The destruction of Marriage

The huge support for the marriage referendum was a dreadful tragedy. It indicated to me that this Republic has turned a corner into decline and is not long for this world. Something like this would only be possible with massive, widespread rights-illiteracy.

It is nearly impossible to imagine the removal of a liberty, but short of starting a new state from scratch without this absurd redefinition of equality and concession to group rights, reimagining this will have to start with the understanding the state does not 'sanction' marriage. Marriage predates the state and has precedence over it; the state is modified and constrained by marriage. Marriage is not within the gift of the state. Underlying this is the understanding that every citizen must have: the constitution is not a Xanax prescription.

I can tell you that the people who worded the constitutional amendment in the office of the attorney general and chief state solicitor's office understood this very well. I happen to know that the great majority of the staff in those offices and all of their family law specialists voted against the referendum in their private capacities. They knew what it signified and what would be coming down the line. The framers to f the amendment in the Dept of Justice and Equality on the other hand are activist progressives. The civil law division of DOJE that worked on the referendum is managed by unmarried (and frankly unmarriable), middle-aged women.

While I'm not an actively practicing Catholic, I understand that its impossible to grow up in the West and not absorb this Christian ethos naturally. I realise it sounds mealy-mouthed, but this is what I mean by 'cultural Christian'.

It's like this debate around St Vincent's Hospital at the moment - don't these people know that the very idea of a hospital is a Christian, specifically Catholic idea? How many hospitals have Atheist Ireland ever built, or could ever build?

What is coming down the line in your view?  I know what I think, but I haven't actually spoken to anyone about it in any depth.  I tried to broach the topic with a few people but they weren't interested.

NB:  This question probably merits a separate thread.  

That's very interesting, Classical Republican, but I'm not sure I agree with you about group rights. However, I'm particularly interested in your argument that group rights actually accentuate the atomisation of society.

I think about something like Northern Ireland. It seems to me that a settlement in Northern Ireland was only achieved when there was a pragmatic acceptance of groups and group rights, or at least group privileges.

Or take something like the representation of Bishops in the British House of Lords. I would be sad to see that go. I've never really understood why the laws and organs of a society can't take account of the actual realities of that society, rather than positing a kind of hypothetical anywhere.

How do you feel about language rights, so-called, and the "special position" of the Catholic Church in the Constitution up until recently?

I read somewhere recently - I think in the
Catholic World Report's The Benedict Option Responses that Alasdair MacIntyre said the concept of human rights is as real as the existence of unicorns!

Imagine dropping that quote in the middle of your next cocktail party organised to raise funds for Amnesty International and Colm O Gorman's rather ample salary. I assume MacIntyre is saying they are imaginary constructs in the same way as leftists say nations gender etc are all constructs too?

I was a bit suprised to read it but it is well documented and referenced on line. Perhaps someone with some philosophical background could enlighten those of us who haven't philosophical training as to his reasoning?

Agreed. It would also deal with the notion of expanding new rights that were unheard of or ridiculed up until fairly recently. Unfortunately most advocates of trans rights or marriage "equality" don't care about this lack of a basis for new rights. MacIntryre has also written on the rise of emotivism and how moral discourse is almost impossible with people who have such radical views on expanding rights.

I also have an issue with the lack of any emphasis on corresponding obligations or responsibilities in our society. Anyone interested in forming a human obligations society ?