important in the eyes of the Council is the effect such laws have on people involved in incestuous relationships: "They feel that their fundamental rights are being violated and that they are forced to either hide or deny their love."
To their credit, the German Bishop's Conference lost no time in issuing a condemnation. The press release issued at the conclusion of their most recent meeting contains the following:
It is with astonishment and alienation that we take note of the decision - passed with a narrow majority - of the German Council of Ethics to recommend a revision of §173 of the criminal code regarding consensual incest between siblings. In accord with the legal consciousness of the majority of the citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany, we view the current law forbidding incest as an indispensable part of the defense of the family and its central role in socialization as well as a necessary signal against the abusive marginalization of family relationships. It is thus an important prerequisite for the successful development of the human person and the protection of the free realization of familial roles. (Source)
It's highly unlikely that the German law will change. For now. But take note of the membership of the Council of Ethics: nearly all hold Ph.D.'s in their respective fields, and many are tenured professors at big universities: 4 in theology, 5 in law, 9 in medicine and 6 in philosophy. These are not rabid liberals from the fringes of society pushing a political agenda; these are well-heeled, highly influential intellectuals who have become so corrupt in their thinking that they feel that there is no longer a sufficient moral basis for forbidding incest. And they are teaching the very same to the next generation of theologians, lawyers, doctors and university professors. At this point, it is merely a matter of time before we have the first case of legal marriage between father and daughter - or, even more to the likings of all things corrupt, between father and son.
The sky isn't falling yet. But I can see the cracks from here.