Instead of the particular orientation of marriage towards the bearing and nurture of children, we will have a kind of marriage in which the central reality is my emotional choice. The revisionist case has not provided a clear and reasonable definition of marriage beyond saying that if two people want to call their relationship by that name, they should be able to by choice.Now, having put that opinion forward, I fully recognise that there are many people of intelligence and good will who disagree. What I do hope is that my contribution here will not be derided as bigoted or homophobic out of hand, but that it will be seen as part of a civil discussion.To remove the sexual specificity from the notion of marriage makes marriage not a realisation of the bodily difference between male and female that protects and dignifies each, but simply a matter of choice.This is precisely what many pro-revision advocates themselves argue: that a new definition of marriage would establish marriage as a new thing altogether. J Graff puts it, a change in marriage law would mean that marriage would "ever after stand for sexual choice, forcutting the link between sex and diapers".Wisely, our politicians don't listen to surveys on that issue (and I agree with them).They should exercise leadership, not follow opinion.
Now, I didn't pluck this definition from the sky, nor is it simply a piece of religious teaching.
We are told there are those in favour of same-sex marriage, and then there are the bigots.
But allow me to make the case for traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman, writes Michael Jensen.
He has said: It's time for our laws to reflect the values of modern Australia and to include everyone as equals ... And these same terms make opposing a redefinition of marriage sound primitive and even barbaric.
There are those in favour of change, we are told, and then there are the bigots.