Re-enforcing natural law

Traditional marriage between one man and one woman continues to be an institution under fire in church and state, across the globe. That’s news to no one. Even in Tanzania…

THE government has stressed its stance on same sex unions, saying that it remains a criminal offence under the penal code for people to engage in homosexual acts.

Attorney General, Mr Johnson Mwanyika, made the assertion yesterday when commenting on the move by the South African parliament to legalise same-sex weddings, being the first African country to do so.

Mr Mwanyika said that what was decided in South Africa was meant to accommodate the needs of their society, adding that it is highly unlikely that Tanzania could follow suit on grounds of external influence.

He said that besides the laws of the land putting it clear that homosexuality is illegal, such acts are also contrary to people’s religious teachings, culture and social behaviour.

“It is not likely that such a thing could happen in our generation, maybe in future generations. Such a thing is simply not compatible with our culture and different faiths in the country”, he said.

Clearly put, not compatible with the natural law, as taught by the Church for more than 2,000 years. 

“Holy scriptures put it very clearly that marriage is exclusively between a man and woman”, said an assistant to Bishop Alex Malasusa of East and Coast Diocese of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania who preferred anonymity.

He hinted that the move to pass bills on same-sex marriages have political motives and do not necessarily have to represent the wishes of the majority. He also blamed advocates of human rights who compel politicians to make such decisions.

“Activists want governments to recognize and cater for minority groups’ rights. That is where the problem begins”, he said.

Where it goes from that beginning depends on the strength of government’s commitment to the principles of its founders, and its electorate.

MATT FOREMAN, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, was celebrating Arizona’s defeat of a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“It is always wrong to put basic rights up for a popular vote,” he said, “and it is nearly impossible for any minority to protect itself when that happens. But today in Arizona the impossible happened.”

Constitutional democracy is incompatible with the rights of minorities? That would have come as news to champions of American liberty from John Adams to Martin Luther King Jr. They would have been even more taken aback, to use no stronger term, by the suggestion that there is a “basic right” to homosexual marriage, something American law has never permitted.

Once, Americans who considered themselves progressive had faith inthe collective wisdom of the citizenry and fought to extend the franchise to more people (e.g., women) and more decisions (e.g., the election of US senators). Their democratic confidence reflected a civic conviction as old as American independence itself — that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

But advocates of same-sex marriage appear to regard democracy as a snare to be avoided. Hence their preference for securing gay marriage by judicial command, as in Massachusetts and New Jersey. And hence their aversion to letting voters decide whether the definition of marriage should be changed.

Conservatism won pretty large victories in the recent election, no matter which party the conservative represented. Which represented the principles and values of the majority of Americans. Keep an eye on who you elected to government at www.senate.gov and www.house.gov, and how they are voting. And more than ever, let them hear from you.