December 6th 2008

  Buy Issue 2794

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY: Opposition tensions to resurface in 2009?

EDITORIAL: Left-liberals to dominate Obama Administration

GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS: Disentangling the new world disorder

SUPERMARKETS: GroceryWatch is a white elephant

POLITICAL IDEAS: The realisable goal of property for all

STRAWS IN THE WIND: Giving to the have-mores / How long can Labor last? / Degraded educational standards / Future prospects

BANKING: The Medici — manipulators of money and soft power

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: Abortion increases risk of pre-term births

EUGENICS: The menace of eugenics, yesterday and today

MARRIAGE: US battle to preserve traditional marriage

CINEMA: Depraved film the symptom of a sick culture - the Coen Brothers' Burn After Reading

Australian Christian Lobby responds (letter)

Chechen terrorists (letter)

BOOKS: WARSAW 1920: Lenin's Failed Conquest of Europe, by Adam Zamoyski

Books promotion page

US battle to preserve traditional marriage

by John Elsegood

News Weekly, December 6, 2008
Citizens in three American states have voted to prevent traditional marriage from being redefined, reports John Elsegood.

The greatest threat to marriage and family is the attempt to legalise same-sex marriage, according to Lynn Wardle, law professor from Brigham Young University in Utah. He warned the October national conference of the Australian Family Association in the port city of Fremantle, Western Australia, that marriage was a national treasure and the most important of social institutions.

He warned that clashes would be inevitable if the core definition of marriage was changed to accommodate the whims of social activists and engineers who considered any opposition to their views as coming from "mere bigots".

A fortnight later, citizens in three US states voted to support traditional marriage from being redefined. Immediately afterwards, the attacks that Professor Wardle predicted became very much a reality, with violent demonstrations launched by gay activists against Christian churches, companies and individuals that had urged a yes vote for traditional marriage.

Sustained attack

The church that came under the most sustained attack was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), better known as the Mormons, the dominant fund-raising force in the California ballot to ban same-sex marriage (Proposition 8), although the Catholics and some Evangelical Protestants, such as Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, were also targeted.

The initiative came about because an activist Supreme Court of California ruled that an existing ban, enacted by referendum in 2000, was unconstitutional. Hence, the most populous state in the Union became a political battleground. The LDS, allegedly, contributed up to 40 per cent of the $15.5 million raised in the pro-marriage campaign. Some sources attributed as much as $20m to the LDS expenditure overall.

Since the three state referendums rejected same-sex marriage, the LDS has come under sustained attack and vilification from activists who have labelled that church's involvement as bigotry and prejudice at its worst. In fact, it was a copybook example of democracy working, after the LDS and others put forward a logical and moderately expressed case for the support of traditional marriage.

Some of those well reasoned arguments were patiently explained by Professor Wardle to his large Australian audience. He said that the defence of marriage was not designed as an attack on homosexual relations and lifestyle but rather a defence and defining of marriage — full stop. Attempts by activists to redefine marriage would result in a very different social institution and effects.

Warming to his theme, Professor Wardle said marriage is not just a piece of paper, nor a matter of legal positivism, but rather a pre-state and pre-legal institution. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Nor does a union of two women make it a marriage in nature, characteristics or social consequences.

The issue was indeed a civil rights issue, but not as homosexuals would argue. Rather, marriage was an inalienable feature of life and not to be the subject of judicial or legislative whim.

Same-sex marriage is presented as a claim for tolerance, but tolerance is quite different from preference. "The law treats human relations in three ways: many relations are prohibited, others tolerated and a few are preferred and privileged."

Professor Wardle said that society had moved away from prohibition to tolerance on homosexual matters, but that conjugal marriage had always been given historical preference because it is the foundation of society. "The claim for same-sex 'marriage' moves beyond a claim for tolerance and seeks special preference."

Such a claim, he said, was a "demonstrably false assumption ... all relationships are not equal; marriage produces good and beneficial effects for individuals, children, families and society that are unmatched by the effects of all other relationships".

The flow-on effect, if the homosexual push was successful, would undermine freedom of religion and speech, while children in public schools would be taught the moral relativism of equivalency — and any argument with that "principle" would not be permitted.

In what was surely a prescient point, he claimed defenders of traditional marriage did not want controversy and division but that "the advocates of radical redefinition and deconstruction of marriage have aggressively taken steps to change public law and policy and have forced the issue on us".

The attempt to capture marriage is hardly new. The Nazis tried it with the infamous Nuremberg Laws of 1935 that, in part, prohibited marriage between Aryan Germans and the Jewish so-called untermenschen (subhumans). The law professor reminded his audience that US racial eugenicists used thuggish tactics to advance their program of racial segregation, something that pervaded Southern society for a century after the end of the American Civil War (1861-5).

As Lynn Wardle reminded his Western Australian audience, there are times when you have to stand up for what is right regardless of cost — and not just simply pass on by on the other side, like those who preceded the Good Samaritan.

— John Elsegood is a freelance journalist and a teacher of history and politics in Perth, Western Australia. (He has never been a member of the LDS Church.)

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am