Australia: the news for defenders of traditional marriage is far from good as a result of the decision.

It’s official. 

If Australia gets same-sex marriage, polygamy is next.

by Michael Cook

There were tears of indignation outside of Australia’s High Court yesterday, but it was the result that everyone expected: a law passed on December 3 authorising same-sex marriage in the Australian Capital Territory was unconstitutional. The marriages of the 30 or so gay and lesbian couples who had exchanged vows under the law have now been annulled.

“This is devastating for those couples who married this week and for their families,” said the spokesman for Australian Marriage Equality, Rodney Croome. “However, this is just a temporary defeat. What is far more important is that the ACT’s law facilitated the first same-sex marriage on Australian soil and showed the nation the love and commitment of same-sex couples. The marriages in the ACT prove that this reform is not about politics, but about love, commitment, and fairness.”

It had always been clear that under the Australian Constitution, the regulation of marriage is exclusively a Federal responsibility. The law passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly for Canberra and the surrounding suburbs was essentially a test case to rally the troops. The High Court judges were unequivocal: “Under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same sex marriage should be provided for by law…is a matter for the federal Parliament.” And according to the present law, marriage is only between a man and a woman.

However, the news for defenders of traditional marriage is far from good as a result of the decision. The High Court has bulldozed a primrose path through the thickets of jurisprudence for advocates of “marriage equality”.

First of all, it declared that the Constitution does not enshrine a natural definition of marriage. The word did not refer to the social reality at the time the Constitution was written in 1901; it is up to Parliament to alter it.

Second, the judges ventured a definition of marriage which does not include the exclusive fidelity, lifelong commitment or intention to procreate which characterise traditional marriage.

................................

Read more: www.mercatornet.com