Same-sex marriage: important enough?
GUEST COLUMN
JAMES MILLARD
Perhaps one of the most surprising elements of the recent election was the ever recurring topic of same-sex marriage. Despite Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott making it clear the topic was off the agenda the issue just kept on inconveniently popping up.
This in itself it not the surprising part — anyone with the slightest of political leanings knows an election is one of the best times to shed light on this or that agenda.
What was surprising, however, was just how much of the controversy was generated by Gillard’s utterly ordinary lifestyle. By becoming prime minister she caused a small ripple of excitement to pass through the gay community.
“An unmarried atheist!” went the chorus. “Surely here we have someone progressive enough to understand our plight?” Apparently not. Less than one week later the, newly beloved prime minister was on record as unwilling to support the legalisation of gay marriage in Australia.
Soon after that, openly gay climate change minister Penny Wong created a stir with comments supporting her party’s opposition to same-sex marriage. Issues with kowtowing to the party aside, the question had to be asked, “Why the contradiction?”
At least Family First candidate Wendy Francis, with her outrageous comments that same-sex marriage was tantamount to child abuse, was being true to her right-wing, small-minded self. However, add to this the backdrop to California’s ban on Proposition 8 and the question had to be asked, just what was going on?
The answer, it seems, may be much simpler and more uninspiring than anyone cares to admit. When it comes to same-sex marriage, our politicians simply may not think it important enough.
The thing about marriage (same-sex or otherwise) is that its measurement of value comes back to a matter of perception. On the one hand, it can easily be viewed as just a piece of paper or an archaic ritual. On the other hand, it can be viewed as a life-defining moment or a significant rite of passage.
The problem with value judgements is that they can be questioned ad infinitum to the point where either everything has value or nothing has value.
Therefore most people have to draw the line somewhere. For some people marriage is the be-all and end-all.
I don’t know about anyone else but I’m tired of looking up old friends on Facebook and finding wedding photos for profile pictures. Sure, if you’re a newlywed go right ahead, but if your picture is from five or six years ago just what are you trying to say? Is your entire life defined by your wedding day?
For many others the argument for equal rights goes to the heart of the debate. This argument is undoubtedly the strongest one in support of same-sex marriage. The question here though is how many people actually stop to ask themselves why? A left-wing gay man or woman in support of same-sex marriage can easily adopt the argument of equal rights without the need to question it — it’s hardly a stretch.
However, to adopt the argument is not just a case of being the right demographic fit. Equal rights are at the heart of most social issues and are fundamental to the Australian way of life.
Nonetheless, it’s surprising to see just how many people pick up the equal rights mantra without much contemplation. Remember, it’s the loudest shouts that can often be the easiest to ignore. Words like inequality, unfairness and subjugation may be powerful as part of a rally, but in most other situations they need more content behind them to really pack a punch.
This is important for two reasons. First is that it’s always a good idea to question one’s own beliefs. The more you do this and the further out you go the more your view of the starting point changes as well as all arguments along the way.
Value isn’t always just a matter of personal perception. The value other people attach to things also affects our perception of them. Why stop at the argument for equal rights when you can also question the values of our society, the nature of faith or the purpose of the government?
Second, you may be surprised by the number of people who actually do skip over the matter of equal rights in favour of something else. In some cases this is simply a matter of comparison. With so much inequality and unfairness in the world is the issue of same-sex marriage really a big one?
I’ve never subscribed to the ‘if there are starving children in Africa we shouldn’t do x, y or z’ school of thought. Go down that path and you end up doing nothing.
In other cases this may be a matter of faith. Religious beliefs are of course frequently cast as the direct opposition to same-sex marriage.
However, less often considered are the similarities between the two opposing sides.
For every person who states that equal rights are what it’s all about, you’ll find someone who says it’s about respecting faith. For every person who says it’s about recognition of modern relationships, you’ll find you someone who says it’s about preserving the traditional family. Both sides, it seems, love their absolutes.
Is this then the sticking point? With all the focus on equality, how much are we thinking about equity? Whether same-sex marriage is legalised or not there will always be someone who believes they’ve been treated unfairly. Oppose same-sex marriage and you’re denying someone their equal rights, legalise same sex marriage and you’re offending someone’s faith. Whatever you do, someone is going to feel disadvantaged.
