An adoption order may be made on the application of 2 spouses jointly in respect of a child.
Supposedly, we must “legalise” gay marriage so that gay couples can adopt children. So where’s the bit that says the two spouses cannot be of the same sex? Why is Louisa Wall’s Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill seeking to amend the Marriage Act and not the Adoption Act?
Someone please explain to me what all the fuss is about. Because I’m baffled. Baffled by bullshit?
This is C. S. Lewis writing in 1943 about “legalising” divorce. Although written nearly 70 years ago on the topic of divorce, I think Lewis’s points apply just as well to gay nuptial arrangements in the 21st century.
I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question—how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.
[Reprised from SOLO, March 2008. Does calling a civil union a gay marriage make it a marriage?!]
The gut notion of objectivity is captured in an anecdote from the life of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln and a political colleague were discussing how to get a policy across and the colleague suggested labelling the policy in a certain way; they happened to be near a donkey and their dialogue went like this:
‘Sir, how many legs does this donkey have?’
‘Four, Mr. Lincoln.’
‘And how many tails has it?’
‘Why, just one, Mr. Lincoln.’
‘Tell me, sir, what if we were to call the tail a leg; how many legs would the donkey then have?’
‘Five, Mr. Lincoln.’
‘No, sir; for you cannot make a tail into a leg by calling it one.’
It has been suggested that advocating gay marriage legislation is libertarian. It’s not. Advocating gay marriage legislation is about imposing your morals on to others.
For those that think that advocating gay marriage is libertarian I have a question… what are homo couples being denied if government doesn’t legislate regarding same sex marriages?
It has been said if you don’t want gay marriage don’t have one – to that I say – just bugger off!
