It's becoming the new rallying point for homosexuals, the right to marry, and I read that a new lobby group in the Hunter is accusing Labor and Liberals of homophobia for their refusal to change the Marriage Act. The homosexual lobby wants the definition of marriage in that act changed from "the union of a man and a woman" to "the union of two people". As I write in my column in the Herald today, I expect one day governments will be under pressure to change that to "the union of two or more people".
Why are both our prospective federal governments refusing to include homosexuals and, indeed, people of any sexuality in the institution of marriage? Numbers. Both fear that they'll lose more votes than they'll gain by changing just those few words in the Marriage Act, and they're probably right.
The homosexual lobby's best course, I say, is not to attack anyone or any organisation as homophobic, a charge that only strengthens opposition, but to explain to the great stolid mass that would be offended by homosexual marriage that many homosexuals are in long-term, caring relationships that really are worthy of the social sanction of marriage. Many of these men and women in same-sex relationships are life partners raising children, and as couples and as families they are indistinguishable from other families. Apart, of course, from the common gender.
As couples, as parents, they have the same hopes and fears and frailties as the rest of us, they have the same right to acceptance and happiness as us all, so why should they be denied a social sanction that would strengthen their relationship? If the marriage of a man and a woman is a benefit to society, why would not the marriage of a committed male or female couple provide the same benefit? Would allowing same-sex marriage diminish the institution?
Email a friend