The anti-gay lobby has a wealth of rhetoric, but nothing to back it up.
Arguing for marriage equality is a tedious indignity. Gay marriage proponents need to turn the debate around and demand the anti-gay brigade mount a decent argument against it.
For the entire time we’ve been together, I’ve worn out my boyfriend’s patience and understanding, letting fly an angry polemic every time an anti-marriage campaigner gets given column inches to make an arse of himself.
The knowledge that these dire warnings about same-sex marriage will exist online for years after they’re all proved baseless gives me small satisfaction. What’s most frustrating is that there are no real arguments being made, and certainly nothing that hasn’t been said and then refuted exactly nine bazillion times before. It feels like the more common the argument, the more vacuous it is.
Always it seems the onus is on gay marriage advocates to prove our worth, to convince politicians why we qualify for equality, to shoulder the burden of having to win the majority’s support.
Yes, it’s great when people, gay and straight, stand up for their relationships and for the people they love, and I would be lying if I said I wasn’t buoyed by recent Galaxy polls showing support for same sex marriage at 62 percent.
Parenthetically, it was monumentally amusing when the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) “dismissed” the poll finding 53 percent of self-declared Christians support equality. Have no doubt, they will claim all the people who marked ‘Christian’ on the Census, but the ACL reserves the right to veto the faiths of others.
The Marriage Act should be amended to include gay and lesbians because there are no sound legal arguments for why it should continue to exclude them.
Being opposed to same-sex marriage for your own reasons, whether religious or otherwise, is absolutely okay with me. Holding an honest opinion certainly doesn’t mean you’re a bigot or a homophobe.
But I don’t buy into the anti-equality crowd’s absurd persecution complex when they complain they’re being unfairly maligned.
“Labels and slurs are being used too often to shut down legitimate debate,” the chief of staff of the ACL, Lyle Sheltonsaid earlier this year.
“Yes it’s true that ACL does not support homosexual marriage, but neither do many Australians, including the prime minister. That doesn’t make us homophobic, bigoted or f***ing idiots.”
I’ve exchanged words with Lyle and I think he’s a decent person, even if I think his version of Christianity bears no resemblance to anything Christ actually did or said. But the ACL and their ilk are not just expressing a personal view about marriage.
The ACL has privileged access to the highest office in the land, the churches enjoy
tax-free status and, for now, seem to have unbridled power over who gets to be married and who doesn’t.
Here’s the thing —I’m not interested in having anyone’s approval, making anyone comfortable or gaining anyone’s acceptance.
Gayness is a reality of life and another part of the spectrum of human sexuality, but there isn’t a unit of time small enough for me to adequately explain how little time I want to devote to making them understand that.
Having a problem with gays does not mean they are bigots. Actively campaigning to ensure I have fewer rights than them, however, does.
All of the paranoid arguments against gay marriage crumble to dust when a bit of logic is applied. Gay marriage is not a slippery slope to polygamy and paedophilia, as was suggested by Rebecca Hagelin, a guest speaker at the hatefest that was the “Don’t Meddle With Marriage” event in Canberra last month, organised by the ACL and a group calling itself the Australian Family Association.
To say nothing of the highly offensive homosexuality = paedophilia undertones there, in the jurisdictions where same-sex marriages are recognised, none of the dystopian scenarios of men taking a child as their lover have been realised.
Ironically, in places where polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages and marriages with children are culturally accepted, in many strict Islamic countries for example, you’d be more likely to swing from a noose in the breeze if you are gay than sign a marriage
certificate.
Marriage throughout history has undergone more changes than Bristol Palin’s face. Granting same-sex marriage rights is not, as Barnaby Joyce declared, the same as calling a horse a camel. And Barnaby’s daughters will still be allowed to marry who they please — in fact they’ll have more freedom to marry how they see fit.
Same-sex marriage will not detract from people’s sincerely-held religious beliefs. Churches that only want to marry straight people who aren’t divorced and know all the moves to the nutbush can carry on marrying people as they see fit.
The reality is, marriage is a secular institution recognised by the government and can be as religious or non-religious as people want to make it. Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage.The law should demand a compelling set of reasons if it is going to discriminate.
I sorely want to shut up about gay marriage. I never want to watch another woeful television ‘debate’ where some anti-marriage numpty gets to talk down the thousands of terrific families headed by gays and lesbians.
As much as I want to suspend my cynicism and believe that the prime minister can redeem herself on this issue, I am not optimistic about the Labor conference this December.
