Doctor Van Gend's argument is bizarre and confused. Citing the Declaration of Human Rights, he reasons...

"marriage is a compound right encompassing the dual "right to marry and to found a family" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16). Therefore any law allowing two men to marry is a law guaranteeing adoption and surrogacy by two men"

Having read Article 16, Dr Van Gend should know it affords EVERYONE the right to marriage, yet his argument is that NOT EVERYONE should have the right to marriage.

Is he arguing for the authority of the UDHR or not? It seems he's quite selective about universal rights.

Or, if he reasons that "marriage" in Article 16 doesn't mean "gay marriage", then he should not claim it guarantees anything to two married men (let alone adoption and surrogacy, which aren't even mentioned in Article 16.)

"the word marriage has already been taken."

Sure, it already describes the union of a deity and hundreds of thousands of virgins in the Catholic Church.

No way can we afford to let it mean a union of two people. Can you imagine? End of the world scenario... Game over!

The problem for the great majority of gays who just want to be left alone and never wanted the State interfering in their private affairs is that a few arrogant activists, but largely feminists and leftist 'Progressives' (who presume to always know what is best for everyone) have hijacked the debate for their own secondary agendas.

The position of gays used to be that they rejected the staid uniformity, conformity and iron manacles that as they saw it, that blighted the heterosexual's marriages and common law (de facto) marriages. Gays enjoyed the excitement and freedom of an alternative lifestyle of their individual choice, without the State and its hirelings telling them how to run their lives.

However the feminists in particular and for their own selfish negative agenda, decided that gays could be the grist for their mill in challenging marriage which they resented as 'patriarchy' and wanted to destroy. Step one was to re-define de-facto relationships to include gays. Gays, flattered by the attention, foolishly went along for the ride. Now the public bureaucrats and courts tell gays the status of their living arrangements and lawyers make money out of their State-regulated break-ups.

It wasn't much of an exchange was it? Freedom and individual choice gone and for what?

The feminists and political 'Progressives' (a sly misnomer if there ever was one!) are now seeking to put the reinforcing rods and concrete in to formalise the state institionalising of gay relationships and lifestyles that they have wrought.

Never forget though that the feminists and 'political 'Progressives' have another agenda. They have NO liking for marriage and instead seek centralised State control of people. In their political machinations, gays are just useful tools to smack and hopefully take down 'traditional'(sic) society.

@onthebeach,

So the feminist lefty progressives presume to know what's best for everyone, whereas you *actually* know what's best for everyone.

Is that what you're saying?

Jimmy Jones,

If I did not refer to them by the words they use themselves I would be joining them in deceit.

Maybe you might listen better where (say) certain Labor politicians over-use the word 'progressive' to describe themselves and their policies and almost in the same breath refer to themselves as 'Fabians' or recent speakers at Fabian meetings.

It is astounding how many avowed Labor supporters on OLO have been ignorant for years of, then they deny(!), the membership of the Fabian Society by senior Labor figures.

You are, as a leftist would say, 'In de Nile'(sic) too are you? Why deny what is true and is so often woven into the speeches and policies of those Labor figures?

What prevents them from being up-front and forming their own party though? The same could be said about the educated, middle class leftist women who are feminists. The fact is that neither would want their ideologies to be scrutinised and voted upon by the electorate.

Then again the leftist 'Progressives' aka Fabians aka International Socialists do describe themselves as the "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing". Come to think of it, that could describe the present Labor leader.

@onthebeach,

Yeah that's all very interesting and it might even be compelling if I had a stake in caring one way or the other, but the gist of my comment was that you seemed to be suggesting it's you who knows what's best for everyone.