Yes, I realize it's just Holland, the West's pusher of narcotics and prostitution. Yes, I realize the parliamentary proceedings used by the pro-incest faction are questionable.
But the very fact that a Christian body has legitimized incest concerns me. It also concerns me that many will view this as a “progressive” civil rights measure. It also concerns me that the pro-incest faction is so aggressive in its tactics.
For those who missed it, the issue was brought for consideration under “Other Business,” at the very end of the bi-annual session. Many electors had left, thinking the serious business was over. Because it was not placed on the agenda ahead of time, three-fourths of the electors present had to agree to consider it. The pro-incest faction, however, had made sure their electors stayed and were able to muster the necessary votes to get the issue recognized procedurally. When the vote on the substantive issue of incestuous marriage was held (which requires a bare majority), the incest vote easily won.
Hans Kuiper, pastor of Tulip Church in Rotterdam, said the procedural machinations are an outrage: “It goes against all notions of fair play.”
But he also admits that the decision will probably be upheld. “Unfortunately, the vote complied with the strict letter of parliamentary procedure. I suspect the decision will stand, at least until the next Greater Meeting in 2006, where I'm sure it will be presented properly, discussed openly, and, hopefully, overturned.”
No one denies that the pro-incest faction purposefully presented the issue at the last minute and stacked the voting deck. “Yes, we did it on purpose,” said Anke Boer, Vice President of the Holland Incest League, “but there's a higher end here than parliamentary red tape and we didn't break any rules.”
I tend to believe this newest assault on basic moral norms will pick up speed, spread across the Atlantic to Canada, then eventually drop south into the United States.
But maybe not. The immediate outcry against the decision has been formidable. Even Christians who tend to be “left of center,” oppose it. Rector Ian George of the Anglican Episcopal Church of Holland was quoted shortly after hearing about the vote: “I think even the Anglican community, which prides itself on progressive thinking, will draw a line on this one. Incestuous marriages, even between consenting adults, violates fundamental norms that have been recognized since Biblical times.”
George also thinks recognition of incestuous marriages will destabilize families and undermine traditional notions of the father's role. But the incest folk don't agree. They (correctly) point out that the family is already in tatters and that the traditional notion of parents' roles has been changing for years. Says Boer, “Thirty years ago, mothers weren't supposed to be the breadwinners. Five years ago, mothers were supposed to be women and fathers supposed to be men. It's all evolving. This is just the next step.”
I'm also not optimistic that these people can be argued with. In a culture that values sex and individualism and the misguided notion of “two consenting adults is the only criterion of morality,” the pro-incest people's arguments are compelling. To quote Ms. Boer again, “Father-daughter marriages recognize true life-long intimacy, from birth to death. These people are in committed relationships and, in fact, have been committed to each other a lot longer than other couples whose relationships we recognize. To deny them the right to marry is a violation of fundamental civil rights.”
In response to assertions that such marriages will result in the birth of mentally disabled children, Boer notes that disabled children are born of conventional man-woman marriages, too. Also, we don't mandate the abortion of fetuses known to be defective, and we don't prohibit couples from procreating when their genes show a proclivity of producing defective offspring.
When asked if she thinks it will undermine the father's role in the family and ruin the trusting relationship between parent and child, Boer points out that there's no evidence for such a conclusion. “It's simply fear-mongering and witch-hunting.”
She can call it fear-mongering. She can lament witch-hunting. I say we should all be fearful of the sex-obsessed witches who are beginning to grab the soul of Christianity.
Happy April Fool's Day (If only it couldn't be true)
© Copyright 2004 Catholic Exchange
Eric Scheske is a freelance writer, a Contributing Editor of Godspy, and the former editor of Gilbert Magazine. You can view his work at www.ericscheske.com .
