|
August 04, 2004
Parliament is a strange place. It is currently ruled by a discourse of free market ideas about wealth creation being the end of public policy co-mingling with social conservatism.
Today the social conservatives--the religious right--were having their shindig in the Great Hall. They--anti gay groups and evangelical Christians-- were in Parliament to talk about traditional marriage between men and women. They--the Australian Christian Lobby were there for a forum on marriage.
So how does their brand of social conservatism fit with the free market economics that drives public policy?
The Coalition is going to reintroduce proposed changes to the Marriage Act to confirm that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others. Here is the argument advanced by the Prime Minister:
"I support marriage because I believe it provides stability in relationships, because it is a public expression of commitment, but it is also the environment in which children are best raised and nurtured and brought to full adulthood and enjoyment of life's opportunities. Now, many marriages fail. We all know that. That doesn't of itself and should never of itself damn the institution or suggest that other relationships can have the same status as marriage."
So why the emphasis on heterosexuality? Here is the PM again:
"We all know from life's experience that longstanding institutions provide encouragement, they provide hope, they provide emotional support, and they also provide a practical way of helping people through life. I have often said that a stable, functioning, united home and marriage is not only the best emotional environment in which to raise children, but it is also the best and most efficient social welfare system that mankind has ever devised....There are many in the community who have no religious beliefs who believe very strongly in the core institution of marriage. There are many in the community who believe in its bedrock value. There are many in that category in the community who have the view that I hold, that all other things being equal, it is far better that children be raised in a married home with the benefit of both their mother and their father."
It is the last sentence that is problematic. That all other things being equal, it is far better that children be raised in a married home with the benefit of both their mother and their father. Why is that so?
No justification is given for why same sex couples are worse parents than heterosexual couples. The implication is that children will suffer by being parented by same sex couple families.
|
