What is Marriage? Part 4

Today I want to think about why our governments regulate marriages and what some of the implications might be if they did change the definition to include same sex couples.

Our governments regulate all kinds of relationships such as marriages, and cohabiting couples. They do so to protect people from being hurt if those relationships fail. In our system of government there have been many changes to the laws which oversee this area. Defacto couples are considered ‘married’ and have the same rights as couples who are married. Same sex couples can also officially declare their relationships and are afforded the same protections and rights as other state endorsed couples.

This is a good thing because relationship breakdown carries a huge financial and emotional cost to our communities.

Our government has regulated marriages between a man and a woman differently from Same Sex Marriage (SSM) because they recognise the inherent good in maintaining stable families. This relationship is unique in that it produces children and the right environment in which to raise children (see previous article, What is Marriage? Part 3).

If this is changed I think there will be several consequences.

These are realities that are now being experienced in places where SSM has been allowed.

First, in doing this other laws will need to be changed that allow same sex couples (SSC) to have children. I am not denying the ability of SSC to raise well adjusted kids. I do have concerns though that we are deliberately legislating against the natural right of a child to it’s mother and father. So it’s worth asking, what consequences this will have over time?

I ask this question, not to scare people, but so we can carefully consider what we intend the consequences to be, and what unintended consequences may arise. The changing of divorce laws in the 1970’s was seen as a good thing at the time. Many are questioning the wisdom of that now. We have an unprecedented number of single parent families and, in particular, children separated from their fathers. The evidence is very clear on the effect this has on young people (despite single parents best and hard work).

We must also consider something that many people are reluctant to discuss openly.

In making SSM equal to marriage, we will be giving permission for our children to be educated about same sex practices. This is the case in United states, and is even the case in Victoria where very controversial gender theory and associated practices are being forced on the public education system. We need to consider the physical and psychological health implications of such practices. This is something that’s not been discussed. Are we aware? Is there research? Do we want our children experimenting in this way?

Next week: I will continue to talk about consequences of changing how the government regulates marriage.