August 8th 2009

  Buy Issue 2809

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY: Economic bounce masks deep structural crisis

ENERGY: What can Australia do when the fuel runs out?

EDITORIAL: Overseas lesson in energy conservation

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Turnbull's judgement under a cloud

SCHOOLS: The choice so few parents can afford to make

MARRIAGE: The personal and social costs of cohabitation

OPINION: Keeping marriage between a man and a woman

CHINA: Cracks appear in China's detested one-child policy

POLITICAL IDEAS: Distributist responses to the global economic crisis

WAR ON TERROR: What will we learn from the Jakarta bombings?

EUROPE: Obama told: don't abandon central and eastern Europe

OBITUARY: Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski dies at 81

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: Protest at News Weekly article on East Timor

Tony Abbott on divorce (letter)

Time for a people's bank? (letter)

AS THE WORLD TURNS: Genderless child-rearing experiment / Hostility towards masculinity / Dear baby-boomers ... / Shopkeepers honoured

BOOK REVIEW: POMPEII: The Life of a Roman Town, by Mary Beard

Books promotion page

Keeping marriage between a man and a woman

by Paul Russell

News Weekly, August 8, 2009
There's an old saying that goes: before taking down a fence, a wise person first ponders why someone thought to build it in the first place. In the debate over changing the federal Marriage Act to accommodate same-sex marriage - which would radically alter the form of an institution essentially unchanged for millennia - we would do well to apply such a process.

It is entirely natural for men and women to want to marry, and to commit themselves to each other in a public and formal way. Parents aspire to such an outcome for their children as they enter adulthood.

The oft-heard comment, "I hope they marry and settle down", tells us that marriage is also recognised as a path of personal growth and development. The way we celebrate marriages is an expression of great joy and goodwill for a couple's new life together.

It is understandable that some same-sex couples feel inclined towards marriage. They argue that their love and aspirations are essentially no different from anyone else's.

But the institution of marriage is not, and never has been, solely about creating an avenue for people to express their feelings or to fulfil personal needs.

If it were simply about emotions and needs, then why would we need laws governing who can and cannot marry? Why would we need any laws at all? After all, marriage existed long before the codification of any law, so why should the state have an interest in our private lives?

The answer goes to the very basis of our ability to function as a society, that is, the protection and nurturing of the first and most important component of society - the family.

Marriage has both a public and private dimension. The state assumes the responsibility for only the public dimension for reasons to do with the common good - namely, that marriage brings with it the potential for raising children, which regenerates society and ensures its long-term future.

Every society in history has recognised this in some way. The marriage ceremony is in fact an acknowledgement of this public responsibility; and the state, by virtue of the law and public policy, binds itself to supporting this union, and the family based upon it, for this common good.

And so the argument against same-sex marriage cannot and should not be seen as "homophobic" - not because the law is elitist or discriminatory in a negative sense, but simply because society and the state do not have the same vested interest in any other form of relationship.

Nor can opposition to same-sex marriage be dismissed as simply an argument based on religion. The fact that the majority of organised religions retain a view of the institution that is in harmony with the wisdom of the ages simply means that they understand the significance of marriage in both its private and public dimensions.

Data from the social sciences also support society's long-term interest in marriage as we know it. By every measure, married couples are healthier, wealthier and more socially connected than their single counterparts.

More importantly, for the sake of this discussion, however, children raised by their natural parents - that is, their mother and father - fare better on every social score and are less likely to become involved in drug-taking, other high-risk behaviours and delinquency.

It makes perfect sense not only to single out marriage between a man and a woman for special recognition, but also to create public policies that support the family based on that marriage.

If, today, we were building a society from scratch and wanted to protect its future and nurture its development, we would begin, naturally, to build a fence around marriage and the family - not to keep others out, but to hold together what is precious and to grant it special protection.

There would be a gate that would allow entry and the gatekeeper would ensure that the "the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life" was the price of admission.

Paul Russell is a member of the Australian Family Association of South Australia.

All you need to know about
the wider impact of transgenderism on society.
TRANSGENDER: one shade of grey, 353pp, $39.99

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

COVER STORY Coronavirus: China must answer hard questions

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Cardinal Pell's appeal in the High Court this week

COVER STORY Beyond the Great Divide

CLIMATE POLITICS Business joins Big Brother in climate-change chorus

COVER STORY Murray River full; reservoirs low; farms for sale ...

ILLICIT DRUGS Cannabis marketed to children in Colorado

EDITORIAL Holden, China, covid19: Time for industry reset

© Copyright 2017
Last Modified:
April 4, 2018, 6:45 pm