Protecting marriage

Protecting marriage

Brian A. Coman

The Australian people have a perfect right, in fact a duty, to protect the institution of  marriage from those who seek to damage it in their own selfish interests.

Supporters of same sex "marriages" make lots of noise about gaining equal status in the eyes of the law but very little, if anything, about the detrimental impact such a move would have on marriage as we know it. The simple fact is that if you mix two things together both of them are changed not just one.

The impact upon traditional marriage would be disastrous. What, for example, would the  Commonwealth Marriage Act have to say to accommodate same sex couples? For various reasons it could not, I suggest, be couched in terms that would allow marriage celebrants and other authorities to rely simply upon the statement of an individual applicant as to his or her sexual preference as the sole determinant for eligibility under the Act.

For one thing such a course may well run up against some or other privacy provision. For another, Australians just do not like governments putting labels on them.

Inevitably, therefore, the door would have to be thrown open for anyone to "marry" anyone else to the ultimate detriment, even destruction, of traditional marriage as we know it.

What is more, the anti-discrimination arguments largely used to justify the damage are spurious at best if not patently false. The Commonwealth Marriage Act, for example, draws no distinction whatever between homosexuals and heterosexuals and thus could not possibly favour one or the other.

Even if the bow is stretched to the limit there is still no discrimination because a heterosexual is restricted by the Act in exactly the same way as a homosexual.

In confining itself to a union between a man and a woman the Marriage Act accords with  the natural order, is both legitimate and reasonable, and cannot, in my view, be regarded as in any way discriminatory against same sex unions. The two arrangements are simply different just as apples and oranges are different. The fruiterer does no wrong in treating one differently from the other.

So please let us have no more conjured up accusations of unfair discrimination. The  drawing of a distinction between the two life styles is quite unremarkable and sensible.

 Mordialloc, Vic

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.