If you think changing the definition of marriage to remove gender is innocuous, with little impact on children or the community, think again.
Rainbow activists would have fair-minded Australians believe that raising children, motherhood and fatherhood, and procreation are completely separate issues to the question of sanctioning same-sex marriage.
International experience shows that once a government legislates same-sex marriage, a new frontier is created where the rainbow activists march onward to push down further perceived barriers.
The rights of other community members, in particular children, are squeezed out of legislation and the national discourse. It will put pressure of the Government to allow for commercial surrogacy and the trading of eggs and embryos.
Unable to raise a voice to defend themselves against the noise coming from rainbow activists, children’s rights to wherever possible, grow up knowing the love of a father and mother, will continue to shrink unless good people are willing to speak on their behalf.
Consider the USA. It’s been 19 months since the Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage through the infamous Obergefell case.
Those dissecting the Supreme Court decision and who favour expanding marriage rights further, by their own admission believe the next logical step is for same-sex marriage couples to have the same rights to have children.
They point to the words from Supreme Court judge Kennedy, who in delivering the Obergefell decision notes that the right to marry “safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.”
Advocates are pointing to these and other comments from Kennedy to indicate that inherent in same-sex marriage are parental rights. They argue that same-sex marriage must lead to so-called ‘family equity’ from a human rights law perspective.
The decision by the Supreme Court essentially means that LGBT couples have the ‘right’ to reproductive means and technologies.
One such article by Seema Mohapatra from Barry University in the USA argues that infertility treatment should be allowed.
An abstract of Mohapatra’s article is worth considering:
Because same sex couples are not able to have biological children with each other without ART, they are functionally infertile. However, insurance companies and state statutes use a medical definition of infertility. I suggest that this conception must change in order for same sex couples to enjoy the same ART benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. I examine the Obergefell decision as a backdrop for the impetus for legal change in the realm of increased access to ART. I note how infertility treatment is provided in the United States and the potential roadblocks for same sex couples. Then, I discuss the opportunities and challenges for biological parenthood via surrogacy for same sex couples and advocate for reform efforts to accommodate for same sex access to these services. I finally suggest community engagement and activism in this realm to open up ART beyond its typically white, upper-middle-class patrons to all of those who wish to have a biological child, regardless of their wealth or race.
Of course commercial surrogacy, whether the user pays or the tax-payer, is the only way of providing the so-called equal access.
Missing in this discussion is the fall-out for women exploited for their eggs or wombs and children who are deliberately denied the right to grow up with a mother and father.