Here we go again.
David Farrar quotes Deborah Russell who says:
People who cry that the State has no business in the marriage game are Satan's useful idiots. Societies with weak families do not survive, they self-destruct. As I said in the comments on Kiwiblog:
What's worse, in the short-term, same-sex marriage will create a more authoritarian, more intrusive state, in it's attempt to equalise same-sex marriage with traditional marriage. Woe to anyone who does not toe the line!
As an old post of mine on Same-sex marriage creates a more powerful State says:
In that post, I finished off with the statement, "No wonder the left has a rainbow faction." But now, three years later, there seems to be a push for the right in the same direction. The other major right-wing blogger in NZ politics, WhaleOil, is now also heavily pushing same-sex marriage, with the justification, "anyone silly enough to want a mother in law deserves one". Doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of respect for the institution (or his mother-in-law) there. (See also, Because gays deserve mothers in law too).
The question has to be, why? Why would bloggers aligned with National be behind same-sex marriage? Is in in some way indicative of what is going on behind the scenes? It's most odd.
Related links: Deborah Russell on same sex marriage ~ Kiwiblog
David Farrar quotes Deborah Russell who says:
The state has no business in the marriage game. It does have a legitimate interest in noting who is in a committed relationship. As a society, we want to be able to tell which people happen to be sharing accommodation as mere flatmates, and which have amalgamated their interests for the foreseeable future. …
It is unfair the state gives a certain status (marriage) to some households but not others. Either the recognition ought to apply to all, or none. Anything else represents the state picking and choosing among citizens, saying some are more worthy than others. That ought to be anathema in an egalitarian society.
People who cry that the State has no business in the marriage game are Satan's useful idiots. Societies with weak families do not survive, they self-destruct. As I said in the comments on Kiwiblog:
States that introduce “same-sex marriage” will self-destruct in the long term.
This is because if the definition of marriage is changed from a life-long, sacrificial commitment between a man and a woman whose love creates children, and thus a mini-society, to a romantic partnership - then the strength of those mini-societies will fail over time. We can see it happening now – no fault divorce created the first major rupture and redefinition of marriage. Soon after, it became socially acceptable for children to be born to single-mothers. The only end will be an implosion of the State itself. The centre will not hold.
What's worse, in the short-term, same-sex marriage will create a more authoritarian, more intrusive state, in it's attempt to equalise same-sex marriage with traditional marriage. Woe to anyone who does not toe the line!
As an old post of mine on Same-sex marriage creates a more powerful State says:
In her essay in The Meaning of Marriage, Seana Sugrue argues that the state must coddle and protect same-sex "marriage" in ways that opposite-sex marriage does not require.
Precisely because same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex marriage, the state must intervene to make people believe (or at least make them act as if they believe) that the two types of unions are equivalent.
Public schools in California are soon going to be required to be "gay friendly." A doctor has been sued because she didn't want to perform an artificial insemination on a lesbian couple. A private school is in trouble for disciplining two female students for kissing. All in the name of supporting the rights of same-sex couples to "equality" with straight couples.
The fact that opposite- and same-sex couples are different in significant ways means that there will always be scope for the state to expand its reach into more and more private areas of more and more people's lives.
In that post, I finished off with the statement, "No wonder the left has a rainbow faction." But now, three years later, there seems to be a push for the right in the same direction. The other major right-wing blogger in NZ politics, WhaleOil, is now also heavily pushing same-sex marriage, with the justification, "anyone silly enough to want a mother in law deserves one". Doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of respect for the institution (or his mother-in-law) there. (See also, Because gays deserve mothers in law too).
The question has to be, why? Why would bloggers aligned with National be behind same-sex marriage? Is in in some way indicative of what is going on behind the scenes? It's most odd.
Related links: Deborah Russell on same sex marriage ~ Kiwiblog