Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
July 27th 2017 print

David Archibald

Senator Smith’s Family Values

The Liberal from West Austral has mooted a private member’s bill legalising homosexual marriage, apparently because the Lindt café's manager was murdered while being without benefit of clergy. The purpose of such a bill is to deny the Australian public any say in the matter

rainbow bannerThe WA branch of the Liberal Party currently has 16 people in federal parliament. Of those, one quarter are childless female lawyers, which is a very narrow demographic from which to draw your representation. Of the males, two are homosexual, which means that over a third of WA’s federal Liberal representatives have never changed a nappy, so to speak. They have very little in common with the people whose interests they are supposed to defend.

Our story relates to one of the homosexuals: Senator Dean Smith. At the time of the 2013 election, Senator Smith went doorknocking in the industrial suburb of Rockingham with the Liberal candidate for the seat of Brand, Donna Gordin.  He and Ms Gordin were surprised by the number of households in which grandparents were bringing up their grandchildren because the generation in between had been destroyed by their drug habits. He undertook to do something for these people when the Liberals were returned to power.

Now Senator Smith has mooted a private member’s bill legalising homosexual marriage. Supposedly he was previously opposed to legal recognition of such unions but changed his mind after the Lindt café manager was murdered while being without benefit of clergy. The purpose of the private member’s bill is to deny the Australian public any say in the matter.

Cicero said that marriage is the founding bond of society, and it has been ever thus. Every human tribe has had a form of marriage. In fact humans couldn’t have evolved without marriage. In Stone Age tribes, the female does not become a net positive food contributor until the age of 43. Until then she relies upon her mate to bring some food home or, otherwise, her children would starve. Non-procreational sex was also invented to help glue the pair bond against the forces, such as adversity, that might rend it.

What began as a biological imperative acquired a cultural overlay; thus the marriage ceremony. Culture is the continuation of evolutionary pressures by non-physical means. This was understood by the ancients who put the fear of God into those who sought society’s blessing for their unions. From The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony:

is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children

As the Book says, marriage is about bringing children into the world. Such an enterprise is not to be entered into lightly, or abandoned at the drop of a hat. Of course, solemn oaths do not stop some people abandoning the commitments they entered into. Our own dear Prime Minister was once such an abandoned waif, at least by his mother, who ran off to New Zealand to seek fulfilment. It follows that anything which lessens the dignity of the estate of marriage reduces the seriousness of its undertakings, the first of which is the protection and succour of the fruit of the union. If anyone can marry anyone else, then marriage doesn’t mean much.

Which brings us back to the amusing Senator Smith, who wants to both help children abandoned by their drug-addled parents and also to have homosexuals look gooey-eyed at their partners. Senator, you can have one or the other, but not both. You might think that opiates are stronger than the institution of marriage, and therefore we might as well abandon the children and go ahead with homosexual marriage. But some children would be saved if we did not allow homosexuals that option. And therefore we should maintain marriage as it is – for the sake of the children.

So much time these days is wasted in defending things that shouldn’t be changed in the first place. The likes of Senator Smith might be jumbles of good intentions but, in reality, either they lack understanding or they actually mean us ill. Do not give them the benefit of the doubt; do not forgo any opportunity to point out the error of their ways.

David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare