The Australian media has lost objectivity on homosexual marriage
 |
| photograph of the justices, cropped to show Justice Scalia (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
It is disappointingly predictable that
the media in Australia is obsessed by a slim majority activist US Supreme Court
decision. At the same time there have been no reports of an
elected representative vote in another country of 110-26 against same-sex
marriage.
While we have heard much about the US
Supreme Court's extraordinary ruling that a right to marry someone of the same
sex has – somehow – always been constitutional, there's been hardly any mention
about last week's overwhelming vote against gay marriage in the Austrian
legislature.
Most people in a democracy believe
social policy should be determined by the people, not by dubious interpretation
by an activist judiciary.
The US Supreme Court majority has set a
dangerous precedent for the US by asserting that the American people have, since
inception, somehow misunderstood their own constitution.
As dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia
put it: "And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be
considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel
of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation
without representation: no social transformation without representation."
Scalia's deep concern is sound.
Chief Justice John Roberts also put it
succinctly: "But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of
men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening."
Roberts aptly said that the majority of
judges "seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves for the
people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that
question".
He went on: "Understand well what
this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution
of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead
about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the
people acting through their elected representatives, or with five
lawyers."
Prior to Obergefell v Hodges, 31 US
states had amended their constitutions to define marriage between a man and a
woman. This came about through referendums.
Of the 31 states, 28 subsequently had
their democratically determined amendments overturned by activist courts.
Such decisions should not be made by
unelected judges, but by the people. Why should the people be completely
sidelined by a ruling that has the power to drastically transform society?
Elsewhere around the globe, in Rome
last week more than 300,000 people took to the San Giovanni square to express
their opposition to a proposed civil union bill, which was being considered by
the Italian senate. In February, Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation ruled
same-sex marriage was not constitutional. But why didn't we see these events
similarly reported?
Because it simply doesn't fit the media
agenda.
The Italian mass movement
demonstrations follow the huge public reaction by the French people against
such a move in their country. This also went virtually unreported.
However, one prominent Australian news
website rejoiced that tiny Pitcairn Island, with a population of 48, recently
legalised gay marriage. The headline even screaming that Australia "sits
on its hands".
It's regrettable that the media has
lost its objectivity on this issue.
With the recent one-sided reporting of
the Supreme Court ruling in the US, same-sex propaganda is hitting new heights.
But I would advise caution. The debate
here isn't over.
The undeniable truth is that the nature
of marriage is exclusionary by design. It has always existed for just one man
and one woman.
Even the petitioners in the US case
conceded they were not aware of any society that permitted same-sex marriage
before 2001. Just 14 years ago.
So what we have here is a wrong-headed
decision by a bare majority that an institution that is acknowledged to have
existed in a union between one man and one woman for "millennia and across
civilisations" (to use the Supreme Court majority's own words) is actually
something quite different.
Study after study, time and time again,
shows that children benefit from having a father and mother.
That is the foundation that marriage
provides, and has provided for millennia.
The institution of marriage has stood
the test of time.
For our children's sake it needs to
continue to do so.
And that is why I have no hesitation in
supporting the long-established Liberal Party policy to preserve and protect
the institution of marriage, just as we did at the last election.
Eric Abetz is government leader in the Senate