The opponents of gay marriage need to present a convincing argument, or come right out and admit they just aren’t so big on gay people being treated equally.
In any event, we’ll get there eventually.
INFO: Jacob Leigh appears on JOY94.9’s youth program Generation Next.
You May Also Like
Baz, you gave another very interesting post, and on some level I agree. It is perhaps better to kick the goverment out of Marriage, but in our lifetime that would not happen, as to many people want the government to regulate our intimate life, not that that is right. But most people want GLBTI people to have the right to marry, and many if us want the goverment regulated marriage. So should the government follow community expectations? Your are not forced to have a government wedding, you can have your own now, but if you do not have a government wedding, you can be subect to discrimination of your relationship, even when the majority does not want that either.
Perhaps you and I can agree that the government is not listening to the majority, Including you and I?
Great article buddy.
Though I must say I absolutely think the Labor party will make marriage equality law at their conference. The problem is Julia will allow a conscience vote and this will be bad news with the mad monk not allowing a Libs conscience vote.
Most importantly, I encourage everyone to get behind the movement and contact your local MP. Every contact we make, every story we tell makes a difference. And the time to act is NOW because a vote on this topic will come around next year.
best wishes to all x
It’s about equality. I want the right to CHOOSE if I marry or not – that’s why I want marriage equality
Dave, I don’t believe anyone owns marriage. That sense of propriety is another thing bogging down debate. Now I have no problem with people defining marriage any way they like, but if you insist it needs a license from a government then it’s the government defining it, not you. That’s the situation we’re in now. The fight isn’t to overturn this anachronism but to be included in it. It’s a lie to call that equality. Conformity is a better description.
Are there practical implications from those 1084 laws referenced by the Marriage Act? Do married people get some advantages that unmarried people don’t? In 1084 different ways? So much for equality. I say again; it’s a lie to use that word.
[…] The case for marriage The anti-gay lobby has a wealth of rhetoric, but nothing to back it up. Arguing for marriage equality is a tedious indignity. Gay marriage proponents need to turn the debate around and demand the anti-gay brigade mount a decent argument against it. … Read more on Sydney Star Observer […]
Dave – I wouldn’t mind them too much. If the nastiest people are against you that’s how know you’re doing something right. Just don’t feed the trolls and they’ll shrink away.
Rodd – Thanks dude, that’s much appreciated.
Lee – Thank you! It’s about choice and freedom – nothing more. As for Damien Stephens, I’m not sure what happend to his columns.
Mr K – Yes, it sounds wrong, but what I mean is that simply not liking gay people on its own doesn’t make a bigot. It’s this attitude that not liking gays is enough of a reason in itself to deny gay people rights. That’s what makes a bigot.
I’m an adult, I like to think of myself as a tolerant person when it comes to most views. I can deal with people not liking me personally, even if it’s for something as stupid as the fact I’m gay. I’m not going to lose any sleep over that. We shouldn’t be focussing so much on trying to win universal popularity, because some people just will never accept gay people. And that’s their loss.
“Having a problem with gays does not mean they are bigots.”
Um, actually…
A terrific post Rodd!
Whether or not YOU want to be married is not the point. Same sex marriage would be a highly symbolic paradigm marking and galvanizing our nation towards the realization of true equality for all.
Aint nothin wrong with that picture is there?
Good article……. by the way, what has happened to Damien Stephens??? I loved his columns !!
Thanks to Jacob for a great article, articulate, well written and about time too. Why should the anti-marriage zealots get away with spouting hate speech but never providing any sound reasoning or validity to their arguments? Why, because they have nothing to back themselves up.
And aren’t we all just a little bit fed up with the ‘extreme’ examples that are put forward by the zealots if gay marriage is approved…..polygamy, paedophillia and yes, bestiality…or even how it will bring about the the destruction of western society (yes, yes, I get right onto that, when I’ve finished shagging my many young sheep!). And the sad thing is, heterosexual paedophiles have more rights than us as they can get married (go figure!).
We’re required to substantiate why we are ‘equal’, why our love and committment is valid and they can spout such extreme and ignorant rhetoric!
I’m like many people who are fed up of the ongoing argument or even for there to be a need to do so. Marriage should be available as a choice for every adult couple.
I am single and at this time have no interest in getting married should I meet someone great, however I will always support marriage equality, because no one should have their love denigrated, called into question or need to validate why they are equal with anyone else. Love is love, just as family is family!
