Gays are not second-class citizens but a gay man certainly makes a
second-class mother. Two lesbian women may be model citizens, but neither of
them can be a Dad to a little boy. The most serious objection to gay marriage
is that it means gay parenting, and gay parenting means depriving a child of
either his mother or his father. The gay marriage debate, at its heart, is not about
the rights and needs of the adults, but of the child.
There are already tragic situations
where a child is deprived of a mother or a father – such as the death or
desertion of a parent. Some broken families reform as a homosexual household,
and nothing can or should be done about that. But such tragedy and brokenness
should not be wilfully inflicted on a child by the law of the land.
A child needs at least the chance
of a Mum and a Dad in her life, and same-sex marriage makes that impossible. This
violation of the fundamental right and profound emotional need of a child means
– from the child’s perspective – that gay marriage is deprivation, not
Marriage is a compound right and includes
the legal right to obtain children by adoption or surrogacy. The normalising of
same-sex marriage means that gay couples will have equal standing with
male-female couples for adopting children. The “marriage” of two women would deprive
an adopted boy of his role model for being a man, and the “marriage” of two men
would deprive a growing girl of a mother to learn from and confide in.
The sentimental claptrap that passes for debate on gay marriage would
have disgusted even that old atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russell. Sentimental
people speak of marriage as a right to a romantic ceremony, a right to have
one’s deep personal commitments confirmed by society. Although Russell’s four
marriages did not exactly make him an expert on the topic, he did have at least
one good insight. He understood that society has no interest in passing laws about
people’s private affairs – whether gay or straight – and that the primary
reason for the public contract of marriage throughout history has been to bind
the man to the woman for the long task of rearing their children. As he wrote
in Marriage and Morals, “It is
through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society,
and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.”
Homosexual relations do not give
rise to children, so such relations are of no institutional importance to
The biological triple-bond of man
and woman and child is nature’s foundation for human life – as with other
mammals – not a social fad to be cut to shape according to political whim. It
is beyond the power of any parliament to repeal nature and equate same-sex
relationships with the inherently male-female project of family formation.
Yet inner-city Greens and muddled MPs
are so out of touch with nature that they think abolishing a mother will be of
no consequence to the emotional development of the human cub.
They are wrong, and any such
legislation would be moral vandalism. They are also going against common sense,
with 86 percent of Australians affirming that ideally children should be raised
by their own mother and father, according to a 2009 Galaxy poll. Opposition to
gay marriage is all about the child, and no parliament has the right to impose
a motherless life on a little child.
Dr David van Gend is a Toowoomba doctor and a committee member of the Family
Council of Queensland. This article was first published in the Brisbane Courier Mail on November 16.