Homosexuality is a slippery slope like abortion
Author: Andrew Bolt writes in the Herald Sun . IT was meant to stop us worrying, but one bit of Labor's new policy for same-sex marriage is a warning. I mean this: "These amendments should ensure that nothing in the Marriage Act imposes an obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any marriage.
I'm sure most of the delegates at Labor's national conference on the weekend did mean it. They just wanted the law changed so men could marry men, and women could marry women.
And they didn't want to use equal opportunity laws to then force churches to bless them. But I wouldn't take this guarantee to the bank.
The whole idea of changing the Marriage Act is to force us collectively to bless same-sex unions despite the reluctance of many to do so. After all, forms of same-sex civil unions - which I support - already exist in Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, the ACT and NSW. The legal difference between those unions and marriages are usually small, so what more is gained by same-sex "marriage", a word and tradition reserved in every culture for the union between a man and a woman?
Senator Penny Wong, herself in a lesbian relationship, explained it powerfully on Saturday in seconding the motion to change Labor's platform. "(We) want the same opportunity others have. To make a commitment to another. To have it recognised. To have it respected ... Do not ask us any longer to accept our relations being treated as lesser."
But gay and lesbian couples can already make their commitment and get recognition with civil unions. So what Wong really wants is that last item on her list. Respect. Agreement from everyone else that same-sex unions are not "lesser".
Yet many I know who worry about gay marriage don't consider same sex relations "lesser", but different. Moreover, I already respect Wong's relationship, as I respect those of same-sex friends, including two who've been together for nearly 40 years.
So Wong is asking many of us for what we already give. And as civil unions become more common, many more Australians will surely give that respect to them, too.
But is it right or useful to get "respect" from those who still don't approve of same-sex unions just by changing the law to make them call those unions "marriages"?
And where does such forcing stop, once you start? In fact, I'm sure same-sex marriage will quickly be followed by cases in discrimination tribunals to make people accept them.
As I said, once you start, where do you stop? And I'd ask that question even more urgently when we start dismantling traditions and taboos so old that people forget why generations before found them necessary.
When you destroy the traditional idea of a marriage being between a man and a woman, in favour of a union between any two consenting adults, you invite more changes.
Why stop at two? Why not also "respect" unions between a man and two women? After all, polygamy has what same sex marriage does not - religious backing in Islam, and historical precedents everywhere.
Yes, this is the slippery slope argument that social "reformers" sneer at, arguing we're smart enough to know how much is enough when we start smashing.
But let me give just three examples of how that slippery slope works.
In 1969, a Supreme Court ruling made abortion legal in Victoria "to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or her physical or mental health". But now that's been tweaked and interpreted to effectively allow even healthy women to abort healthy babies just weeks from birth.
Second example: Euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke started his crusade by offering death to people he claimed were in terrible pain from terminal diseases.
But by 2002, as shown in the documentary Mademoiselle and the Doctor, it appears Nitschke was offering suicide even to healthy people who simply wanted to die.
Third example: Victoria, like other states, created "Koori courts", just for Aborigines, junking the ideal of one law for all. But once you make an exception for one group, why not for two?
And, indeed, last week the Somali Community of Victoria asked for their own courts, too: "Instead of applying sharia law in Australia, it is better to have a Koranic court (like) the court Australia has for the Aborigines."
So, no, I do not trust the dismantling of marriage to stop at same-sex unions, just as I do not trust the gay marriage push to stop at letting priests object. Once you start smashing, where do you stop?
Andrew Bolt writes in the Herald Sun
I'm sure most of the delegates at Labor's national conference on the weekend did mean it. They just wanted the law changed so men could marry men, and women could marry women.
And they didn't want to use equal opportunity laws to then force churches to bless them. But I wouldn't take this guarantee to the bank.
The whole idea of changing the Marriage Act is to force us collectively to bless same-sex unions despite the reluctance of many to do so. After all, forms of same-sex civil unions - which I support - already exist in Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, the ACT and NSW. The legal difference between those unions and marriages are usually small, so what more is gained by same-sex "marriage", a word and tradition reserved in every culture for the union between a man and a woman?
Senator Penny Wong, herself in a lesbian relationship, explained it powerfully on Saturday in seconding the motion to change Labor's platform. "(We) want the same opportunity others have. To make a commitment to another. To have it recognised. To have it respected ... Do not ask us any longer to accept our relations being treated as lesser."
But gay and lesbian couples can already make their commitment and get recognition with civil unions. So what Wong really wants is that last item on her list. Respect. Agreement from everyone else that same-sex unions are not "lesser".
Yet many I know who worry about gay marriage don't consider same sex relations "lesser", but different. Moreover, I already respect Wong's relationship, as I respect those of same-sex friends, including two who've been together for nearly 40 years.
So Wong is asking many of us for what we already give. And as civil unions become more common, many more Australians will surely give that respect to them, too.
But is it right or useful to get "respect" from those who still don't approve of same-sex unions just by changing the law to make them call those unions "marriages"?
And where does such forcing stop, once you start? In fact, I'm sure same-sex marriage will quickly be followed by cases in discrimination tribunals to make people accept them.
As I said, once you start, where do you stop? And I'd ask that question even more urgently when we start dismantling traditions and taboos so old that people forget why generations before found them necessary.
When you destroy the traditional idea of a marriage being between a man and a woman, in favour of a union between any two consenting adults, you invite more changes.
Why stop at two? Why not also "respect" unions between a man and two women? After all, polygamy has what same sex marriage does not - religious backing in Islam, and historical precedents everywhere.
Yes, this is the slippery slope argument that social "reformers" sneer at, arguing we're smart enough to know how much is enough when we start smashing.
But let me give just three examples of how that slippery slope works.
In 1969, a Supreme Court ruling made abortion legal in Victoria "to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or her physical or mental health". But now that's been tweaked and interpreted to effectively allow even healthy women to abort healthy babies just weeks from birth.
Second example: Euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke started his crusade by offering death to people he claimed were in terrible pain from terminal diseases.
But by 2002, as shown in the documentary Mademoiselle and the Doctor, it appears Nitschke was offering suicide even to healthy people who simply wanted to die.
Third example: Victoria, like other states, created "Koori courts", just for Aborigines, junking the ideal of one law for all. But once you make an exception for one group, why not for two?
And, indeed, last week the Somali Community of Victoria asked for their own courts, too: "Instead of applying sharia law in Australia, it is better to have a Koranic court (like) the court Australia has for the Aborigines."
So, no, I do not trust the dismantling of marriage to stop at same-sex unions, just as I do not trust the gay marriage push to stop at letting priests object. Once you start smashing, where do you stop?
Andrew Bolt writes in the Herald Sun
