Australia’s infinitely wise government is using taxpayers’ money to ask the people if they would agree to change the Marriage Act to permit same-sex marriage. (Shades of The Rise And Rise of Michael Rimmer)
Different source put the proportion of population that would be involved in such marriage at between 0.2% and 20%. In any case; a minority; which is not in itself a case for No.
This case for No addresses the role of government and laws in society. The difference between rights and privilege. And equality under the law.
Laws are made by government to sustain the coercion of individuals; be that to produce “desirable” behaviour or to fund the policies of government. Such coercion is always with the potential threat of ultimate force against those who do not comply with the rule of law.
This appears in stark contrast to what is supposed to be the loving relationship of marriage. So why is government involved in the regulation of marriage; which for thousands of years before that, was a matter of societies?
We are born with rights. Rights are innate. Government does not give people rights; it takes away rights from some; and it bestows privileges upon others.
If marriage under the government does not restrict or remove rights, then it must bestow privileges. In the past, societies thought it a good thing to bestow some privileges upon those entering into a permanent relationship aimed at perpetuating a particular society through procreation and the nurture of children in familial environments. Those raising children had a self-interest in the up-bringing of the children; especially as the children used to take care of the elderly. It was/is a matter of self-managed social security. And societies set their own rules, based on diverse values, as to who could get married.
But all of that seems to be out-sourced to the loving embrace of government. So why should there be privileges attached to marriage? And if not; what purpose does government serve in the institution of marriage? What self-interest does the government have in marriage?
If one answers Yes to the opinion poll question, then one implicitly agrees with the notion that government should continue to be involved in marriage; to continue to bestow privilege upon the married while coercing those not married to carry the burden. So much for equality.
If, on the other hand, you vote No, then it tells the government not to make changes and it provides an opportunity for a much wider discussion as to the role of government in marriage.
F.A. Hayek noted in The Constitution of Liberty that laws made in haste or in response to a fashionable cause, are invariably regrettable. So let’s think about this calmly, away from the screeching voices and the unnecessary haste. Vote No to have the time to consider this calmly.