Chil­dren voice­less in same-sex de­bate

Western Suburbs Weekly - - Western Opinion -

OUR sup­port for same-sex mar­riage equal­ity might be very noble, if we were not sub­or­di­nat­ing the nat­u­ral rights of the child.

We form our opin­ions based on what we see and hear. The stri­dent gay lobby has had no trou­ble be­ing seen and heard by the Par­lia­ment and us. How­ever, who will speak for the voice­less child, whose words will never reach these pages?

There will al­ways be cer­tain el­e­ments in so­ci­ety that are ei­ther un­pre­pared or un­able to pri­ori­tise the wel­fare of chil­dren – which is the wel­fare of our fu­ture.

A re­spon­si­ble gov­ern­ment there­fore must con­tinue to ex­er­cise, on be­half of the whole of so­ci­ety, its duty of guardian­ship to pro­tect the nat­u­ral rights of the child.

Broad­en­ing the le­gal def­i­ni­tion of the word “mar­riage” to in­cor­po­rate same-sex unions would seem a rel­a­tively harm­less mat­ter of pro­vid­ing a cer­e­mo­nial and so­cial equal­ity to adults of dif­fer­ing sex­ual pref­er­ences, which would be hard to ar­gue against – but only if we were pre­pared to close our eyes to the rights of the child.

There is a lot more at stake here than just the def­i­ni­tion of one word.

Mark Dyer, Rock­ing­ham Beach.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.