Charlotte Rose Marshall

Usual

Age Letter

So let me get this straight - If someone admits to cardinal Pell in the confessional that he is a paedophile, Pell will keep this fact a secret, and in the catholic church this is known as 'clearing the air and uncovering the truth'

Its on its way !

Advocate letter

Dear Sir,

Your correspondent J Gill (Advocate 11/7/2012) has taken the trouble to list his reasons for opposing gay marriage, and I thought it might be a good idea to comment on them in justifying my advocacy of a change in the present law. 

* Marriage is a long term cultural institution, as is slavery, misogyny and religious indoctrination, and the longevity of these latter abominations is not a good argument for their retention. It may come as a surprise to Mr Gill to learn that sexual union can  happen outside marriage, and rumour has it, that this has actually occurred.

* It is true that a same sex couple cannot conceive without a little help, but neither can naturally infertile heterosexual couples. Perhaps Mr Gill thinks we should ban IVF as well. If fertility is an important consideration in allowing marriage, presumably Mr Gill would ban marriage amongst the elderly or the handicapped.

* The present marriage law certainly protects the right of a heterosexual couple to marry, but I am at a loss to understand how allowing same sex couples to marry will take away any rights from any heterosexual couple. 

* Children's rights are important, so I invite you to ask the question  'Would a child's rights be enhanced by being raised in a  hypothetical same sex household, where the child was nurtured, loved, provided for and respected, or in an equally hypothetical heterosexual family where the child was abused, malnourished, and neglected ? ' The sexuality of the parents has always been irrelevant to the quality of a child's life, and academic studies world wide have confirmed this obvious fact. 

* Children are, as a commonplace, raised today by parents who have divorced or separated. Does Mr Gill suggest that the 'inalienable rights' of children to be raised by their biological parents should extend to the children of divorcees ? If so, does he propose to outlaw separation ? If not, how does the raising of a child by a single mother differ  fundamentally from the raising of a child by a single mother and her girlfriend ? 

* Consider what the word marriage can suggest in our society. Friendship, courtship, engagement, family, love, respect. To deny  equality to same sex couples is to suggest that they are undeserving of these attributes. In noting that marriage is different to other relationships, Mr Gill seems to propose that heterosexual de facto couples should also be discriminated against. 

* The argument that marriage is by definition only between a man and a woman, is a weak one. I would remind Mr Gill that here in Australia, the definition of a voter was for many years  ' A male person over the age of 21' Good people saw the essential immorality of this definition, and they changed it !

* I was interested by the passing reference to abortion in Mr Gills letter. I have to tell him that in my view a handful of non-sentient cells in a woman's body immediately after conception, have no rights at all, and that I would rather see ten thousand early term abortions, rather than see one child being born to be  uncared for. Discriminating against a blastocyst is like discriminating against an amoeba.

I happen to be a happily married man, but if for some reason, I felt like marrying another man sometime in the future, I should want far more persuasive arguments than those furnished by Mr Gill to convince me that continuation of the present discrimination is justified.