Loading ...- Category:
- Soap Box
- Author:
- Phil Scott
- Posted:
- Tuesday, 21 July 2009
On August 1 my partner and I will be milling, loitering and woolgathering for same-sex marriage. It’s not that we wish to get married; at least I don’t think so. Acting like an old married couple, we haven’t discussed it. But we want you to get hitched, if that’s what you’d like.
And we want the Labor Party Conference to be aware of our opinion.
Some people believe same-sex marriage (yes, that specific term) should be the final thing gays and lesbians achieve for full equality. The last frontier! I think that’s the wrong way around. Once we have the right to marry, other related areas of inequality will disappear. Let’s go for the big one now and let the fiddly details sort themselves out later.
Forget creeping up on it via civil unions. We don’t want some -˜almost but not quite’ pseudo-equivalent.
And don’t give us that crap about undermining the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, (the ALP line). Gays pay the same tax rates as straight men: does that undermine the taxation system? Lesbians catch the same buses as straight women: is that undermining the transport system? Well something is, but I doubt it’s lesbians. Clearly the definition of marriage needs redefining.
The federal Opposition is battling this issue on another front. Tony Abbott advocates the abolition of no fault divorce. Prior to 1975, a married couple who wanted a divorce had to go to court with evidence that one of them was fucking around. Somebody had to be at fault. Such a specifically Christian way of seeing the world.
I admire Abbott’s evil plan. He hopes to make marriage so unattractive that GLBT people won’t want to touch it. Imagine if Tony Abbott became leader of the Opposition and beat Rudd at the next election.
Yes I know; it’s like saying imagine if vampires existed and twenty of them attacked you at once.
I realise Kevin isn’t much better. He has his own direct phone line to God, via a different carrier. But at least Rudd’s party has a couple of humans in it. Somewhere.
One thing all politicians have in common is this: they want most people to vote for them, so they strive to second-guess the majority. Polling shows a majority of Australians are in favour of same-sex marriage. Logic says the minority who are not should have no say in it. What are we waiting for?
Last week, a correspondent named Ian commented online about this paper’s anniversary. He said the Star’s relevance had declined. Ian specifically targeted people droning on about same-sex marriage, a narcissistic topic of overwhelming unimportance. Narcissistic? I don’t think so. Narcissism is wanting to marry yourself.
Ian is out of touch. This is the important issue for today, and it will remain so until the silent majority makes enough noise.
Tags: Christian values, civil unions, divorce, kevin rudd, Labor Party Conference, same-sex marriage, Tony Abott
July 23rd, 2009 @ 12:42 am
here here!
July 25th, 2009 @ 12:27 am
If our laws have come from the british and they have governed us for a long time now i like the way that the british have changed there laws to legalise marriage why cant we, i know we are not british anymore but if no damage has come from them changing there laws i dont think it will damage our laws.
July 25th, 2009 @ 12:30 am
so true! I’m so sick of the ‘Christian Values’dictating everything in society. They are so obviously biased and unrealistic for the modern world, or for any world at all. I think that marriage means nothing unless anyone that loves each other can be married! No one should have the right to choose that some should get married and some not, just because of sex. That IS discrimination. I admire your courage to speak out for what is right and long overdue.
July 25th, 2009 @ 12:38 am
my girl and i will be there!!!!
July 25th, 2009 @ 12:44 am
My partner and I were married 8 years ago., by a registered celebrant. It might not have been “legal” in the eyes of the State and Federal Government, but to us it was just as binding as our relationship is. The wedding wasn’t about any equality scene or legitimising our relationship or wanting equal status with the hets – we had been together for 8 years by then. It was an affirmation of our love for each other in front of our family and friends. And how the fuck does our marraige, and that of our many m&m and f&f couples, that detract from the alleged “sanctity of marriage”? Making it available to us does not restrict it for anyone else.
July 26th, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Laura, you are so right! I never thought of it that way, but banning same sex marriage is the thing that “undermines” what marriage is supposed to be about. There’s a saying: war is too important to be left to the politicians… well marriage is too important to be left to the heterosexuals!
Once again, while I recognise the importance and emotional impact of “The Ians”‘s ceremony, a legal marriage would have given it more legitimacy and wide acknowledgment.
I know several gay men who detest the idea of marriage, see it as a cop-out, an aping of straight lives, and a denial of the nature of gay sexuality. Well, fine. I’m not saying they’re wrong, but those guys are allowed to live life their way because discriminatory laws were overturned in the past. For the others who want a legal marriage certificate, the discriminatory law still stands.
July 26th, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
yes, we will be there as well
July 19th, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
As of today, Julia Gillard stated that there would be no changes to the marriage act and that there would be no gay marriage. Goodbye Labor, hello Greens ? Where else can we go. Argentina?