I would add that a central factor that Lewis could not have foreseen, or, if foreseen, at least did not mention, was the collusion of the “oldline” Protestant churches and large factions of the Roman Church in the project to dismantle the old Christian sexual ethic and its replacement with a long dreary parade of fashionable innovations. His distinction between State marriage (“civil unions”) and Church marriage cannot hold if the churches themselves — many of them — are positively enthused about these innovations, and assist in their accomplishment. What this leads me to ponder is this; that the task we may be facing is not simply the massive and eternal confrontation with loss of faith or gathering unbelief, but the rooting out of a heresy: A heresy of Love, or perhaps better, a heresy of Self-Love.

Whatever the modern heresy is, it plainly exalts passion and thrill over commitment and sacrifice; it disdains the core of marriage, which is fruitfulness or procreation; and it ignores all the symbols and images associated with marriage which point beyond marriage to something greater. Of this debased conception of matrimony, homosexuals are eager to partake; and the heretics are everywhere ready to assist them.

This is the philosopher Herbert Spencer, writing in 1851, at much the same time that more permissive divorce laws were first being introduced into the Anglosphere.

“To enforce the fundamental law - to take care that every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man - this is the special purpose for which the civil power exists. Now insuring to each the right to pursue within the specified limits the objects of his desires without let or hindrance, is quite a separate thing from insuring him satisfaction.”

Note that the fundamental law is “that every man has freedom to do all that he wills”. How could you not end up with a culture of divorce when this is the organising principle of society? If any of the weakest part of society wanted to divorce, this “law” would make it just to allow them to do so. Those people of principle, resolutely following their “law”, might not divorce themselves but they would have no grounds to prevent the less honourable from doing so.

Hence the spectacle of “good family men” gradually liberalising the divorce laws until we reach the point of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s.

I don’t agree with Lewis on this point. Marriage is not a specifically Christian thing although Christianity does raise it to a sacrament.

Marriage is initially a natural and social institution that corresponds to the nature of man and is central to social order. Even if someone rejects the idea that Christian sexual morality, including lifelong monogamous marriage, is a matter of natural law, it’s basic to the civilization of the West. So why not view its defense and fostering as — among other things — a matter of general social benefit?

1. Mark points out that modern man is very much a child of Spencer. Spencer’s fundamental law is the result of a fundamental misconception of freedom (freedom to do all that he wills). Spencer’s fundamental law is all about the right to do whatever we want to do without duty to do what we ought to do.

2. Even though CS Lewis wrote a brilliant defense of natural law (The Abolition of Man), he seems to set marriage outside the natural law. Yet, Mr. Lewis wants a marriage govern by the state and one govern by the Church. What would guide the state in governing marriage? The argument for lifelong fidelity isn’t simply a matter of religious piety. Christian morality shouldn’t be confused with Christian piety. Finally, I think Mr. Lewis was a bit disingenuous. Instead of being upset if the Mahommedans tried to stop us from drinking. A more relevant question is whether or not England should have laws against polygamy that are contrary to the tradition of the Mahommedans.

Mr. Kalb and TCB makes excellent points. Even Homer nods.

Speaking of gay marriage. Exactly what benefits do gays want from marriage that they lack? Given the number of shack up and fornicating heterosexuals, it would be safe to say that many heterosexuals do not see any benefit from marriage.

The current language of the debate “gay marriage” hints at the upcoming balkanization of marriage. Gay activist demand that the term marriage be used. I do not think that they will settle for “civil union” unless such terms are seen as a brief compromise. Ultimately CS Lewis may get his wish. The Catholic church has never simply accepted marriage outside the Catholic church. The Catholic church has always called such marriages invalid until a dispensation is given. Although the bishops may be lax, many groups are around that vehemently protest the official Catholic doctrine. The state did not rule marriage until the Enlightenment. I wander if many Protestant churches will continue to accept the state authority on marriage. I remember in Louisiana they passed a law giving the state authority for recognizing covenant marriages. The law was clearly an attempt to return to the Christian standard of marriage. Texas may be a good state to challenge the civil authority on marriage. In Texas, a couple is considered married if they have publicly presented themselves as married.

I think Lewis may have a valid point. I have been giving this issue a lot of thought in the light of traditional Lutheranism, and his argument does seem to be in line with the Lutheran understanding of the two Kingdoms.

Increasingly I view the state as a tool for national defense and preservation, and the Church as the preserver of traditional morality. While I would certainly like to see a much more conservative government and judiciary, I am also realistic about what is achievable in the current climate.