There is the so-called “Soviet Union”. This is a long standing reality in the world of ideology, in the sphere of political realities and the like. And who has not heard, who does not know the nature, spirit and objectives of the so-called “Labor Union” with special relevance to workers, laborers and the like. But lo and behold! There is something new – interesting as well as intriguing – that came to fore recently. It is called “Civil Union”. What it is, its admirable inventor seems to know. What it is for – why and how – the same creative author thereof appears to be an expert therein. So, what is it really? It has nothing to do with ideology or industry. It has relevance to men and women – and it is probably significant as well to those with unsought of sexual identity ambivalence or difficulty. Again: What is it?
“Civil Union”: It is neither Marriage nor Matrimony as commonly known and lived. It seems to be meant for men and women, for anybody and everybody alike who want to be related with others somehow. What really matters is what two individuals want and why they want it. The “What?” does not really matter. The “What for?” is inconsequential. It is the fact that they want it – this is all what counts, all that is relevant. Culture and tradition – never mind. Reason and ethics – irrelevant. Shame and ridicule – immaterial. Spirituality and faith – these are passé thoughts and practices.
In a nutshell, the so-called “Civil Union” seems to be the many-faceted brilliant idea, the profound and marvelous thought, the fervent design and option specifically intended for those who do not believe in marriage and/or who do not want matrimony – particularly those who are in fact incapable of a life-long marriage, who are disabled from entering matrimony with its essential and lasting rights and obligations as established by Natural Law and long since recognized by Law of the land – not to mention its categorical affirmation by Church Law itself.
In other words: Redo the long existing and intimately bonding nature, finality and inherent consequences of the Conjugal Covenant. These are “modern” times demanding “modern” thinking and living, stipulating “modern” action and reaction patterns. So is it that people should likewise have and live “modern” lives – particularly so in the sphere of man and woman relationship. Never mind human dignity and word of honor such as those expressed and manifested in the married vows. Never mind decorum and integrity imbedded in the matrimonial commitment. And never mind when keeping one’s word of formal and categorical commitment is blatantly dishonored – and never mind as well when families are decimated, when children are uncared for, much confused if not altogether abandoned.
It’s about time that the people become “modern” in their thinking, “modern” in their way of acting and reacting and specially modern in how they understand, what they do with, how they do and undo a “Civil Union”. The long-standing nature and finalities of marriage – such as an avowed procreative man and woman relationship for a lifetime – this is funny, this is silly. That marriage is one for one for life – this is dumb, this is stupid. “Civil Union” – this is the exemplar, the ideal, the paradigm!