A new dimension was added to the same sex marriage debate in Australia a few days ago. Same sex marriage advocates are always telling us it is about the freedom of people to marry who they love and allowing same sex marriage won’t denigrate the institution of marriage. This is why it is especially bizarre that they also are demanding divorce equality.
The mainstream media eagerly reported on a United Nation’s Human Rights ruling that declared Australia was breaching its international human rights obligations because it did not allow same sex divorce, even though Australia has never recognised same sex marriage.
An Australian woman who was in a same sex marriage with a Canadian woman where the marriage took place took her inability to get a divorce in Australia from her non-existence marriage all the way to the United Nations in 2012.
Looking at the facts of her case her problem with getting a divorce was to do with Canadian law which has since been amended. Maybe the woman should have thought about these legal grey areas before she went overseas to have a same sex marriage that was invalid in Australia?
Do same sex marriage advocates really believe that when Australians are about to vote on changing the definition of marriage that one of the reasons they want same sex marriage legalised is so they can experience the benefits of divorce? Although divorce takes place and is sometimes necessary if a spouse is being abusive, it is never viewed as a positive event.
The prevalence of divorce in Australia, and the effect it has on the individuals themselves as well as on the welfare of children has concerned many conservatives and traditionalists. This is why they are hesitant about making the definition of marriage more loose since the ‘for life’ part appears to be ignored now, especially since the introduction of no-fault divorce.
Not to mention once again the ludicrous nature of the United Nations once again criticising Australia, a liberal democracy for supposedly violating human rights. Let us remember that United Nations Human Rights Council has amongst its members Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. All nations that outlaw homosexuality and are governed by sharia law.
If same sex marriage advocates believe that this ruling will strengthen their case they are seriously misguided. The last thing our society desires is more relationship instability the promotion and if people believe allowing same sex marriage will increase it they will vote no. This is just another example of serious of blunders advocates have made and still continue to make in the lead up to this plebiscite.