![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Further to my previous post, in the article to which I referred, the leagal eagles who were championing the cause of polygamy were doing so because it was the next step in the long process of recognising as many lifestyle choices as possible.
That, and reading the article tagged by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
akire_yta this morning, got me thinking some more.
The Government's response to moves to legally sanction gay marriages is quite obviously an attempt to shut the gate after the horse has bolted. They are trying to salvage something of the old ways, the traditional, protestant-christian understanding of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, primarily for the procreation of children, and preferably with at least a modicum of affection involved (but that of course is optional).
Let's think for a moment about the number of attacks there have been on the traditional christian concept of marriage. First there was divorce (as distinct from annulment, which was a declaration that the marriage never took place), which recognised that a couple, having declared their intention to stay together for life, could after all change their minds. Social acceptance of divorce made it much easier for couples to separate and then remarry with new partners. Then came the recognition of de facto couples - which meant you didn't have to go through it before you could do it. Then there was the proliferation and subsequent legal sanctioning of single motherhood, which meant in effect that partnership was no longer necessary to raising a family. Finally the recognition of de facto unions between gay couples further weakened the traditional concept of marriage.
If one thinks of legally recognised gay marriage as the latest in a long string of deconstructions of traditional marriage, then it is hardly surprising that our government, whose laws are generally based on a protestant-christian ethic, has finally said 'enough is enough'.
But that, of course, is if one thinks of the meaning of marriage in purely legal and traditional terms, and ignores the spiritual and emotional weight of it. If two people are prepared to declare publicly that they are in love and committed to each other for life, why should it matter if they are gay or straight?
That, and reading the article tagged by
akire_yta this morning, got me thinking some more. The Government's response to moves to legally sanction gay marriages is quite obviously an attempt to shut the gate after the horse has bolted. They are trying to salvage something of the old ways, the traditional, protestant-christian understanding of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, primarily for the procreation of children, and preferably with at least a modicum of affection involved (but that of course is optional).
Let's think for a moment about the number of attacks there have been on the traditional christian concept of marriage. First there was divorce (as distinct from annulment, which was a declaration that the marriage never took place), which recognised that a couple, having declared their intention to stay together for life, could after all change their minds. Social acceptance of divorce made it much easier for couples to separate and then remarry with new partners. Then came the recognition of de facto couples - which meant you didn't have to go through it before you could do it. Then there was the proliferation and subsequent legal sanctioning of single motherhood, which meant in effect that partnership was no longer necessary to raising a family. Finally the recognition of de facto unions between gay couples further weakened the traditional concept of marriage.
If one thinks of legally recognised gay marriage as the latest in a long string of deconstructions of traditional marriage, then it is hardly surprising that our government, whose laws are generally based on a protestant-christian ethic, has finally said 'enough is enough'.
But that, of course, is if one thinks of the meaning of marriage in purely legal and traditional terms, and ignores the spiritual and emotional weight of it. If two people are prepared to declare publicly that they are in love and committed to each other for life, why should it matter if they are gay or straight?
