As I start this article, I want to affirm that I support a suitable solution that allows loving couples to enjoy a State sanctioned union that is recognised in law.
However, what I cannot support is a solution that discriminates and punishes another class of citizen. As a man married to a woman, father and grandfather, the current proposal for “Gay Marriage” has not considered at all the discriminatory effects this legislation has on me and people like me. The proposed changes in fact “robs me” of several things. Let me explain.
My Identity. My wife and I are a married couple. Husband and Wife. Man and Woman. Just like my father. Just like my grandfather. Just like my great grand father, right back to generations of Stotts who emigrated from England. I enjoy being married and the sense of togetherness, oneness, love and support it brings. My identity as a man married to a woman will become diminished, reduced, forever altered. My history lost. Therefore, any solution that provides a State sanctioned union for Gay couples should be one that doesn’t rob me of my identity and history.
Societies Traditions.
My traditions. Marriage as a union between a man and a woman has been the bedrock of ancient and modern societies for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years. It is a tradition that is found in every culture, every society, every religion, every nation, every tribe, every legal tradition. Therefore, any solution that provides a State sanctioned union for Gay couples should be one that doesn’t destroy the history and traditions of our society and culture.
My Faith. As a Christian, marriage is more than a legal contract. It is a love covenant before God between a man and a woman. Supporters of Gay Marriage offer these platitudes to those whose faith believe (which include more than just the Christian faith) that churches and ministers would not be forced to perform Gay Marriages in their churches. Consider how much we faith holders will lose. In a solemn marriage ceremony held in the traditions of our faith, the words are spoken: “I now pronounce you husband and wife”. In another place, not in a faith tradition, the words are spoken before two women or two men: “I now pronounce you husband and wife”. Again, we who hold marriage to be between a man and a woman have that faith tradition diminished, robbed, taken away and replaced with something else. Therefore, any solution that provides a State sanctioned union for Gay couples should be one that doesn’t destroy the history and traditions of my faith.
Finally, a word of caution in regard to the law of unexpected consequences. When homosexual acts was removed as a criminal offence from the Statute books, the mantra at that time was that society should not legislate what occurs in people’s bedrooms. Today’s modern society is made up of an incredibly diverse collection of relationships. The State should not, cannot seek to codify each variety of relationship to give them some form of legal status. This brings us to the limits of any future legislative change. Recently a photo from the US published a father marrying his son. Will this be permissible under the new law? Should the State be sanctioning (approving) this relationship? If not, what about mothers marrying daughters, sisters marrying sisters, brothers marrying brothers? I don’t put the question to bring unwanted controversy to the debate into but to merely make the point that the law of unintended consequences needs to be very seriously considered when making such far reaching changes to societies foundational structures.
My solution? Leave marriage alone, with all its history, traditions, culture and religious connections preserved. Find another path, another word another way for gay couples to legalise their union. Please don’t discriminate against me when trying to prevent discrimination against another group, this is just not fair.
Neil Stott
About the Writer:
Neil is the leader of a Men’s Group belonging to Life Church Mooroopna and author of a blog “The Real Men Challenge”.