David Cameron, the Conservative Party Prime Minister of the UK who pushed the agenda to redefine marriage, has more plans in this area.
In a speech to his supporters, he said that he wants the team who pushed the bill to redefine marriage to go do the same throughout the world:
I’ve told the bill team I’m now going to reassign them because, of course, all over the world people would have been watching this piece of legislation and we’ve set something, I think, of an example of how to pass good legislation in good time. Many other countries are going to want to copy this. And, as you know, I talk about the global race, about how we’ve got to export more and sell more so I’m going to export the bill team. I think they can be part of this global race and take it around the world.
And I’m personally proud of this. I think I’m probably the only Conservative prime minister who’s taken this step, but I’m very proud to have taken it. I think it’s a really good step, and thank you for helping me to stick with the plan and get it done so quickly.
Most reasonable people would ask: who on earth does he think he is? Why does he feel the need to try to influence marriage in other countries? And doesn’t he have more important issues to worry about in his own country?
This is not to mention the fact that he faced, and still faces, significant criticisms from large sections of his own party over his decision to push same-sex marriage on the people of the UK.
In any case, it’s interesting to see how Mr Cameron summed up his support for redefining marriage in his speech:
I think society is stronger when people commit to each other. And as I said at that party conference speech a few years back: that commitment counts whether it’s between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, and a woman and a woman. And those now aren’t just words in a conference speech, it’s an Act of Parliament, and we can all be proud of that.
This of course, begs the questions, if commitment is the only important thing in marriage, why does it need to be legally recognised commitment? Why does it need to be a sexual as opposed to a non-sexual commitment? And why does commitment have to be only between two people? Perhaps these will be his future moves if he gets the chance?
Mr Cameron clearly didn’t address any of the core concerns of people opposed to redefining marriage. And this is one of the reasons why the Conservative Party is well behind in the polls, and has been losing votes to the UK Independence Party (a minor party). This is in spite of the fact that the Conservative Government is only in its first term after 13 years in opposition.
This is a lesson which must be heeded by parties supporting traditional marriage, such as the Republican Party in the US and the Liberal Party in Australia, around the world: if you turn your back on thousands of years of human wisdom, and support a fad in place of the tried and tested idea of marriage, it will hurt at the ballot box.