Katy Faust is an American traditional marriage advocate. She runs a blog advocating for traditional marriage, called askthebigot.com (hence the title of this blogpost). However, she is anything but a bigot: she was raised by her Lesbian mother and her partner, and loves both of them dearly. Oh, and she was interviewed this week on Australian TV.
Hearing The Other Side Of The Story
It seems to me that most of the mainstream media are very one-sided when it comes to the issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM). As of last week, a pro-traditional marriage ad has not been allowed to air on mainstream TV, including SBS, Channel 7, and Channel 10. Which is quite a concern, considering that traditional marriage is currently Australian Law – and SBS is partly taxpayer funded. (Oh, and the ads did not break any advertising standards).
However, with all credit to our tax-payer funded national broadcaster, ABC, journalist Tony Jones interviewed a very articulate defender of traditional marriage, Katy Faust.
If you haven’t yet seen it, you can see it for yourself here:
4 Things I Really Liked About The Interview:
1) That It Was Aired In The First Place.
The mainstream media censorship of the pro-traditional marriage side is quite concerning. A friend of mine recently wrote to the Australian newspaper (who thankfully haven’t stifled debate), making the following point:
We who object to marriage redefinition do so because we are concerned it will damage society. We could be wrong. We could be a minority opinion. But to stifle a minority opinion from even being heard is censorious oppression which belongs in a dictatorship, not a free democracy.
Unfortunately, much of mainstream media is only too happy to censor one side of this important discussion. So kudos to you, ABC!
2) It Was A Very Civil Interview.
Unlike some other interviews that I have seen, where defenders of SSM were treated with disrespect, Tony Jones was very civil. He asked pointed questions, yes, but he did not shut her down, or treat her with contempt. In my experience, this civility is all to rare these days from many supporters of Same Sex Marriage. Kudos to you, Tony.
3) Katy Was Able To Raise A Key Concern About Marriage Redefinition: Children.
The crux of Katie’s opposition to redefining marriage is that same sex marriage takes away a child’s inherent right to a mother and and father.
Elsewhere, Katie has written:
When a child is placed in a same-sex-headed household, she will miss out on at least one critical parental relationship and a vital dual-gender influence. The nature of the adults’ union guarantees this. Whether by adoption, divorce, or third-party reproduction, the adults in this scenario satisfy their heart’s desires, while the child bears the most significant cost: missing out on one or more of her biological parents.
And here’s her point:
Making policy that intentionally deprives children of their fundamental rights is something that we should not endorse, incentivize, or promote.
Maybe someone can turn that sentence into a slogan. Because in my view, that about sums up the key reason why society should not redefine marriage.
4) Katie Clearly Loves Gay People.
Katie’s love for her Lesbian mother, and her partner, were clear as day. This just goes to show that you can be for traditional marriage, without having any hate or animus toward gay people.
Katy (and other defenders of traditional marriage) simply want to maintain an important human right for the most vulnerable and voiceless members of our society: children.
Reframing The Marriage Debate: What About The Rights Of Children?
I think people like Katy have done a great service to the marriage conversation by clearly spelling out the implications of redefining marriage, especially for children.
In other words, the whole marriage debate needs to be reframed around the important issue of whether or not children have a right to a mother and father, where possible.
For if children do have a right to a mother and father, where possible, then would not legalising same sex marriage institutionalise and endorse a family structure where children have no such right?
In the case of abortion, it’s obvious to anyone that can read an ultrasound that abortion harms and kills real children. And yet, when it comes to SSM, many people are unsure how redefining marriage would harm anyone. And so the spotlight needs to shine on the harm that comes to children when their basic right to a mother and a father is removed. The harm isn’t as obvious as it is from abortion (which is why there’s so much confusion around the marriage issue), but it’s still very real.
Most Australians Still Believe A Child Has A Right To A Mother And A Father
It’s interesting to note that most Australians still believe that children have a right to a mother and a father. In fact, the latest Galaxy poll shows that ‘By a margin of three to one, Australians think it is more important that a child should have a mum and dad than that two men should have the right to marry and create a family.‘
When people start to realise that redefining marriage would remove that right from children, perhaps opposition to SSM may grow, like it evidently did in Austria this year, where the Austrian Parliament voted against SSM by a margin of 110 to 26.
A Very Helpful Summary
For a very helpful summary of the reasons we should not rush into redefining marriage, check out this A3 sized poster put out recently by the Australian Marriage Forum, or this A4 booklet from The Australian Family Association.
The key issue is that we shouldn’t support a law that will remove children’s basic rights to a mother and a father, and therefore bring them harm.
What about you: Do you think children have a right to a mother and a father, where possible?