Does a child have a right to one mother and one father? The redefinition of marriage debate is making its way through Australia and Prime Minister Julie Gillard has taken steps to block the movement.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has defended her Government’s policy of refusing gay and lesbian Australians the Certificates of No Impediment (CNIs) to wed, which they need to marry overseas.
Independent MP Andrew Wilkie complained in Parliament this afternoon that “the Government refuses to issue CNIs to same-sex couples seeking to marry in countries allowing same-sex marriage despite the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee recommending in 2009 that the Government should do so — in the understanding that Australians overseas should comply with the laws of the country they are visiting.”
“Prime Minister, the ban on issuing CNIs to same-sex couples looks petty and mean-spirited. Will you lift it?” (AU Star Online)
A National Times article here scathingly examines Gillard's motivations for blocking the CNIs. Funnily enough, the Times lists her as a childless atheist in a de facto relationship so she doesn't fit the mold of a dreaded evangelical.
Regardless of her motivations, MercatorNet raises an interesting issue:
A key argument for keeping marriage that way is that it protects children, since social science shows that children do best when raised by a married mother and father. However, the campaign for same-sex marriage has always displayed scant regard for children’s rights. (MN)
What is the state's obligation to its children? If it knows of a law that will prevent a child from having the experience of one mother and one father, should it shift gears? The same question could be asked of the rulings which allowed for no-fault divorces in various countries around the world.
Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, with one mother and one father.
Is it a right?