One of the logical destinations after the legalisation of same-sex marriage is multi-spousal marriage. This fact has probably not occurred to the Greens although it could eventually register in a Homer Simpson ‘d’oh!’ moment after they realise what they have done, were they to succeed in their efforts.
Then again, it might not. The well-intentioned but extremely naive and quite random Greens have never been what could be called the top drawer in the grey matter department in public policy issues to do with the human person, marriage, the family and the welfare of children. The problem of Green naivete comes primarily from viewing every issue through a theoretical prism where environmental considerations take precedence over all others such as the sanctity of human life. Secondly, the Greens display almost no comprehension of the meaning of the word ‘history.’
Where the Greens and the gay lobby have erred is to equate a relationship with marriage. In a very real sense, Australia, having long accepted de facto relationship as the social and legal equal of marriage, has made the case for same-sex marriage appear overwhelmingly logical to many people. Those who lobby for same-sex marriage are perfectly entitled to ask why, if other mere relationships can be accepted as marriage, their relationships cannot. This is the logic of doing away with marriage over half a century or more in Australian life.
But another consequence of further legislating marriage into irrelevance by accepting same-sex marriage is that it follows entirely logically that if one accepts the idea that any two individuals can be married or, at least, any two individuals currently engaged in a socially acceptable relationship, then there is no reason why one should not accept the idea that any three or more individuals can be married as well.
The possibilities are almost endless and, eventually, some are sinister. Those campaigning for legalised bigamous marriage would also be perfectly logical and consistent in arguing the contradiction inherent in legalising gay marriage while continuing to keep practices such as bigamy illegal. There could be little doubt that, should same-sex marriage ever be legalised, arguments for legalised bigamy would eventually have to be heard in the High Court of Australia with the probability increasing that majority opinion would find tolerance of bigamy implied in the Australian Constitution and therefore legal. It would be ironic, to say the least, if Green naivete and homosexual lobby groups win a victory for one branch of the Mormon faith bigger in Australia than it ever imagined possible. To demand acceptance of gay marriage is also, one day, to demand acceptance of bigamy.
There is another question which no-one has as yet answered and which proponents of gay and bigamous marriage have as yet not openly discussed: what constitutes a socially acceptable relationship? The logic of same-sex marriage is, of necessity, that any socially acceptable relationship can be legally treated as a marriage especially, but not necessarily, if the relationship includes a sexual dimension. There are numerous permutations and combinations of sexual relationships which suddenly become eligible as ‘marriage’ if one dispenses with the principle that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. This is the point about bigamy. But as social values continue to degrade and the definitions of what constitutes a socially acceptable relationship expand, there is no end in sight as to what might come to be called a marriage. The possibilities are chilling and in some directions are to do with the young, for the young are the most defenceless and unempowered against ongoing attempts to progressively lower such things as age of consent or increasingly widening definitions of what constitutes marriage.
One sign of hope is that as people begin to think more analytically beyond the concept of same-sex marriage as an exercise in tolerance and to consider both its logical and increasingly bizarre implications, more and more of its inherent contradictions and intrinsic lack of meaning become apparent.
The push for same-sex marriage in Australia at this moment comes because of the nexus between two key factors. Firstly, there is the decades-long social decline in the understanding of what marriage is and an accompanying decline in its practice. Secondly, there is an historically weak Labor Government clinging to power, susceptible to ideological penetration and manipulation by the Greens and the media. While neither the Liberal nor Labor parties have distinguished themselves as pro-family parties in recent decades, both are still susceptible to explicit warnings that any support for same-sex marriage will lose them desperately needed votes at the next Federal election. Family lobby groups within Australia should be quite explicit to the point of bluntness in their lobbying of political parties and individuals as to the consequences of legislating marriage into irrelevance to society and children.
The current push for same-sex marriage also indicates a need for a new political force or way, neither of the right or left, but which is focused on the family as the most fundamental unit of society. Currently, there is no convincing political force which truly represents the needs of families. The debate over same-sex marriage is therefore a moment of opportunity for those who understand the importance of real marriage and the family to begin the desperately-needed work of establishing a social and political force that is devoted to protecting and promoting the rights and stability of marriage and the family. Inevitably, the nation’s media will attack such an initiative. Christians and others are perfectly entitled to give public expression to their faith in the political sphere and have been too intimidated and absent from it for decades. Politics can be a noble service but politicians also understand the basic maths of their actions. If necessary, they need to be re-taught the lesson.