ISN’T IT ROMANTIC? (REFRAIN)
by Ross Sharp
Here is a letter from today’s Sydney Morning Herald …
Malcolm Turnbull says for many years he gave little thought to the question of redefining marriage. He needs to think a lot more.
The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and each other – this is why it has been a feature of all societies, even pre-religious ones.
The primary business of government is justice, and because children cannot be autonomous and independent, their most basic rights – to know where they come from and have a relationship with their biological mother and father – must be protected.
If Turnbull was less sanctimonious he might remember this voiceless section of our society rather than the romantic wishes of adults who already enjoy the same voting rights as everyone else.
If it really is ”all about commitment”, I would choose to marry my dog, Prince, which will be very possible if marriage is redefined.
Angela Sumners, Forestville.
Note the language, the total absence of any word or words describing marriage as a thing two people do when they’re in love.
That marriage is a device by which people “attach” themselves to each other, and little else.
That Turnbull is “sanctimonious”. Kettles. Pots.
That “romantic wishes” are irrelevent.
I’d marry a dog too, if I were given a choice between it and this woman.