On the postal plebiscite

Michael Byrne writes: Re. “If you support human rights, should you boycott the junk mail plebiscite?“(Thursday)

Bernard Keane suffers, it seems, from a congestive disorder, probably through an overinflation of moral outrage. Indeed, the redefinition of marriage cause celebre inflates matters as a tactic to tap the ever present bubbling emotions in the social issues of our day.

The formation of marriage rites over the centuries, and reflected in Judeo-Christian Scriptures for millennia, has been forward looking: engaged in the unfolding of the future, reflecting the embedded hope of humanity — new and free relations, new life. Keane et al indulge in sophistry where “the good” in the hope of marriage is overlaid with the emotional fight for “rights”. Our Christian western civilisation made free the notion of romantic love, founded on the good, not on rights.

The Gay liberation movement from the late 60’s had a fine purpose and achieved its ends in seeing justice prevail finally in the legal recognition and benefits of such relationships. The attempt to redefine marriage from its deep natural roots, with its carriage of human hope in new life from the union, is politics for politics sake. There is no call to justice in it. It is materialist – both in exercising the feel good of the cause, and in the event sought.

It is a good, that the public can have a say in this attempt to re-define marriage.

Sophie Pointer writes: Re. “If you support human rights, should you boycott the junk mail plebiscite?“(Thursday)

Thanks Bernard for a great article. I’m being abused within and outside my LGBTQI community for advocating we boycott. It is divisive and unfair in so many ways. I fear for my 12 year old daughter and all our children.