Maybe this is why our political elite seems unwilling to commit. How much easier it is to hide behind party policy, to mutter the odd comment about respecting beliefs and equal rights and then lie low while the wave of apathy washes over any controversy.
Perhaps it is ultimately better to open a dialogue between both those for and against. Rather than rush to Gillard’s door demanding action, why not take some time to look at where we stand and consider our viewpoint in relation to that of everyone else.
After all, surely it is better to think things through and learn to convince, persuade and cajole than it is to keep on shouting absolutes. Who knows, maybe one day we’ll turn the topic on its head. Who’s to say civil unions won’t eventually become the norm and marriage the exception?
info: James Millard is a British citizen living in Australia for several years who has been following the recent elections with keen interest. He’s been trying to understand why the debate around same-sex marriage doesn’t seem to have progressed as much in Australia as it has in the UK. He also has a degree in comparative religion (although he doesn’t subscribe to any particular faith) and spends half his time trying to reconcile people’s beliefs with current issues, particularly those where he can add his perspective as a gay man.
Herbie hits the nail on the head. Offending someone’s faith is no reason to trade away a basic right. Yes John: heterosexuals are allowed to marry, making marriage a right. Homosexual and lesbian couples should have that right too in the name of fairness. Do we not contribute our taxes like everyone else? Marriage is a socio-political matter, not a religious one, because religion is not essential to it. How many straight couples who get married in a church believe in god? Not all of them, would be my guess. Are they offending people’s faith by doing that? Certainly. They still do it, and happily put their wedding pics up on Facebook.
It is also pointless to generalise that raising children goes more smoothly with a man and a woman! Raising children goes smoothly when the children are loved and the parents are happy; when that’s not the case, the kids suffer. Basic comfort and support is all little kids know. They don’t know about god or jesus or what irrelevant ancient hebrew tribes thought about sexual practices, and in a perfect world they would never be saddled with any of it.
I thought the column raised interesting points but got lost in its frequent contradictions: every new paragraph started with ‘however’, or ‘nevertheless’. He was bang on about the issue of same-sex marriage being not important enough for politicians to do anything about. (Along with the issues of over-population and climate change.) The fact is, our politicians are a second-rate lot.
There is no “on the other hand” with same-sex marriage. We deserve any rights that anyone else has, and that means the responsibilities that go with them.
I once was married in a hetrosexual marriage and then divorced. I find to my amazement that the idea of a committment ceremony standing for a lot more and I have reasons to why I say this, two people are agreeing to make a committment to each other to work through things and if it doesn’t work they will go to counselling and work through things. A committment is a lot stronger to me because a committment is neverending and goes around in circles. Even if you do go through the counselling and it doesn’t work you still work through issues and come out friends that is more than what can be said of Marriage. Don’t get me wrong I believe it is good for people to want to be with the person they love but from my personal experience and from what I have seen and experienced in the LGBT life a committment ceremony and the people who do it are a lot more dedicated to each other and devoted and stronger than the marriages I wittness in the hetrosexual environment.
I’d like to highlight problems with this point: “Oppose same-sex marriage and you’re denying someone their equal rights, legalise same sex marriage and you’re offending someone’s faith. Whatever you do, someone is going to feel disadvantaged.”
This implies denying someone equality is comparable with offending someone’s faith and they are equally valid arguments. They aren’t. Human rights, of which equality is one, are basic principles. In contrast, there is no right to not be offended, for religious reasons or otherwise. Nor should there be, it would be contrary to the right to free speech, another important basic principle.
Laws which affect everyone should be based on reason, evidence and compassion – not faith. People are entitled to their faiths (freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religion, is another basic human rights principle) but to base laws on faith is not freedom of religion, it’s imposing one person’s religion on others of different faiths and no faith. The stupidity of basing laws on faith is further illustrated by noting that one person’s god may oppose same sex marriage while another supports it. Which faith is better? Neither is better, but no matter what the law is someone’s faith is going to be offended. Hence coming back to reason, evidence and compassion as the basis for legislation, rather than any particular faith.
