Immoral Homosexual Marriage referendum needed not Kevin Rudd's change of heart
IF Australia is to redefine marriage – and this is by no means inevitable – it is not a matter for legislators or activist judges, but a matter for the people.
Contemporary Australians must recognise that proponents of same-sex marriage are not seeking to achieve “marriage equality”, but instead to redefine marriage – a proposal so fundamental that it goes to the fabric of society itself.
No doubt there are same-sex couples in loving, long-term relationships. But marriage is and always has been about the relationship between a man and a woman, for the procreation of children.
In fact, it’s only a few years ago that gay activists were denigrating marriage as an outdated institution.
They may well have changed their minds, but you can hear the divorce lawyers licking their lips at the prospect of all those extra property disputes.
Same-sex marriage is not, as is increasingly argued, a human rights issue. Gay people, and indeed unmarried heterosexual couples, have all of the significant rights of married couples.
Instead, let’s face it, this is a boutique issue. It may well interest the electors of Wentworth, but for your average Australian family, it is in the world of fantasy. Of course this does not deter the elites of society from trying to introduce it.
Not only would it be immoral to deny the people their say on this issue which goes to the heart and soul of mankind, but it may well be unconstitutional.
By 1900 – and the intensely democratic nature of the origins of the constitution should not be forgotten – we the people agreed to charge the federal parliament with the power to make laws with respect to marriage.
There can be no doubt that the framers of our constitution, and the people who adopted it on that basis, clearly understood marriage to be a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Indeed, it was clearly intended that polygamous marriages not be recognised, even though they were with the opposite sex.
Further, the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004, which defines marriage in this way, simply reflects the original intention of the constitution.
If the parliament were to proceed with a same-sex marriage law, as sure as night follows day, there will be a challenge in the High Court.
Although nobody knows how Their Honours would decide this, the point is that it should not be left to judicial discretion, including that by activist judges.
If this issue is to be pursued, the recent calls by Tony Windsor, Fred Nile and others to put this issue to the people by way of referendum at the Federal election will achieve two things.
It will avoid any possible constitutional challenge, as well as giving a clear indication of how we the people feel.
I have little doubt that after an informed debate, including every elector receiving a yes/no booklet, Australians will preserve in its current form the tried, tested and proven institution of marriage.
Jai Martinkovits is Executive Director of CANdo.org.au. Follow Jai on Twitter at @jaimartinkovits
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/opinion/ask-us-what-we-think-on-gay-marriage/story-fnh4jt54-1226637460967#ixzz2cdzTzyHe
Contemporary Australians must recognise that proponents of same-sex marriage are not seeking to achieve “marriage equality”, but instead to redefine marriage – a proposal so fundamental that it goes to the fabric of society itself.
No doubt there are same-sex couples in loving, long-term relationships. But marriage is and always has been about the relationship between a man and a woman, for the procreation of children.
In fact, it’s only a few years ago that gay activists were denigrating marriage as an outdated institution.
They may well have changed their minds, but you can hear the divorce lawyers licking their lips at the prospect of all those extra property disputes.
Same-sex marriage is not, as is increasingly argued, a human rights issue. Gay people, and indeed unmarried heterosexual couples, have all of the significant rights of married couples.
Instead, let’s face it, this is a boutique issue. It may well interest the electors of Wentworth, but for your average Australian family, it is in the world of fantasy. Of course this does not deter the elites of society from trying to introduce it.
Not only would it be immoral to deny the people their say on this issue which goes to the heart and soul of mankind, but it may well be unconstitutional.
By 1900 – and the intensely democratic nature of the origins of the constitution should not be forgotten – we the people agreed to charge the federal parliament with the power to make laws with respect to marriage.
There can be no doubt that the framers of our constitution, and the people who adopted it on that basis, clearly understood marriage to be a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Indeed, it was clearly intended that polygamous marriages not be recognised, even though they were with the opposite sex.
Further, the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004, which defines marriage in this way, simply reflects the original intention of the constitution.
If the parliament were to proceed with a same-sex marriage law, as sure as night follows day, there will be a challenge in the High Court.
Although nobody knows how Their Honours would decide this, the point is that it should not be left to judicial discretion, including that by activist judges.
If this issue is to be pursued, the recent calls by Tony Windsor, Fred Nile and others to put this issue to the people by way of referendum at the Federal election will achieve two things.
It will avoid any possible constitutional challenge, as well as giving a clear indication of how we the people feel.
I have little doubt that after an informed debate, including every elector receiving a yes/no booklet, Australians will preserve in its current form the tried, tested and proven institution of marriage.
Jai Martinkovits is Executive Director of CANdo.org.au. Follow Jai on Twitter at @jaimartinkovits
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/opinion/ask-us-what-we-think-on-gay-marriage/story-fnh4jt54-1226637460967#ixzz2cdzTzyHe
