Article 41 of the Constitution, as of now, clearly deals with the man-woman based family. If the proposed amendment is popularly approved, then a “marriage between two persons of the same sex will have the same status under the Constitution as a marriage between a man and a woman” and “will be recognised as a family and be entitled to the Constitutional protection for families” (Referendum Commission).
Thus, if the referendum is passed, Article 41, heretofore unambiguously and exclusively heterosexual, will also recognise a homosexual couple “as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society . . . a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights , antecedent and superior to all positive law”. Moreover such a couple will be guaranteed protection by the State “as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State” (Article 1.2).
Because I reject this grotesque nonsense, I will be voting No.
Miss Panti writes:
Sometimes the mask slips and they reveal what they’ve tried so hard to conceal: their true feelings. I think it’s very revealing that David Quinn is prepared to endorse the use of the word “grotesque” about gay relationships and families.
I can think of lots of things that are grotesque. Extending constitutional protection to all families is not one of them. Even families that David so witheringly disapproves of. I would call it “fair”, “reasonable”, “compassionate”, “considerate”, “respectful”, or even “the very least we can do”. But not “grotesque”.
Thanks Andy Sheridan