Australian Gay Green Push
Image via WikipediaThe Revisionist Proposal.
There is a bill before the Australian Parliament to change the current definition of marriage to allow same sex couples to marry.
This debate is about the function and purpose of the law in relation to marriage and not a discussion that goes to personal motivation and attitudes.
We ought to deal fairly with every member of the human family and their needs, including people of homosexual orientation. In the same spirit ad hominem attacks on defenders of traditional marriage spiced by the use of pejoratives such a ‘homophobic’ and ‘bigot’ do not add to understanding of the issue.
It is significant that everywhere the issue has been debated it begins on the issue of fairness and justice and with majority support but that soon changes when people realise that there are deeper issues involved.
After their legislature experimented with same sex marriage, the people of California voted against the revisionist concept of marriage.
The main claim in favour of changing the law in this way is that the current law unfairly singles out people who experience same‐sex attraction not allowing them to have the same status as people who are married.
It is important to note that the Federal law in Australia has already been changed to give same sex partners the same legal rights as those who are married and in an increasing number of States to register their unions. The remaining issue therefore is the definition of marriage.
Changing the law so that marriage includes same sex unions would be a change to what marriage means. Currently marriage involves a comprehensive union between a man and a woman, and norms of permanence and exclusivity.
Marriage has a place in the law because a relationship between a man and a
woman is the kind of relationship that may produce children. Marriage is linked to children, for the sake of children, protecting their identity and their nurture by a mother and a father.
The State would have no interest in the permanence and exclusivity of marriage if it were not the fact that marriage may produce children.
