Letters – Melbourne (116)

GET OVER IT

I’ve heard some people say that if you feel that you’re a ‘till death do you part’ couple, then there’s not much ado to be made about advocating for gay marriage.

For all intents and purpose, you are a married couple. So if you don’t feel you need legal recognition to make your union ‘real’, then it’s not a problem.

If however, a couple (gay or straight) wants to have their union legally recognised they should be afforded that right.

I came across an article reporting that many British marriages could be invalid due to a wording issue (http://blog.divorce-online.co.uk/?p=1575). It got me thinking — I bet no one is going to say to them ‘oh well you’ve lived like you were married for so long what’s the big deal. In the eyes of the law you are a married couple so there’s no need for a fuss’.

As many if not most of them think that ‘pretty much the same’ is in fact ‘not the same’, these British couples will probably hot-foot it to a chapel or local registry to have their unions legally recognised.

So, to those who would say near enough is good enough, it’s nowhere near good enough! Equal means equal, not 99 percent the same.

And to those who might say that marriage is a religious institution, then they should stop marrying straight couples who aren’t religious! I’m sure many a straight couple will get married in a church, by a priest, and I’m also certain that for them ‘God’ is the last word in the acronym ‘OMG’ and no more! Or at least see that in Australia, while our laws may have been based on British law which is probably based largely on the Church of England’s traditions, we no longer make our laws based purely on religion.

And if it’s the word ‘marriage’ that these petty nit-pickers are worried about, they should literally ‘get with the times’ and realise that words can change meaning and usage over time and that many non-religious people today do use the word ‘marriage’ quite happily, and so similarly, gay unions should be recognised as marriages, not civil unions.

— Solomon

POINTLESS

What is the point of banning films in Australia? When the brilliant film Ken Park was banned a few years ago one could buy a copy in Chinatown a week later or on the internet.
Recently the banned gay film L.A. ZOMBIE was released on DVD. Why ban it when one can get a copy sent by mail?

The film is 95 percent hard core and all the cast are either old, overweight or have very plain looks — certainly not the type one is used to when watching porn.

We now, however, have the choice to say ‘stuff you’ to the film clasification board and import the DVD in order to see it. It may be the year’s most boring film but at least it is available.

— Peter

KIRNER #1

Re: Kirner’s intersex remarks insensitive, people should be appointed, promoted or demoted on the basis of their skills, qualifications and experience or lack thereof. To do otherwise is to discriminate.

Kirner is/was a great supporter of gay and lesbian rights but apparently these rights take second place to those enjoyed by women.

— Joseph

KIRNER #2

Joan Kirner’s exact public comment was that she was “p*ssed off” with the mayor for not supporting a woman as his deputy when he had the chance. This meant she wanted the mayor to vote for the woman candidate for deputy mayor (a Labor member) instead of Tony Briffa (an independent).

Joan’s comment was insensitive because she knows about Tony’s condition and history.
The fact Tony Briffa got the majority support from the councillors, including Labor members, shows he has merit and was democratically elected.

The fact he has this past with an intersex condition and is very open about it and the community accepts it is a testament to the people of Hobsons Bay.

— Rob