Empowering young Australians to be a clear Christian voice
Janet Albrechtsen is right to say that the people, not unelected judges, should decide the meaning of marriage (“No short cuts to gay marriage”, 3/4).
A referendum, where every household receives a booklet putting the cases for and against, could be worthwhile.
Nevertheless I was impressed by questions asked by some US Supreme Court justices during the same-sex marriage cases last week.
New socially liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked if the alleged right of individuals to marry whomever they wish meant that the state might not be able to restrict the number of people who get married or impose other qualifications.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you’re being asked — and — and it is one that I’m interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting a child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?
The lawyer arguing for gay marriage had no real answer – showing that the ubiquitous “marriage equality” slogan is false advertising.