Great points – and it is about time we looked at marriage from the child’s perspective. Adults-only libertarians need to stop thinking about their “rights” 24/7.

David seems to be locked into the 'Pleasantville' mindset, when men were men - hard-working, upright disciplinarians - and women stayed at home and raised the children.

His whole argument is predicated on the idea that one's gender dictates the entirety of one's role as a parent.

Frank Brennan, who was head of the Human Rights Consultative Committee looking into a Bill of Rights, has an article today which essentially supports the child-centred argument against gay marriage, while affirming civil equality for co-dependent couples. See http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=24259

Excerpt: "In considering whether to advocate a change to the definition of marriage, citizens need to consider not only the right of same sex couples to equality but even more so the rights of future children.

The State has an interest in privileging group units in society which are likely to enhance the prospects that future children will continue to be born with a known biological father and a known biological mother who in the best of circumstances will be able to nurture and educate them.

That is why there is a relevant distinction to draw between a commitment between a same sex couple to establish a group unit in society and a commitment of a man and a woman to marry and found a family."

David "a commitment of a man and a woman to marry and found a family"

Is a commitment to found a family part of the existing marriage act?

R0bert

Glad you mentioned Brennan, David, because it’s striking how weakly he puts his argument.

First, his view of marriage is just a "paradigm", one among many:

>> "'Marriage' means different things to different people.
>> For me, the paradigm of marriage is an exclusive,
>> indissoluble covenant between a man and a woman
>> entering a partnership for life, ordered to their good
>> and open to the procreation and education of their
>> children. Not every marriage matches all the features
>> of this paradigm."

Second, he undermines his own view by pointing out that "Australian civil law on marriage varies from my paradigm" and that in "an ageing society, the state has an interest in recognising and affirming relationships between persons committed to supporting each other, regardless of their sexual orientation."

Third, he opens the door for official marriage recognition, sanctioned by a majority of the married population, rather than by the church:

>> "Many same sex couples tell us their relationship is
>> identical with marriage. Until the majority of married
>> couples are convinced this is so, politicians would
>> be wise not to consider undoing the distinction
>> between marriage and civil unions."

Rather than taking an absolutist position on marriage, he's entertaining public interest and popular views as reasons for introducing new models of relationship recognition, including marriage.

My reading of Brennan’s article is that he is soft on civil marriage for same-sex couples. I think it reveals a conflict between Brennan the humanist and Brennan the catholic priest. This is echoed in the comments of Father Carl Mackander, the priest from Orange quoted in Monday's article from the Central Western Daily http://www.centralwesterndaily.com.au/news/local/news/general/gay-marriage-a-divisive-issue/2003831.aspx?storypage=0 , who treads a careful line between civil law and church law.

If I were you I’d be cautious about using Brennan to support your anti-gay rhetoric.

RoBert of course it is, its in Gods laws too. Thats why Lesbins make good Mums.