I don’t advocate making religious organisations conduct weddings contrary to their faith, they are entitled to not marry those who don’t believe in their faith. However, civil marriage should be available to all, regardless of sexual orientation.
A well written article. It is so simple – argue for gay marriage, get married, live happily ever after. Or don’t get married. Just don’t ram down our throats the “it is so fulfilling’ arguement and that our gay lifestyles are so empty without monogamy. Such rubbish. I don’t care who gets married or who does not, who adopts kids, have it all. But if I want to get married and be monogamous, if I want to get married and have an open realationship, if I want to be single it is my choice not the choice of, naturally Sydney based activists, who want to live in delusion that we will be ‘clean’ because we have hubby and kids (more like poodles) and other so called ‘hetro’ acceptable lifestyles. Yet those in those realtionships you pick up at the beats in minutes, with no hubby in two. Double standards. Marriage, gay marriage, is great but stop pushing an agenda that it is the only way to live and that our lives are empty going from partner to partner and we must prove to Julia et al that monogamy, mortgage and mother in laws are the way to be seen to be equal.
I find “TRACHER’s” point of view interesting that the term “marriage, literally means “a union between a man and a woman”. If that’s the case “TRACKER” then why was “Marriage” denied once upon a time to mixed race couples like my parents?
Or denied by some religious institutions like the catholic church, on grounds that my mother is an anglican and my father a catholic. My parents understood even then that being placed in the back of the bus was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! if individuals like my folks did not challenge the “norm” then I would have lived in a world that viewed my parents loving relationship as taboo or a “half-unioned” breed of “marriage” based on your argument that “Same sex couples should define their union by a name that is relevant”, I think its rather sad living in a modern world that you do not have the ability to think critically! :( SEPERATE is not EQUAL; Religious institutions are free to make whatever rules they choose on “marriage” but what we are talking about here is the “CIVL INSTITUION” of “marriage” THE CIVIL INSTUTIONS. Gay and Lesbian folks are not asking the freaking catholic church to marry them, they are asking for the removal of government sanction hatred and discrimination embedded into law. Whatever happened to the division between church and state? I am so glad to be living in Canada where all of my LGBTI friends and family have the right to marry and, YES they are TERFFIC PARENTS! And no their kids are not homosexuals; if that’s what you are thinking, even if they were it makes no difference because it’s the content of their character that matters not their sexual orientation or gender identity. Love is all you need to raise a family, and I will be standing right there in support for full and EQUAL treatment under the LAW for all of my LGBTI friends in Australia. Open your eyes people the world continues to change every day; and for the better! Today there are 12 countries around the world that embrace marriage equality and by 2011 there are 5 more on the list! This does not include the “civil union” nations that you seem to favour. Hence, even those nations are in discussion to soon permit marriage equality! LIVE AND LET LIVE! That’s what Jesus was all about; at least that’s what I understood from his message remember “love thy neighbour”?
james ntmenopoulo- thanks for you well articulated insults. i believe that many in the Gay community need to put the past behind them and understand that Gays are no longer a repressed outcast. Many in the Gay community want to use marriage as means of self-prolonging repression.
Hahaha this really is classic!
You guys make it sound so realistic that gays deserve marriage and adoption rights.
If they want kids, why not just be straight?
If they want marriage, once again, why not just be straight?
Ban divorce. Ban sterile people from marrying. Enforce all couples to have at least one child.
The word marriage is defined as a “union”, “joined in marriage”, “having a husband or wife”…husband ‘or’ wife (not husband ‘and’ wife). I was watching MasterChef and saw that even food can “marry well”, so why don’t religious people complain about that?
I previously worked with people here in Perth who made fun of a former lesbian employee, miserable people complain about anything and make fun of anyone. Live and let live.
Problem of same sex marriage is not a religious, or moral, or social, or legal problem. It is a human rights problem. It is a problem of whether an individual has absolute right to choose a spouse without being limited by any social, moral, religious, and legal issues. My answer is “yes” – it is an absolute right of an individual, which must be accepted by society.
let the gay people get married why shouldnt they be as unhappy as the rest of the married people!
