Views on gay marriage have changed markedly. Doubtless reflecting common perceptions, homosexual relationships were considered an abomination in the Old and New Testaments and in the Koran. Homosexual practices have remained forbidden in most Muslim countries (punishable by death in extreme cases) but in western societies over the past 50 years they became first tolerated then legal.
Even so, many people, and probably most parents, would empathise with Mrs Seinfeld who, on hearing (inaccurate) news that her son was gay, expressed concern but adding “not that there’s anything wrong with it”. And homosexuality remained until recently the butt of many wisecracks. In the 1970s one joke had a commentator ten years hence announcing the news that homosexuality has been legalised in Queensland and another responding that it had just been made mandatory in South Australia.
Doubtless the current activists are being honest in claiming they only want equality and would not force those with religious convictions to fully suppress these if they were in conflict. But the same limited aims were made by those that sought de jure legality. And while it is unlikely the Gay Rights movement would prevail over Islamic preferences, any remaining Christians and Jews sticking to Biblical injunctions would be easily overcome.
In this respect, nothing is more certain than that, following a Marriage Equality Act, future demands will be made on the wedding cake manufacturers and wedding celebrants to, on pain of legal action, also supply gay couples. And this goes back to the passionate desire for gay people to be regarded in every respect as equally normal to straight people.
One of the many institutional promoters of the gay rights cause is a captured educational establishment with, for example, the Safe Schools program encouraging more children to adopt what its gay-friendly promoters consider their latent homosexual leanings, thereby expanding the size of the minority. This renders, as a wry sardonic comment, the previously mentioned 1980s joke about South Australia in future requiring homosexual practices to be mandatory.
People may or may not register as being in favour of marriage equality but the public does not rate it as an issue. Opinion Polls notwithstanding, given Australia’s federal nature a plebiscite, and the tendency of many to hide their real views on trendy social issues means a conclusive “yes” vote is not assured. Many Liberal politicians campaigning for a Parliamentary vote recognise this, recognise the relative unimportance of the issue to their constituents and recognise the divisive nature of their campaign. Their persistence in pursuing the cause is little short of astonishing.
See the full post at Quadrant