In the marriage reforms initiated by the Australian government, one thing became very clear, marriage as defined by the Australian Law, could never embrace the idea of a marriage between two people of the same sex. Not only could not, but it was encumbered on the marriage celebrant, to ensure that all those present understand that fact. Before solemnizing a marriage, the celebrant must actually say the words, Marriage according to law in Australia, is a union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'. Considering the huge percentage of marriages that end up in the Family Court, and an even huger percentage of people living together before making their union a legal one, it is remarkable that couples of the same sex are clamouring for the same right to marry and divorce as the heterosexual couples. In a way its a reflection of our society. The individual rules. But how different is todays individual when compared to those of yester year. John Stuart Mills love affair with the married Henrietta Taylor scandalised the polite society for years. It was outraged by the liaison itself. And was far from comforted by Mr. Taylors pragmatic acceptance of the situation, and the manner in which he facilitated it by his discreet absences. And what about Lord Byron? That Prince of darkness was accused of breaking every taboo not only held dear by the English society, but by most societies. In the end he had the good sense to exile himself to a to a country less censorious than England. Oscar Wilde, though not as fortunate as the other two, also paid a price for his indivuality. Todays inviduals are somewhat watered down individuals. In fact, are they individuals when their idea of doing their own thing is to do it with the blessing of the society, sanctioned by the laws of the land. |