Marriage was originally a pagan institution not a religous one and lets not forget that many gay people consider themselves religous they should have the right to live in accorance to there beliefs. Civil Unions do not give the same cultural and social significants that marriage does.
Marriage is civil institution designed to assist the functioning of society, not provide someone with some sort of ‘right’. To say that it is unfair that someone should not be permitted to marry someone of the same sex (or indeed a sheep, camel or alsatian dog) is to lose sight of its purpose. No-one truly cares who or what you shack up with.
However the breeding and rearing of children seems to go more smoothly, and definitely more cheaply, when the long term, permanent relationship is between a man and a woman. People who are prepared to commit to this sort of thing are therefore given the cheap and harmless privilege of ‘marriage’.
Consider the cost, and the continual scream for more and more money, by those who are providing just one part of child care as a service, instead of something the parents must work long and hard to provide and/or pay for themselves. The taxpayers simply can’t afford to pay for the lot. This is why, although free love etc were initially supported by the Bolsheviks, the Russian pollies quickly realised the necessity for supporting the traditional family.
It is the same as giving someone who kills twenty Taliban with his teeth the Victoria Cross. Society finds this useful, so he is rewarded with a bit of bronze and a ribbon to signify his increased status. Status is necessarily measured against the lack of status of everyone else!
Jayda- once upon a time a large section of the community were opposed to interracial marriages. If society had bowed to their prejudices, and given interracial couples all the rights of marriage, but given them a different title, say “Miscegenated Unions”, do you think the state of race relations in this country would have been accelerated or held back in the long run?
I don’t want future generations of GLBTIs to be reminded of the history of discrimination against them in this country every time someone asks them if they are in a civil union.
Lets face the facts- civil unions are about placating homophobes so that they can say “You’re not really married! Your relationship is not as real as mine! My prejudice against you is right because it’s enshrined in this country’s laws”
Marriage is not a religious institution anymore, more people are being married by JPs than in a church. I don’t believe in marriage for myself (because my heterosexual married father cheated on my mother and left us), but everyone else should have that option too. IMO there should be no more “back of the bus” segregation for consenting adults.
PS: Marriage doesn’t keep other people around if they want to leave.
You do not have to be religious to want to get married. I am an Atheist and proud of it. My wife and I chose to be married in a Registry Office to do away with the religious side. A couple can have a civil marriage without a religious side, but they cannot have a religious marriage without the Registry Office papers being signed and witnessed. So which is the most important?
The main point has been missed in this column & in most peoples arguments. Equality in marriage rights isn’t a matter of opinion or upsetting someone else’s “religious values”. The reality is that marriage, as it is being sought, is a formal ceremony which gives legal weight to a relationship. The marriage ceremony is a government- issued acknowledgment. This is where equality & discrimination arguments rightfully come in. Same-sex couples aren’t out in groups objecting to any particular religious orders in regards to marriage- they are objecting to a government, who should be entirely unbiased, which panders to those who use religion to block rights which have nothing to do with religion in the first place. It’s an emotional smoke-screen, emotional abuse being perpetrated against those seeking equal treatment under the law of government- not the laws of religion.
Australia, like the US, is just fundamentally a much more conservative country than the United Kingdom. Neither the Liberal nor Labor parties will support gay marriage because in this country it would be electoral suicide. I honestly believe Gillard and (supposedly) religious Rudd would support it but they know it would be electoral poison. “Latte sipping” issues of the far left of politics such as this one that are symbolic are usually detested by the general public also. But the main point is people need to realise this is a far more conservative nation both socially and economically than those in Europe.
@oldskool74
Since when was marriage a religious institution? “mitate a religious institution,” just like how blacks imitate marriage and how black/white couples imitate it as well? If you can get married without going to a church and without the use of a pastor. Your clam it is a “religious institution” goes out the window. Use better common sense next time, when you try to look dumb.
“Why can’t gays respect many thousands of years of religious tradition?”
