Herald Sun 7 November 2013
Marriage is fundamentally a tradition meant to gently bind parents to their responsibilities, especially to their children. But many same sex marriage advocates have redefined it into a mere symbol of recognition – to be allowed to marry is to be approved of.
This is not at all what marriage is for, and there is no telling what absurdities this yammer will lead to.
Well, actually there is. Now academic Annamarie Jagose claims that gay marriage is bad because it will just further oppress the already marginalised, who will be denied the esteem they deserve, too
Therefore, the recognition of same-sex couples through marriage is not a wholly benign or even a neutral act because, like the historic form of marriage itself, it recognises the worth of some relationships by valuing them more than others.
“Outside the newly enlarged circle of social approval and privilege afforded by same-sex marriage stand those whose erotic lives are not organised around the values symbolised by marriage: coupledom, monogamy, permanence, domestic cohabitation. Unmarried mothers, for instance; adulterers; the devotedly promiscuous; sex workers; the divorced; the bigamous and polygamous; those who are not strangers to the august traditions of the dirty weekend or the one-night stand; single people. Now this ragtag bunch might not seem as worthy of social protection and prestige as the loving, caring, long-term gay and lesbian couples that are the shiny new poster boys and girls for same-sex marriage. But it reminds us to ask something that advocates of same-sex marriage, in their eagerness, forget to ask: why should marriage continue in the 21st century to be a primary mechanism for the distribution of social recognition and privilege?”