Baz there is a debate over who owns Marriage and the language surrounding it, traditional or not. Life is passing by the couple who want to get married, as they have been told over and over they do not own it, and some of them believe it. A bit like God I guess. Who owns God or is there a God or Gods? A lot of people would have a different view on that also.
The current application of the Marriage Act is absurd as a Gods Act. I am sure that is next on the cards once we are divorced from the idea the government owns marriage.
Of course at the heart of this debate is your personal liberty versus the Governments intrusion into your personal life, and the discrimination on offer against those not married.
Either way, I thank you for helping me reach a deeper understanding of Marriage.
“Traditions are great, we should hold on to the good traditions…”
Which is pretty much what John Howard said when he changed the law to keep marriage between a man and a woman.
This is what bogs the issue down, people on opposite sides of the debate are using the same arguments.
Why am I the only one who can see this?
Iain is the real troll. He is a serial ACL pest from his many past post. Do not worry to much about his Godwins crap. The long history of Same-Sex marriage will continue long after he has left us. He lives in remote shed in QLD, and trolls this and other sites. There is even a website about him.
Thanks Louise and Mike!
Louise – It’s just so boring talking about gay marriage. All those against it need to take a giant chill pill and focus instead on the positive things they can contribute. The churches are so powerful and have so much licence in this country, they can and should do much better.
Mike – Exactly. Traditions are great, we should hold on to the good traditions and discard the bad ones. This abiding fear of gay people should be relegated to history, we’ll be a much better country for it.
When people say they don’t agree with the concept of marriage, whose concept are they disagreeing with?
The Australian Christian Lobby has a range of concepts from biblical era through to mid-20th century. And that’s just covering a Judaic-Western lineage.
Marriage moves on.
One’s marriage is less valued by law if they are not married for good reason. There has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere in order for the relationship to be ‘valued’ and marriage is it, plain and simple. It always has been and always should be, and to suggest otherwise is just an attempt to reinvent the wheel for the sake of it.
By the way, simply standing on a soap box in order to belittle those who support marriage is showing yourself to be just as bigoted as you claim others to be.
….I would like to add that most the community from the polls will think you are married if you and your family and friends say so. I have heard often enough from couples friends, that had a ceremony, who said they were married, when legally they were not. Even at dinner the other night with some surgeons who were colleagues of my partner, assumed we had been married already.
Why let Gilalrd and Abbott decide your big date. Chances are you were not having a Church wedding anyway, and were going to make your ceremony as unique as your love, and have a traditional marriage!
Soon I will be off overseas to marry with my partner of 11 years. I know it will not be legally valid in Australia. But I am making the choice to rebel and have an old fashioned wedding, not to let two politicians I will never meet decide the most intimate part of my life. I can marry here and now, but my love and I want to travel and see family first. I am told I have to do a traditional Tea Ceremony for the Chinese in laws. Then I have to call them mum and dad. We are to have a Chinese wedding banquet with family and friends. Their main concern about me was that they could live with us when they are older, following the extended family tradition of the Chinese family. I have known couples in Australia who live with their mother and father, and I was very touched they should be so kind to think of me as a real life long partner for their son. If introducing my partner to people, from then on I will say “this is my husband”.
Long before the last convict in Australia died, there was no government announcement at every marriage. It was up to the couple and their community. So you could say I am having an old fashion wedding. There was often no clergy at a wedding, as there was simply not enough of them spread across this vast ancient continent. And did we ever think they went to China Town and married the local Chinese in those grand old days? No each couple and community decided what the ceremony was, and that was it.
There was of course not even a Federal Government who’s first act of parliament was to introduce the White Australia Policy. And if a government agent was required at a wedding to say “The Australian Government defines marriage to be union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others”, then guns might well be drawn, and revolution might well of happened. No doubt some of our present day politicians would be swinging from a homemade noose.
To put things in perspective, we are facing years of a conservative far right Catholic Government. All the signs are it will be one of the most conservative in history. You have a situation where the vast majority of media is owned by one man, the Papal Knight Rupert Murdoch, and he is not fond of a political party who advocates for equality.
You can get upset about all this and yes it is nasty, or you can get married and continue to lobby as a married couple for no discrimination of your relationship. Just because the Australian Government defines Marriage does not mean you have to agree with that definition. You have a choice now.
Surely we are not going let Abbott and Gillard decide if you can marry or not?
