The Hon. Mike Baird, MP
I have written to you and the Premier Barry O'Farrell last year before the parliamentary inquiry into homosexual marriage to express my opposition to it.
Last week, Premier Barry O'Farrell and Premier Colin Barnett, put forward to the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott in support of a conscience vote to support amending the definition to marriage, given the law is held federally.
To that end, I want to re-iterate my strong opposition to changing the federal bill or introducing a NSW State bill for the following reasons:
- NSW Government does not have a mandate for this change
- Marriage is a nationwide issue and hence should be held at the federal level without fear or favour from State political persuasions.
- There is no national mandate for change, irrespective of particular polls or focus group research
- Marriage is the best platform for a functional and structured society, to undermine the "best" platform for a family is to undermine a child's right to a mother and father and most hopeful future
- More so a change will undermine the fundamental right of a child to have access to it's mother and father - a breach of the UNHCR charter, rights of the child
- The premise of changing the definition based on the current pro change of 1. Human Rights, 2. Discrimination, 3. Equality and Love are false arguments for change and are subjective themselves. That is:
1. Human Rights - what is a human right? The right to get married to anyone or any number or any persons? Where is the boundary or definition of a human right that should include being able to marry anyone or any number of people? On what basis should the Human Right preclude only people of same sex or other sex.
2. Discrimination - what are the equal rights of those that do not subscribe to the redefinition of marriage to be between 2 people (of any sex), is that not inequality and a demonstration of discrimination?
3. Equality and Love - what is the boundary and definition of equality to represent in a redefinition of marriage? Using the term "equality" when wanting to redefine the foundational structure of a family is a mis-use of the term for potentially etherial and political correctness.
Rather, I would urge you and your government to re-consider the more important question, of what is the definition and meaning of a man and a woman, and then to ask the next fundamental question of what then is the meaning and purpose of a marriage? Until those questions are answered and well understood, the arguments for changing the definition of marriage will not be logically coherent or fundamentally correct as can be seen today. Instead what we are seeing, is the political correctness and desire to abolish "inequality" and "discrimination" and improve "human rights" yet while not actually understanding that inequality and discrimination are actually very good and appropriate aspects to laws and we have not properly defined what a Human is, or the "right to be human" all the while espousing "human rights" .
I think it was the great British writer, philosopher and thinker of the 21st Century Malcolm Muggeridge who saliently said of laws: "Before you move a fence, one needs to ask yourself, why was it put there in the first place".
Thank you.
Ben Henshall
No comments:
Post a Comment