The traditional definition of marriage as we know it is under question like never before, and it has a very ferocious, well-funded, noisy, and angry gay lobby behind it. It is a minority group, but a very noisy and well-oiled one at that and they are determined to get what they want, come what may.
Here’s an example in point. Back in 2008, during the election of president Obama, the people of California- by far America’s most liberal states- was asked to vote on Proposition 8, which restricted the definition of marriage as being only between a man and a woman. 52% of respondents voted ‘Yes’ to it; 48% voted ‘No’. It was a bitter defeat for the gay lobby and they were livid; but the people had spoken. If anything, the defeat has not stopped the gay lobby fighting its position: it has emboldened them and they’ve sadly received support from a lot of well-meaning, albeit misguided, Christians.
Thankfully, in Australia, someone has put together a website that informs people about the real issues of the marriage argument. (You can check it out here and sign the petition, so that you can make a stand.) Regardless of how well-informed you are, please have a look and make your views known. One page that I found particularly interesting is the one on how gay and lesbian people do not necessarily want marriage. Here’s what one gay man wrote in an Irish newspaper:
The reflex response from many gay marriage advocates is to paint all dissent [from their own opinions as prejudice], as if the only reason for defending marriage as it has existed to date is some variety of bigotry or psychological imbalance …
A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures. This is certainly not to cast aspersions on other families, but it does underscore the importance of marriage as an institution.
This is why the demand for gay marriage goes doubly wrong. It is not a demand for marriage to be extended to gay people – it is a demand for marriage to be redefined. The understanding of marriage as an institution that exists and is supported for the sake of strong families changes to an understanding of marriage as merely the end-point of romance. If gay couples are considered equally eligible for marriage, even though gay relationships do not tend towards child-raising and cannot by definition give a child a mother and a father, the crucial understanding of what marriage is actually mainly for has been discarded.
What that amounts to is the kind of marriage that puts adults before children. That, in my opinion, is ultimately selfish, and far too high a price to pay simply for the token gesture of treating opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships identically. And it is a token gesture. Isn’t it common sense, after all, to treat different situations differently? To put it personally, I do not feel in the least bit discriminated against by the fact that I cannot marry someone of the same-sex. I understand and accept that there are good reasons for this.