“You go through all the merits of the argument and look at what people put up; but my view is that if two gay people want to get married I can’t see why it would undermine my marriage with Bronagh,” he told Radio Live.
Well, good. I don't think anyone has ever seriously argued same-sex marriage would undermine John Key's marriage to his wife, or would indeed undermine any person's marriage.
However, how future generations, including how John Key's children and grandchildren will view marriage is another matter entirely. If you expand a definition enough, it will soon become meaningless.
Already in NZ today, we have young women who don't even contemplate marriage at all. Their idea of a future is to get pregnant to some young man who probably won't stick around and go on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. The DBP has been around for roughly forty years, and I doubt this sort of societal change was obvious at first, but now it's not difficult to find women who are making radically different choices about their lives because it exists and there is no expectation to get married before engaging in activities that result in children.
Otara administrator Delaney Papua, who turns 20 next month and is expecting her first baby in November, says going on the benefit seems to be just what you do when you get pregnant.
"All the people that I know that have kids go on it, so I kind of just assumed that you have to be on that," she says.
The babies' fathers often have no role in the families they help create, giving them no anchor in society. Papua doesn't expect her baby's father to support her.
"He's sending mixed messages, he says one thing and then another. I wouldn't know," she says. "I'd like to have him in the picture - maybe not together as a couple, seeing as we butt heads a lot, but being some sort of support with the baby.
"I don't know any friends that are being supported by their partner. A lot of them are in a relationship, but it will be on and off again, especially after having a child. He'd be working, or he'd lose his job, they're together, they're not together."
Does John Key want a future for his descendants where marriage is rendered so meaningless that no one engages in it any more? A future where very few children will live with their fathers, because there is no expectation that they will? A future where it is the State's job to look after all the mothers and their children because men no longer feel they need to get married in order to get companionship and sex? Expanding the definition of marriage will help in this wholesale decline, because marriage will mean everything and nothing.
Does John Key also want a future where the full force of the state will come down on those few who will continue to insist that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and two of the same-sex can't be married, no matter how many times it is said that they are? That is the type of near future we will be hurtling into, where a business owner will be discriminated against by the State because he supports true marriage:
Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy has consistently backed "the biblical definition of a family," and his foundation has contributed to groups working to maintain the traditional definition of a marriage--one man and one woman. He later added, "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'."
But three liberal Mayors not only attacked Cathy's beliefs and words, but they threatened to block any Chick-fil-A restaurants from being opened in their cities. Those threats were not veiled.
I'm glad that John Key's marriage won't be undermined by same-sex marriage. However, his marriage is not what is at stake here.
Related link : PM says gay marriage doesn’t affect his marriage to Bronagh ~ KiwiBlog
A previous, very relevant post: Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry ~ NZ Conservative