marriage equality will lead to group marriage

Startling because of the stupidity of his argument, Kevin Andrews has suggested in a book that he took two years to research.. that allowing 2 adults in a loving relationship to formally and legally recognise their relationship, will lead to group marriage.  Yes, thats right group marriage.

This is the man that is the Opposition Spokesperson for families.

The 2 adults he speaks of would be those that happened to be same sex. Yes, two men or two women, who love on another and want to express that love in front of their friends and family.  This would, according to Andrews, encourage all manner of groups to front up seeking marriage licenses.

Now, before you go getting carried away with the thought of you and your footy club getting hitched, or the girls from the mothers group and yourself all dressing in white and strolling up the aisle in your whitest white, lets examine Mr Andrews opinion piece by piece.

In an extract from the book, Andrews states: “The yearning in every human heart to be loved and accepted has been written about by philosophers and thinkers, and poets and balladeers throughout history. It is this love that brings many people to marriage; and, through marriage, that they hope to find happiness.”  It seems that Mr Andrews thinks it is only heterosexuals who are capable of love, or indeed those that are legally able to marry.  That is one man and one woman under Australian Law.

There have been many philosophers and thinkers, poets and balladeers throughout history  who happen to be same sex attracted.  In fact, some of the greatest minds in history, Mr Andrews, were lesbians and gay men. There is that thought out the window then?

‘The yearning of every human heart to be loved and accepted..’ – last I checked, we gays and lesbians do possess hearts – thats what keeps us alive to continue our lives of sin and depravity.

The next salvo fired by the learned Member for Menzies quotes Thomas Jefferson: “As Thomas Jefferson’s memorable words in the American Declaration of Independence tell us, the “pursuit of happiness” is the aspiration of millions of people, including every person who enters into an intimate relationship.”

Surely, the aspiration of every human is to enter into an intimate relationship.  And does Jefferson state that the nature of that relationship must be heterosexual? Not at all.

Jefferson idealized the independent yeoman as the best exemplar of republican virtues, distrusted cities and financiers, and often favored decentralized power.  Jefferson also believed that each man has “certain inalienable rights“. Surely Mr Jefferson in this day and age, would respect the dignity of our relationships.

The biggest craw in my grill from the book is this. If same-sex unions are recognised by civil law, “other arrangements can also be recognised. Once the state can no longer insist that marriage involves a commitment to a member of the opposite sex, there is no ground (other than superstition) for insisting that marriage be limited to one person rather than several.” 

Perhaps Mr Andrews also believes, as did Senator Corey Bernardi, that allowing one human the right to marry another human that they love, will also, perhaps encourage those other creepy people that might want to form a relationship with a small, domesticated farm animal.

Where Mr Andrews fails in all of his research, is to look at those countries where marriage equality has already existed for some time.

He fails to address what has happened in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden.  Soon we will add the United Kingdom and New Zealand to that list.  If Barack Obama is re-elected as the President of the United States, I am confident they will also follow suit, given that the Democratic party endorsed Marriage Equality as part of their election platform.


In these civilised nations, there has not been any call for legalised group marriages nor interspecies marriages.

The American Psychological Association has stated, in opposition to the ‘facts’ presented by Mr Andrews, that children are not adversely affected by the marriage of their same sex parents, and that same sex attracted people deserve the right to be married.  These marriages will not have an effect on the institution of marriage more generally.

The Hon Kevin Andrews is presenting an outmoded and old fashioned view of marriage in his book.  Or, perhaps a modern view of marriage.

History will show that in the Ming Dynasty in ancient China, females would contractually bind together in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements.  Ancient European history provides examples of males entering similar arrangements.

In ancient Rome, considered the founding region of modern civilisation, there were marriage ceremonies between members of the same sex, including Emperor Nero marrying one of his slaves.  In 1061 in Spain, a same sex marriage was performed between two men in a small chapel in Rairiz de Veiga.

Mr Andrews is presenting his own modern, Christian view of marriage which is not the view of the majority of Australians, according to recent polls. All of the polling with regard to marriage equality in Australia suggests that between 57 -65% of Australians agree with allowing marriage for all Australians.  This also includes a majority of those that identify as Christian.

So Mr Andrews, good luck with your book.  I am sure there are some who will want to buy it.  I perhaps need something to prop up the dicky leg of the beer fridge in the garage.  Its about the only use that I can see for it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s