Gays get your hands off marriage
Image via WikipediaRevising marriage would cause harm
At the heart of the argument for same-sex marriage lies the revisionist propositions that same sex marriage
harms no-one, and that to deny gay and lesbian couples
Marriage is not a denial of natural justice. But under these proposals, marriage would be totally changed. Marriage would be something else. It would place adult sexual choice and emotional commitment at the centre. In other words, marriage would not be about securing the rights of children, but rather meeting the needs of adults.
Under these conditions (rarely articulated, but nevertheless the case), there is of course no reason why marriage rights should not be granted to polyamorous relationships, or indeed any other type of sexual relationship.
Indeed, it is unclear even why sexual activity should be the focal point – why couldn’t long term housemates or inseparable golfing partners likewise seek recognition at law for their relationships?
The revisionist case reduces marriage to a matter of choice and love between adults. For the most part advocates have avoided discussion of the deeper
meaning of marriage, insisting instead that the change will be minimal in impact. But if the definition of marriage is changed, that will affect all of us, children in particular, because ‘marriage’ will primarily serve the interests of adults.
Marriage is a public, not a private matter. Revisionists, by advocating so strongly for change, tacitly acknowledge this. It is not simply therefore a matter of allowing a freedom for ourselves.
It is a matter of determining what best promotes human flourishing. Marriage is not unjust In respect of the argument around ending discrimination,
it is wrong and misleading to depict the case for same sex marriage as a case for ending discrimination or for equal legal recognition of relationships.
The Federal Parliament amended 84 pieces of legislation in 2008 to place
homosexual rights and entitlements on the same basis as others.
The Marriage Equality website itself admits that after these amendments the Marriage Act is the only legislation requiring change – this is not an issue of
substantive discrimination.
Not only so, but homosexual couples in NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT are able to register their same‐sex partnerships on a relationships register that provides public recognition and affirmation of their relationships.
The push for same‐sex marriage is therefore largely ideological, because there is clearly no intention in any jurisdiction that they be subjected to any
substantial discrimination on entitlement. No one is done a real injustice when we positively honour and uphold marriage as currently understood.
We currently honour those men and women who are united in lifelong, complementary, faithful and procreative relationships by calling them ‘married’. In a liberal democracy, others can form other types of relationships; but ‘marriage’ is a term reserved for a particular kind of relationship that brings with it obligations to others beyond the two parties.
Marriage is shared obligation for children. That marriage has come under stress from a variety of causes over the past 50 years, no fault divorce included, is no reason for radically altering its core nature, its aspirational value to society that it is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others,
voluntarily entered into for life.
The motion calling on Parliamentarians to canvass their constituents on same sex marriage noted “a growing list of countries that allow same‐sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa”.
This is hardly a formidable list given there are 192 member countries of the United Nations. Significantly, the French Constitutional Council (often considered to act as France’s supreme court) recently upheld the legislature’s refusal to name same‐sex relationships as marriage. It held that France’s parliament has the freedom to retain marriage as currently understood.
The Council ruled that a refusal of same‐sex marriage does not violate the French constitution. French lawmakers, it said, had agreed that the “difference in situations between same‐sex couples and couples made up of a man and a woman can justify a difference in treatment concerning family rights”.
In June 2006, the European Court ruled that the region’s human rights
convention “did not oblige a State to grant a same‐sex couple access to marriage” as marriage has “deep‐rooted social and cultural connotations”.
In other words, this ruling acknowledges that no one is disadvantaged when a society retains a distinctive name for these lifelong, faithful, exclusive and potentially procreative relationships between men and women which are oriented towards securing cognitively and spiritually the biological relationship that may result in the bearing and nurturing of children.
The Parliamentary motion also noted that there was “widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community”.
Democracy does not mean government by opinion polls or government by majority opinion. Democratic principles require government for the people and by the people. Our representatives elected by the majority of people have obligations to govern for the people.
They have obligations to protect minorities, even against majority opinion. They have a particular obligation to protect children. The traditional concept of marriage has a place in the law for the purpose of supporting the exclusivity and faithfulness of those biological relationships that result in children.
Marriage in the law is for the sake of children and society, and for providing a paradigm to set a comparative standard for the complexity of relationships in which children might otherwise find themselves.
