Friday, October 21, 2011

Lucia Yet another same-sex marriage debate on Kiwiblog

Here we go again.

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

5 comment(s):

Redbaiter said...

"Why would bloggers aligned with National be behind same-sex marriage?"

Dunno, but I'd guess it would be something John Key would be right into, given he's taken the left's ground on just about every other issue.

MathewK said...

"The state has no business in the marriage game."

Off course, until the leftist ratbag pushing this line wants the state to start promoting certain 'marriage'.

No to same-sex marriage, no to polygamy, no to incest marriage. And no, it's just leftards and homos who aren't allowed into these shams, the rest of us are not either, so they can take the squawking about discrimination and shove it.

Muerk said...

Of course the state's business is marriage - without marriage and the family that it creates and supports the next generation won't get the best start in life.

The lifelong commitment of a positive marriage between a husband and wife is best institution to conceive, nurture, and educate children until they become functional adults. Marriage is positive for the spouses too. The complementary nature of men and women means a husband and wife complete each other. Our bodies fir together, but so so our natures, giving a married couple the support of each other to face the vicissitudes of life.

ZenTiger said...

I think the idea that "marriage is no business of the state" depends upon what context it is used.

It is the business of the state to provide laws that allow for justice and equality, and it has a role to play in ensuring our society and culture is protected. So in that regard, it is a matter for the state.

When people seek to fundamentally redefine our society and manipulate the state to enforce this, then in that sense, it is no business of the state, because we can see how power is being misused.

The debate on something as fundamental as the breakdown of the family unit is something that is too significant to be a debate left only to government policy wonks and election bylines, and in that sense all of society needs to be engaged in a discussion of how we preserve the best of our culture whilst guaranteeing freedoms that allow it to also change.

This is not really happening, and policy direction is often dictated by minority and special interest groups. Unfortunately though, I think collectively we are all getting dumber on our understanding of ethics, philosophy, and history, even as we advance in areas of science, technology and general knowledge.

We increasingly have very intelligent but unwise people.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.