Jacob Rees-Mogg has
come out as being opposed to same sex marriages because of his religion. On one
level that’s fine so long as it is between him and his particular brand of Catholicism
but it looks like more of a problem to me because he appears to believe that the
definition of marriage – the view of what marriage is – should be taken by the
church and not the state. I think in wanting to exclude the state he has
avoided the real issue – If the state should have no role in defining marriage
then exactly which church out of the many in this country gets to be the one that
does define marriage?
Mogg says, “I’m a Catholic, I take the
teaching of the Catholic church seriously. Marriage is a sacrament and the view
of what marriage is is taken by the church, not parliament.”
“I
support the teaching of the Catholic church. The marriage issue is the
important thing, this is not how people arrange their lives.”
Why is this a
problem? – Because Catholicism is not the only religion in the UK, because not
every religion restricts marriage to just one man and one woman and, more
importantly, because he has singled out same sex relationships for exclusion
whilst ignoring all the other things that Catholicism expects in a marriage. My
own heterosexual marriage did not conform to the teaching of the Catholic
Church yet he doesn’t seem bothered by it, or at the very least he hasn’t voiced
his opposition to that type of marriage.
He says that he supports the teaching of the Catholic Church,
and in doing so is opposed Gay marriage. Fine, catholic teaching on Marriage
states clearly that the couple must be man and woman, but it also teaches that they
must be baptised, that they must vow to bring up their children ‘according to the
law of Christ and his Church’ and that they must give their consent before God
and his church – specifically the catholic God and the catholic church, not the
god or church of any other religion. All fine if you are a catholic, perhaps more
generally for a Christian, but if Mogg wants to be consistent with his adherence
to religion then he should oppose any marriage that is not between a catholic
man and woman.
No more Jewish weddings, Hindu marriage or Muslim matrimony,
no more Mormon polygamy or Polynesian plural marriage. He supports the teaching
of the Catholic Church and those teachings says clearly state that marriage is
between a Catholic man and Catholic woman, not a Hindu man and woman, a Muslim
man or woman, an atheist man or woman or, whilst we are at it, between men,
between women or any plurality of the above!
