 |
| Gays fighting on dual fronts | |
In typical prima-donna style, the gay lobby has
successfully taken center stage in two theaters at once - church and state. The first theater is the Christian churches in
which the shirt-lifters want to be accepted as clergy. Still in the midst of
pedophilia scandals, the conservatives in the church are torn between pursuing
the moral high-road (no Nancy-boys allowed), and giving into popular pressure
during an embarrassing ratings slump. With fewer and fewer people bothering to
give to the church, maybe a bit of political
correctness (promoting rear-admirals) might help win the ratings battle. But not afraid to take on two fronts at once, the tail-gunners have also called
for acceptance of gay marriages. Johnny
(I'm-an-individual) Howard has jumped to follow Dubya (guns-n-god) Bush's lead
declaring that marriage is for the continuation of the species, and is
inappropriate between same-sex couples. This has a ring of sincerity from little Johnny: anyone who put their hand
that far into the taxpayer's
pocket presumably feels quite at home in every Australian's bedroom. It's
all part of the the collectivist mindset
which Johnny subscribes to so deeply. The fact that the physical act
which leads to having children has little to do with signing a government approved
contract. The problem of course is that the government nationalized the
institution of marriage in
the first place. In any reasonable legal system, contracts (marriage or
otherwise) between individuals are for the individuals themselves (and other
organizations which they choose to involve). Just like the gay clergy issue, this one belongs back in the churches. If
the churches don't want to conduct teapot marriages, that is entirely up to
them (though individuals could still draw up their own marriage contracts
outside any church). Either way, there seems little merit in making the
taxpayer have to fund the bickering and grandstanding of politicians. One is forced to have a begrudging respect for the purse-carriers on these
issues - for once they aren't trying to suck on the subsidy tit. They are
unlikely to get everything they want, but they have the right to try. On the
other hand it demonstrates how little they have to complain about - if
inability to get government recognition of their relationships is the worst
injustice they face, they haven't much to complain about. In the end they will
have to just take it like men: bite the pillow and put up with it.
| 
