SYDNEY (SE): When a government seeks to legislate on matters centred on the private affections of adults it is on dangerous ground, Chris Meney, the director of the Life Marriage and Family Centre for the archdiocese of Sydney, Australia, told the parliament of the state of New South Wales on August 13.
Speaking as a guest of the parliament during its debate on same sex marriage legislation, Meney pointed out that traditionally, state legislation on marriage has primarily involved itself with the welfare of children and he believes that changing the basis of marriage legislation from being child-centred to private affection-centred, “is a very questionable basis for state involvement or interest.”
Meney told the parliament, “The primary reason why the state has traditionally been interested in marriage is because of the reality that the vast majority of married opposite-sex couples have biological children together.”
Stressing that the primary responsibility of the state in legislating on adult relationships lies in protecting this right—rather than the rights of the two partners, Meney added, “This security of identity is the right of every child.”
He pointed out that marriage breakdown does call for other arrangements to be made, stressing, “The complications and tragedies of an imperfect world do not justify the complete redefinition of marriage.”
Meney pointed out that the fact that the married man and woman have an inherent procreative capacity as a norm has provided the basis for the interest of government in marriage.
Meney describes marriage as, “A human and social reality, which is open to all those who can freely commit to what it really is—a comprehensive and exclusive union of man and woman, which is open to new life. Marriage is directed to the good of the spouses, the good of their children and the good of society.”
He pointed out that this has formed the legal basis of the involvement of the state in marriage.
He added that although people cite infertile or voluntarily childless marriages as a basis for permitting same-sex marriage, it is the inherent procreation capacity that has been the norm for legislation and provided the basis for the interest of the government in marriage.
Meney adds that for the state to move away from this basis could be interpreted as a neglect of its role in protecting the best interests of the children, as it well known that fathering is important for sons in educating about risk-taking and delays the first sexual activity, and mothering is vital for daughters facing the challenges of adolescence.
He quotes from the Child Trends Research Institute, citing 2002 research as noting, “The family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low conflict marriage.”
It adds, “It is not simply the presence of the two parents… but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development” (Child Trends Research 2002, June).
He also cites a study by Mark Regnerus in 2012, which examined the outcomes of 3,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 39, who had been raised in a variety of family arrangements.
It found, “… that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults… when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father.”
Meney added that although this study was criticised as being politically incorrect, studies, like that done by Loren Marks, finding an opposite result, have since been criticised for technical and sampling inadequacies.
Meney warns that a marriage law based solely on sexual preference, opens it up to the bizarre.
“Any law based around orientation preference would have to recognise the rights of bi-sexual persons to be married to both a man and a woman simultaneously,” he points out, “and indeed even acknowledge the right of groups of persons to marry each other.”
He said he believes that if a marriage law based on preference was to be passed, “restricting bisexual persons to only one spouse would be blatantly discriminatory.”
He cited the case of Chen Wei-yih, a woman from Shanghai in China, who in 2010 applied to marry herself.
“The lack of widespread recognition of such an arrangement was accompanied by many fumbling attempts to explain why a woman did not have the right to marry herself,” Meney related.
“It illustrated why viewing marriage through the rights lens is fraught with unending problems,” he pointed out.
He concluded by saying that in pluralistic society people are free to view same sex relationships with respect and dignity, and their rights should be protected by the state for being what they are, not what they are not.
“Legalising same-sex marriage affects everyone’s marriage,” he stressed. “It is precisely because institutions like civil marriage have a deep effect on our culture that any change inevitably affects us all.”
Consequently, he warned that if the state tries to dictate politically correct attitudes, it ultimately becomes mired in an increasingly coercive campaign to ensure that syllabuses, libraries, community groups and recognised institutions all promote this point of view.
However, he says that what is fundamental in this discussion is to ensure that through some misplaced desire not to judge, we do not prepare the ground for totalitarianism.