Gays have been getting married for thousands of years, why can’t you respect their tradition?
dear oldschool
Gays need not respect thousands of years of entrenched bigory , misogyny racism homophobia and many other problems which have wrapped themselves in the official veil of religious tradition because ” the old testament says so ” …I mean if Oldschool wants to know another definition of the word oxymoron he should look no further than his attack on gays and lesbians being asking them to respect their oppression as narural order because of thousands of years of tradtion… For myself as a gay man as long as marriage is not there as a choice for myself and my partner then the rest of thecommunity will always view gay and lesbian couples as less than married couples and implicitly we will always be on the lesser footing in everyones’ minds as to the normality of our live’s desires… needs choices etc and everything else straight married couples take for granted…..
Stop telling us sit in our places fashioned by religious hatred bigotry homophobia we are here we are queer and we are married you oldfashioned oldschool scary little minded oxymoron of a humanbeing
I agree with oldskool74 Oct 2nd, the term “marriage” literally means a union between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should define their union by a name that is relevant.
It’s the word ‘marriage’ that’s the problem. Most gay/lesbians I know don’t want a religious ceremony anyway. How can their love be recognised by an institution that condemns it? So call it a civil ceremony or a union or whatever. I don’t care what it’s called, I do care whether my partner and I, and every other gay/lesbian couple, can live with the same rights as heterosexual couples.
I believe the issue of adoption is the driving force behind gay “marriage” as we shall see from the following two examples.
Firstly:
1. A heterosexual couple may want to have children but decide to wait until they have travelled the world or established a career, etc., so they might start at say, age 28, to try to conceive. After a couple of years of trying naturally, the couple try various assisted means, such as IVF. If they are still unsuccessful after a few (frustrating) years, they might sign up for adoption. By this time they are likely to be in there late thirties or even early forties and the minimum wait is eight years. But then it’s too late. Forty five is deemed too old to adopt children.
2. A homosexual couple on the other hand, know immediately that there’s NO WAY they can conceive and put their names down straight away at say, age 22. After the mandatory wait of eight years, they’ll be touching thirty and considered perfect…
Secondly, if homosexual couples start to join the waiting list for a very limited number of available babies, the wait only gets longer and the homosexuals get an increasingly greater unfair advantage.
Thirdly, gay marriage would almost certainly bestow the right of adoption.
Fourthly, another important point to consider is the rights of the child, who has NO SAY in what family it goes to and this is tantamount to child abuse, which is exactly what the adoption process is trying to avoid! With gay adoptions, somehow the rights of the adult, rather than the child, have become paramount in this debate!
How can we as a society, allow vulnerable, defenseless babies and toddlers that have been offered up for adoption by people, who for whatever reason have found themselves unable to carry the load of bringing up children, be subjected to an unnatural parenting practices that will distort their views of life forever?
The argument that homosexual and lesbian couples are somehow disadvantaged is a smoke screen, as is the argument of “Will you marry me?” versus “Will you civil union me?”. We cannot allow a distorted view of romance override the rights of the child to a natural family upbringing.
As a society we have already done enough to accommodate the gay lifestyle. Property rights passing to the surviving partner are now enshrined in law as is automatic access to superannuation. Property settlements in partnership breakdown are also protected.
It is flattering that the gay community want to imitate a religious institution. The problem is that gay marriage is an oxymoron the two nouns are not compatible- the Gay community will need to find their own original name and definition for a long term relationship rather than imitating the current definition and using terms such as “small minded” to combat difference of opinion.
My argument is often taken as a personal attack by Gays, this is not a attack or insult but a fact that needs to be recognised by the gay community. Why can’t gays respect many thousands of years of religious tradition?
Given your comment on how Gillard being an unmarried athiest would understand the plight of same sex couples. If anything the fact that she is unmarried would suggest that she figures marriage is a completee waste of time and energy and is trying to save gay couples from the hell that marriage is. Also comments about Penny Wong being gay so she support gay marriages is as rational as saying all hetrosexuals should support marriage.
But as far as the majority of Australian’s go I think its fair to say they either support the right of gay marriages or they are indifferent. It really is only a small minority that are against gay marriages and the truth of the matter is that the goverment needs to wake up to this and allow a free vote on the gay marriage legislation, and whatever the outcome so be it.