Don’t defend marriage, deregulate it

Henry Innis argues we need to get the government out of marriage:

The gay marriage debate is once again raging in Australia. It’s an issue which is pervasive in the minds of many, and stands as one of the great moral divides that exists in today’s political landscape. We can see the arguments made for preserving the traditional family unit, just as the arguments for ending the divisions between relationships.

 But really, that’s not what this argument should be about. This argument should be about asking why a particular group, in this case the LGBT community and their supporters, are advocates of a further intrusion by the state on their lives.

 Let’s look at the current status quo: currently, the government defines the terms, relationship and even the stringent regulation of how a committed, long term relationship ought to function. This is, to my mind, a shocking indictment of the addiction to government that has emerged in our culture.

 So let me propose an alternative: don’t legislate gay marriage, and abolish the Marriage Act entirely. It seems bordering on ridiculous that a bunch of grown adults, capable of committing themselves to another, need their hands held as to the terms and definitions of what that commitment will be.

It’s up to us to end the debate in terms of giving the government yet more authority over the people it governs. Let’s turn our heads to how we can get government out of more individual decisions and commitments. 

Henry Innis is a Vice President of the Sydney University Liberal Club. He "dabbles in entrepreneurial pursuits" and writes in his spare time, and can be found on twitter @henryinnis

Comments

[Driftforge]

1.

It's the right way to proceed, but only in the absence of the distortion introduced by anti-discrimination legislation.

Get rid of anti-discrimintation legislation; let the community sort it out without their hands tied.

[Driftforge]

2.

Follow up comment - the concept of marriage does need to be defended from the current action. Where you have lost the thread here is in wondering what "why a particular group, in this case the LGBT community and their supporters, are advocates of a further intrusion by the state on their lives."

They aren't.

What they are doing is advocating further government intrusion into the lives of those who disagree with them.

They are already protected from the normal community response to aberration by anti-discrimination legislation. Now they also want recognition by force.

Because the responsibility and capacity to defend community values through the normal processes of discrimination has been removed, this sort of discussion becomes political. If it is not rejected in the political arena, it will become a further source of legal force against traditional community values.

[Jordan]

3.

A major social reform like this should be decided by the people via a referendum.

[no to the gay lobby]

4.

editor- has menzies house taken to deleting comments?

where is mine from last night- unoffensive. no abuse. no bad language- what code was violated?
new staff and a new agenda?

[Tim Andrews]

5.

What comment was deleted?

[Jonathan]

6.

This article was obviously written by a little boy at Uni in the practice of trying out new ways of thinking. I can remember being there at that point of my life with no respect for the combined wisdom of hundreds of years of history. Then I grew up and got married.

[LPS]

7.

I would love to see this disestablishment of marriage and the abolition of laws (taxation and so on) that discriminate against people based upon whether they are married. The political question is how to pander to working families while doing this.

[Ben]

8.

Some values need protecting. Politicians need to defend traditional marriage because it is a pre-government institution with countless socio-economic benefits.

When marriage was weakened by social engineers, expressive divorce rates skyrocketed. As a result, we have a hungrier welfare state dominated by a fatherless generation.

Naturally “deregulating” (code for watering down) marriage will make children and taxpayers even more vulnerable. It’s a cop out for those too timid to stand up for families.

[Ronnie]

9.

Maybe it will be deregulated once again one day. Probabaly we can go back to the good old days of hunter gatherers and all the added benefits :)

[Linne]

10.

You must be one of the 'I'm A Victim' society who feels discriminated against because your not married. Diddums.

You haven't got a clue what those laws and taxes you prattle on about where designed to do. Nor that a united family unit is a far better proposition than unmarried mothers with a tribe of kids to different fathers living on welfare with the kids never knowing who their father is.

Read Ben at 8. He gets it pretty much right.