Coverage HERE in the Australian: The always-incisive Senator from Tasmania cuts through the adult-centred narcissistic slop and states the obvious: that marriage is fundamentally about the needs of children to have both a mum and a dad; that no man can be a mother to a little child; and that a mother is not to be removed from the life of a child by government decree:
Senate opposition leader Eric Abetz said marriage wasn’t all about love, but was ultimately about the next generation and their socialisation with the benefit of a mother and father role model, if at all possible.
“The social data and studies in this area are simply overwhelming. Children do best with both a mum and a dad,” he said.
“We should not as a society deliberately be embarking on creating a situation where that might be the case.”
Senator Abetz said marriage by definition and purpose was highly specific and had always been heterosexual specific.
“Us blokes can assert discrimination all we like, but guess what? Blokes aren’t mothers. Never have been, never will be,” he said.
Meantime, the Labor-left Senator Doug Cameron sets up a straw man, declaring that marriage is ‘not about religion’. Correct: marriage is about biology, the innate male-female mammalian pair bond which gives rise to little mammals who need suckling and protecting for a long time… Society – including socially significant religious customs and ceremonies – works hard to reinforce this biological bond so that the male, having fulfilled his urges, does not push off and leave the woman and child in the lurch. Marriage reinforces biology for the sake of stable society and above all for the sake of any child who might be created.
Judge for yourself which side is more in touch with reality: the ‘it’s all about love between any two adults’ crowd, or the ‘its all about the natural male-female union and the child of that union’. As for the Greens, so bizarrely out of touch with nature… they need to spend more time way from the inner city and out in the wild.
UPDATE: Cory Bernardi sidelined after own-goal (breaking news HERE)
The usually thoughtful Senator Bernardi had a major lapse last night in an otherwise sturdy speech – those of us watching groaned as he followed the logical line made famous by Professor Peter Singer (that animal-human sex is ethically defensible) and linked it to the loosening up of the definition of marriage in this debate. Seriously bad call: Singer’s defense of non-consenting bestiality is such a big leap from the question of consenting same-sex adults under consideration that, while it might be philosophically intriguing for expert ethicists, it was politically bewildering that he should ever raise it in the Senate. Such a pity – both that his clear line of argument was so derailed by this extravagant deviation, and that in consequence a talented Senator has lost his position as parliamentary secretary.