Peter Jensen
June 16, 2012
We are in the midst of a sustained and brilliantly orchestrated campaign to radically alter the marriage laws of this country to allow same-sex marriage.
Three slogans carry the message: ”marriage equality”, ”marriage won’t change”, ”it’s inevitable”. Of course, the difficulty with slogans is that they are not arguments and, so, are hard to refute, except by slogans in return.
The ”marriage equality” slogan trades on the commitment of our community to equality. We oppose distinctive traits, such as race, being taken into account when they are irrelevance. Notice the word ”irrelevant”. We may, with justice, make quite acute distinctions between people. For a political party to be allowed to hire someone who shares their political convictions is fair. Likewise, it is perfectly allowable for two men or two women to be prevented from entering as partners in a mixed doubles competition of tennis. The reality of the world God made is that human beings are in two sexes, male and female.
For marriage, that is supremely relevant.
In fact, all of us oppose ”marriage equality” if that means it is the right of every person to marry anyone they choose.
We may not marry a minor, for example, even if we want to and if the minor and his/her parents agree. There is a relevant difference. Nor may we marry a person already married. Bigamy is a crime, even if all parties agree to it. Likewise, siblings may not marry, even if they are past the age of having children.
If ”marriage equality” was meaningful, it should encompass all these possibilities. It does not.
In general terms, the ”right” to marry already exists. Any adult can marry provided that a proper person (not a sibling, minor, or member of the same sex) is also willing, for that is what marriage is. What we rightly lack is the right to marry anyone we choose without discrimination.
It’s not as though when marriage was defined we simply overlooked the possibility of two people of the same sex being married. We are not fixing an accidental omission. We would be changing a very deliberate, relevant exclusion.
Another slogan says extending marriage to include two men or two women would change nothing essential. Your own marriage would not change. There would be no bad consequences.
But it’s not true.
My marriage would be different. It’s no good asserting otherwise. When a society redefines one of its basic institutions, it affects everyone. I would have to find a different word for my marriage, or add the rider ”heterosexual” to the word ”marriage”.
The education of my children would be different. Same-sex marriage is symbolic of social acceptance of gay sex as a moral good. Most people still believe the physical make-up of humans points in another direction. But they would not be able to prevent their children being taught that consenting sex between any two persons is a matter of moral and physical indifference.
Human rights would be different. A right does not come into existence by mere claim and declaration. When human rights language is used in the wrong way, it cheapens the discourse. It makes it harder to stand up for human rights, and against real injustices.
Is it all inevitable?
The stylish and confident propaganda has become pervasive. Federal politics is in danger of being distorted. Those who are doubtful or opposed have been tempted to remain silent rather than be accused of promoting hate. But it is interesting that in 30 US states where the matter has been put to a direct vote (as against imposed legislative or judicial change), the majority voted against ”gay marriage”. There is also evidence of electoral fatigue in Britain and Australia
Same-sex marriage is not inevitable. It is not even possible. It would be better for us all if the law reflected the truth human beings have always known. Social engineering cannot change realities as basic as these. But the consequences of an attempt may still be painful.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/stylish-samesex-campaign-glosses-over-real-issues-20120615-20f6e.html#ixzz1y39oPtmi