So take the plunge, get hitched if you want to, no person is stopping you. At worst you will be counted on the census as married overseas, either way I wish you all the best with our decision.
Great article! Hits the nail on the head – marriage is a secular institution, not a religious one… the government discriminating on grounds of sexuality is outrageous and outdated. Let’s get the equality sorted so we can have a choice about whether we do or don’t, and at the very least, we can stop talking about it!
I think Baz makes the most compelling case against marriage, all marriage. He is not one of those trolls that come here from time to time. There are people, gay and straight, who do not believe in marriage, and many of these people have very good and valid reasons. I am not with them on this, but I greatly respect Baz. He has certainly made me think a lot about the 1084 laws that are referenced by the Marriage Act. It effectively says if you are in a relationship and not married, then your relationship is less valued by law. I want to marry my partner, but I also do not want those not married to be discriminated against. I certainly do question the role of government in meddling the private life of citizens.
Jacob, I don’t abuse people or resort to name-calling so a cheap shot like ‘troll’ just proves my point: It’s you who has trouble maintaining your argument.
Heyley and Bec – Thanks for the kind words.
Baz – Sticking to conventional wisdom, I shan’t feed trolls. Goodbye.
And yet another commentator gets it back-to-front. Marriage is a deeply conservative institution, so this indignation over conservatives working to protect it is wearing rather thin. I’m still waiting to hear an argument why male-female marriage is a benchmark for equality. Homosexuals are the opposite of heterosexuals just as males are the opposite to females. To what degree can two opposites be equal? There will always be a gap between the ideal and the reality. And what’s so wrong with enjoying the differences between us?
Real progress would be to rescind the Marriage Act altogether, then gays and straights – and yes, maybe those paedophiles and polygamists – would be FREE (a word you don’t hear much in this debate) to define and celebrate their relationships any way they like.
Let us put this into perspective. There is a group of people in the community who are putting forward a Nazi ideology that there is a superior race by birth. That those not born into the Master Race, should be discriminated against in many areas of life. They say the families of GLBTI people are not even real, that there love is less, and they are not natural. Even the Pope wants us to swallow some of that poison. No doubt the Nazi Bishops would be proud of the former Hitler Youth Pope.
Heterosexual Supremacist are losing the debate. Why? Because discrimination is about hate, it has to rely on arguments that are full of contradictions and make no sense. Then there is the Elephant in the room- people do not like to watch the cruelty of those with power abusing it.
The rallies for equality will grow violent, until the cries for freedom, and basic Civil Rights, get heard. Things will intensify with the conservative Catholic hardliner Tony Abbott getting into the Lodge, who said his daughters greatest gift is their virginity. At least we will be joined by many others when he becomes Prime Minister! I am no fan of Gillard, but I have to face it, Labor is not nearly as bad as Abbott with power.
Neil – That’s all fair, but my point is that the anti-marriage side needs to mount a pretty convincing case against equality, which they’ve failed to do at every turn. Gays have all the same responsibilities as everyone else as far as paying taxes, contributing to society and raising children, it’s not too much to demand all of the same rights as well.
Nic – Thank you, much appreciated. x
A brilliantly written article that hits the nail on the head. I completely agree with what you’ve said and I only wish that more people would stand up and take notice of brilliantly formed pieces like yours.
Neil, I am a strong marriage equality advocate, and I dont even agree with the concept of marriage.
Whether you want to get married or not, this is about legal inequality. It is about the government saying that one group of people is allowed to do one thing, while another is forbidden from it.
Whatever your views on marriage, such discrimination is just downright wrong.
@Neil: aren’t you an example of the gay community not coming together on the issue? You *are* getting into the debate from your comment here.
No one is stating that marriage is the only form of relationship, but there is no reason for denying gay couples the same options as open to others.
Leigh, this is one of the best articles I’ve ever seen about this issue. Kudos to you man.
I still don’t quite understand why everyone is so hung up on the word marriage, and I’m slightly irritated at everyone telling me it’s something I must support.
To be honest, I couldn’t care less if I can say I’m married or not. I respect people’s right to want to be, but I’m not going to any more rallies or getting into any more debates. I really can’t work out why it hasn’t happened yet, although I suspect it has a lot do to with the way the gay community is going about getting to the end game. They can’t find a common ground to come together on.
Some say it’s about love, some say it’s about rights, some say they’re oppressed and discriminated against. Maybe they’re all right, but at the end of the day it’s not about love, it’s about the law.