Andrew Bolt on Gay "Marriage"

Why gay conservatives worry about gay marriage - and Gillard, too

My own view is that whatever marriage might mean for the happy couple, the reason the rest of us give it society’s imprimatur is that its the best way to keep the wandering male at home, to raise socialised children.

Weaken the marriage and you weaken the chances of the next generation being good citizens. All the rest - the love, the happy-ever-afters - is just icing on a sternly healthy cake.

From this central truth comes what should the conservative case against gay marriage, or, at least, conservative concerns about a redefinition of marriage and the weakening of an already compromised tradition that helps to protect us all.

Therefore gay marriage advocates who claim that the case for gay marriage is opposed only by homophobes, religious bigots and haters are lazy, ignorant, obsessively self-admiring or a combination of the above. Those who say marriage must be redefined to end homophobia are using the wrong tool for the job, and damaging it in doing so.

Here gay conservative Christopher Pearson makes similar points:

The most obvious thing about the arguments in support of same-sex marriage is their shallowness. The best Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young could manage last week was to remind us breathlessly that we are living in the year 2010, as though that settled the matter. The Greens’ line that all loving couples deserve to be treated equally is just as specious.

Few have argued more consistently over many years than I have done that same-sex partners should get a fair deal on superannuation and other entitlements of that kind…

But the few remaining privileges reserved for matrimony are there for sound, practical reasons.

Men and women tend to have different needs and priorities when they enter a mature sexual relationship.

Most men are not naturally disposed to be monogamous, for example. One of the purposes of marriage is to bind them to their spouses and children for the long haul and to give the state’s approval to those who enter such a contract and abide by its terms.

But for Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the case for opposing gay marriage has one further iron necessity. If she were to do what many in her party and in the media are now demanding and back gay marriage, she would forever destroy her credibility with a sector of the voting public that believes more than most in honesty and keeping your word.

Thing is, Gillard gave her solemn word to the Australian Christian Lobby, in an interview just before the election, that she would not change the Marriage Act. She said the same on radio some weeks before the polls:

A caller, 20-y-o Tatsuya, asked, “what is your view on same sex marriage, and would you consider legalising it?”

In her measured sandpaper tones, Gillard said, “This is the frank answer, we’ve got very clear Labor party policy on this and it won’t be changing – that we believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that it’s recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples, in the things that government does in social security benefits and the like.”

If Gillard were now to break her word, hundreds of thousands of Christians would hold her to be a liar and never trust her again.

I wonder at the values of Labor Party MPs who want their leader to break her promise to the Christian community - a promise she made in the name of their party. Do vows and integrity mean so little to them? And here we get back to the weakening of the institution of marriage ...