The same holds true here. Once we accept the argument that marriage is a “right” any consenting adults should possess, we won’t be able to parcel that “right” out to only certain configurations of people. The usual liberal judicial activism will be enough to widen the definition to just about everything.
What about kangaroos, mate? It’s way past time I tie me kangaroo down.
"THIS is a marriage..."
“The scare quotes around the word “should” say it all: marriage is not a natural institution, according to the High Court of Australia. It never was and it never will be. Marriage is simply what Parliament says it is.”
To the state in the modern era, marriage is simply whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority thinks its is at any one time. It’s been that way for a long time, Pope Leo XIII warned about it 130 years ago.
Once you condition a majority of folks to believe marriage comes from the state, a majority will then buy anything the state decides to approve as marriage.
Freegards
A few years back I sent a letter to Parliament - it’s recorded in Hansard. I was arguing against same sex marriage and my main point was the marriage preceded government - it is first and foremost a religious construct for the benefit and peace of society and the raising of children. Governments around the world took it upon themselves, for whatever reasons good or bad, to record and regulate marriage. That does not give government the right to define what marriage is.
The problem with that now though is: who does decide if not the government? The churches? Most would jump at the chance to seem all tolerant and New Age. If left to the individual then each can decide their own and that would be a dog’s breakfast.
Australia should never legalize this.
This could make inheritance taxes problematic. Let’s say as you get older you “ marry” your adult children. Now when you die they are your “spouses” and your property passes to them without being subject to any taxes.