Bolingbroke: Alex Hern Saves The Future Of Marriage

A true prophet of liberty...

Tenacious wit, peer of the realm, true Son of Liberty. Defending the righteous constitution of mankind against the factious enemies of natural society.

Sirs,

It came to my attention of late that the journal known as The Guardian had made yet another earnest publication, being, so I am told, of such a quality as one which holds no thing but contempt for the ancient constitution of the state. A certain Mr Hern had much to say on that honourable estate of marriage, or rather with regards to “civil unions”, given the judgement of the Supreme Court of this nation earlier this week.

Mr Hern claim’d that: “The institution [of matrimony] is stuck in the past and saddled with religious baggage.” And I quite agree with him.

“The institution is entwined with the history of religion and with a view of women as property and second-class citizens […] a marriage must be carried out in a registered venue (why?); it must include the exchanging of vows (for whose benefit?); it must involve declaring people “husbands” and “wives”; […] with marriage certificates still requiring the name and professions of dads but not mums.”

Alex Hern, The Guardian

Why, gentlemen, I declare there to be the truest prophet of liberty amongst us. It is a fact universally recognised that a truly natural society cannot exist without first stripping bare the fabric of our present discontents. For I ask ye, gentlemen, to consider what is the cause of discontent? It surely is the rule of men in every place at every time. It was man who brought us war, and it was man who brought us marriage. It follows therefore that if such a calamity as war proceedeth from man, then marriage ought to be equally condemned as villainous.

Yet Mr Hern does not go far enough. For if only we could rid ourselves of the blight that is marriage! What paradise we could forge from the ashes of institutional government! Imagine therefore the manifest utopia of complete freedom – where, unbound by tradition or the inheritance of customs, man might flourish independently of the law. Would not men and women, and indeed creatures of all kinds, not be bound by marriage, but by natural rights of their choosing? The Son of Liberty longs not for marriage but for freedom, to be associated by civil unions of tolerance, harmony, and respect, but not by wedlock; for any thing with “lock” in its name must be the pernicious offspring of the arch-locker, the veritable Devil.

Subscribe to The Burkean Brief

What was it that those first ancestors of ours entered into? Adam and Eve did not beset one another with marriage, but with “one flesh.” And yet we hear factious Whig types tell us that “one flesh” means “marriage.” I say sirs, “one flesh” suffices. If men and women wish to be “one flesh” – let them be so! If they wish to be united in “unions of civility” – let them be so!

Commitment is nothing if it is not natural. The love of a mother for her child is natural – unless of course, she does not wish to love her child. What could be more natural than the changeable will of man?! I say, if a man and a woman love each other, who cares?

I champion this Alexander Hern, this Son of Liberty. For what is a human if he does not have the right to break hearts? To abuse the lives of others? To live his life wavering between fear and love, between commitment and freedom? To live any other life is a sure violation of the natural rights endowed to mankind by the Creator.

Yes – the right to abuse, the right to ignore! That sirs, is the purest marriage! Let it thus be legislated for the sake of the constitution!

Yours,

Bolingbroke

Comments are closed.