THE ONES LEFT BEHIND:

No hatred in keeping marriage laws sacred (Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, May 12, 2004)

It's true that in Scandinavia, co-habitation and out-of-wedlock births were on the rise before gay marriage became legal. But a decade or so of legal gay marriage has done nothing to make marriage stronger. Indeed, sanctioning gay marriage has only served to send the message that all family forms are equal, increasing the trend to out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation.

None of that would matter but for one simple fact: all family forms are not equal. De facto relationships are much likelier to come unstuck than marriage. And the cost of these fragile, unstable relationships is borne by children.

Few would challenge the need for parity of rights for gays in certain areas, such as pension rights. But should that translate into parity of rights in every area? That question brings us to what must surely be the next agenda item after gay marriage: adoption rights. Adoption won't be the rarity it is in heterosexual marriages. It will become the norm for gay parents, especially lesbians, one having a child via in vitro fertilisation, the other woman becoming the adoptive parent.

Have we, as a society, reached the point where we no longer believe a child is entitled to a mother and a father? Why is a child's right to a mother and a father of less value than the rights of the gay minority to marry and adopt?

The Scandinavian experience suggests that gay marriage is less about love than about politics. Gay lobby groups want recognition of gay relationships on their terms, and hang the consequences for marriage. Scandinavian gays have not exactly rushed to the altar; the number of gay marriages is, according to Kurtz, "exceedingly small". And yet the message from gay marriage, that all family forms are equal, remains powerful. That is the power of laws.

Henning Bech, described by Kurtz as "perhaps Scandinavia's most prominent gay thinker", says the conservative case for gay marriage – that it would enhance marriage – was a mainly tactical argument made during a once divisive gay marriage debate.

In the end, this debate comes down to whether the needs of children are more important than the desires of adults. Since the 1960's, the general answer has been that they are not. Of course, no one admits that, even to themselves, so we simply deny any connection between the two, all the while insisting how much we adore the little darlings and always put their interests first.

Unable to confront the fact that we are lying, we define children as infinitely adaptable and able to thrive in whatever setting, provided we “love” them. In so doing, many of us have pretty much stopped believing in any objective standards of care and upbringing. Neither gay nor single parenthood nor multiple marriages need harm a child provided he or she can “talk” about feelings, increasingly to professionals. We are losing any common understanding of what education entails beyond basic literacy. Discipline is confusing, as we see them as both wise beyond their years and as fragile as fresh eggshell, so many just pass. Religion and tradition are nice for the young ones, but oppressive beyond the age of about twelve. Whether they themselves engage in premarital sex, get married, have children, etc. is not really our business and we pride ourselves on the maturity of having no viewpoint and giving no direction. In short, beyond providing baseline needs, we do not comprehend anymore what children want and need, starting with a mother and a father who bestow security, adoration, discipline and wisdom and commit to them unconditionally. And the hard truth is that many do not want to comprehend.

But we do understand our right to sex.

Posted by Peter Burnet at May 17, 2004 6:54 AM