Australia has a reputation for being irreverant, secular, and liberal. At times like these I’m not sure it’s deserved.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will move against a push at this week’s Labor Party conference to allow same-sex marriages.
The Labor Party’s Tasmanian state conference has called for the Federal Government to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry.
It will be an issue at this week’s National Labor Conference.
Mr Rudd says he will not change the policy he took to the last election.
“We went to the last election being very clear-cut about our position on marriage under the Marriage Act being between a man and a woman,” he said.
Now I’ve voted for two people who are against gay marriage, but I have to say, it’s getting tiresome. I think Mr Obama and Mr Rudd are smart leaders who are good at most things, but I find their view on this issue really disappointing.
I suspect that this is due in part to the openly religious leanings of these men. Being religious has a way of making cool people occasionally act in jerky ways (e.g. Rich Raddon). Otherwise, I just can’t see why Rudd would have to take this stand in a country where polls show the issue at 60 percent acceptance.
I’d like to see this change, and soon.
29 July 2009 at 8:30 pm
Are there civil unions (or whatever) in Australia with the same rights (i.e. is this just about the word "marriage"?) Or are there significant legal inequalities as well?
30 July 2009 at 1:52 am
The civil unions in Australia are either non-existent or non-equivalent to marriage, depending on the state. I think any lobbying effort would be much better off getting civ unions and marriage equivalent, rather than trying to rebrand marriage.
Then again, there are always those that want more than just equal rights. C'mon guys, 'marriage' is just a word.
30 July 2009 at 7:08 am
If words are so trivial, then what's the objection to applying the word 'marriage' to gay people? Why all the tap-dancing to make things separate-but-equal?
Oh, yeah, because words aren't just words. They have meaning.
30 July 2009 at 3:09 pm
Whatever the State does in this case, it should be the same for everyone. What adults do "in the privacy" of their own churches doesn't matter to me. 😉
31 July 2009 at 4:24 am
I agree. In fact, considering how churches have been so worried that they'd be 'forced' to perform gay marriages…
I'd favour putting a provision into any gay marriage legislation saying that churches cannot be required to perform any marriage contrary to their doctrine or their wishes.
Let them be seen as tolerant or bigoted, as they wish.
3 August 2009 at 6:16 am
@Daniel: yes, both sides have an irrational attachment to the word 'marriage'. I weigh in weakly on the conservative side because:
– There's no social equity issue here
– I don't have a problem with expanding the lexeme with "union" or "butt buddies" or whatever for homosexual-formal-indication-of-relationship-status
– I recognise churches' brand rights
– Marriage for anything other than legal reasons is a joke
People would be resistant if you tried to say all types of 'chairs' are 'hammocks'. This isn't because they're all intolerant hammock-superiority zealots.
re: your statutory provision: sounds sensible.
3 August 2009 at 7:02 am
@Dean,
That was a very homophobic comment.
1) As long as straight society says "Gays, you can't use our word" there is a social equality issue. Separate is never equal, no matter how you may dress it up. The very fact that people feel the need to keep a human right away from another group of people means there is inequality and discrimination. Even if all legal rights are the same (which they almost never are) the social implications are just as important. In the US, even when blacks had legal equality to whites, the separate-but-equal concept, the social discrimination inherent in the separateness kept the inequality alive and well. The same is and will be true of gay rights and equality issues. As long as I can't get married, I am less than all those who can. Even if my civil union has all the legal rights of a marriage, it's still subpar because my fellow humans, my society and my government is telling me and everyone else daily that I am less human, less deserving and less equal than every straight person.
2) Even mentioning the term "butt-buddies" is incredibly offensive, and even jesting that that term is equivalent to a committed relationship (marriage) is even more offensive and quite homophobic.
3) What are "churches' brand rights"? Why does any religion have the right to keep the secular construct of marriage away from any demographic? Why should the religious get to dictate to the state how the government defines words? Why do religions who oppose gay marriage have more rights and ownership over the word "marriage" than religions who favour and support gay marriage?
4) Even if that's your personal belief (and I don't necessarily disagree), who are you to keep the opportunity to marry and legally call their relationship a marriage from gay people?
3 August 2009 at 7:03 am
People would be resistant if you tried to say all types of 'chairs' are 'hammocks'. This isn't because they're all intolerant hammock-superiority zealots.
That's comparing apples and something that isn't even fruit.
Our (the international LGBT) community's) "attachment" to the word "marriage" isn't irrational. It's perfectly logical and reasonable. We demand to be treated exactly the same as heterosexual, cis-gendered people. We are humans and inherently deserve the same rights, privileges and treatment as any "normal" person. We're denied the right to marry (and often even live) in most of the world, regardless of whether we would chose to marry or not. We can't even make the choice for ourselves. Often we can't visit our loved ones in the hospital, inherit property, or even have jobs. And that's just in "civilised" countries.
Marriage may be just a word, but the concept and social status it brings is so much more.
It certainly differs from country to country and society to society, but the main reasons I demand to be able to marry (and not just civilly unionise or domestically partnership) is because separate is not equal – the word "marriage" means something significant (else the religious wouldn't be trying to keep us from using it). It matters. The word "marriage" no more belongs to conservative Christians any more than do the words "church" or "baptism" or "salvation" or "love" or "charity".
Any person or group of people who refuse to allow gay people to use the word "marriage" are discriminating, and are probably bigots. There is no logical reason to say that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to hide their own homophobia and bigotry.
I strongly believe that morality is relative, but this is one of those very few situations where there is little no grey. You are either with us or you're against us. Either you think gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transpeople are completely equal and human or you don't. Either I am 100% equal to a straight person or I'm not. If you don't think I should be able to use the word "marriage" (for whatever reason) then you've picked your side. There is no compromise, no fence-sitting, nothing in between, no middle ground.
You're either with us, or you're against us.
3 August 2009 at 7:04 am
@Daniel
I agree a possible solution would be to have secular civil unions for all (and have government stay out of "marriage"), but I think that doesn't really work in the end because of the importance the word "marriage" has in most societies. Only in the most secular societies (say Denmark) where marriage isn't the necessarily the norm anymore and social status and acceptance isn't gained through marriage can that have any chance at real equality.
3 August 2009 at 3:01 pm
Two things: First I was also extremely offended by the "butt-buddies comment. I will be kind and say that I did think it was a poor attempt at humor, which says to me that, again, many people don't really take this question very seriously. Unfortunate.
If someone thinks that marriage, except for legal reasons, is a joke than they have undermined their own case against letting gays have something called marriage.
4 August 2009 at 4:15 am
lol @ south park clip. don't be so so offended
5 August 2009 at 6:30 pm
Ya, funny, just like when Archie Bunker used to make jokes about lazy mexicans. Hilarious. Sorry for being such a stick in the ass.
6 August 2009 at 10:57 am
@craig:
Let's assume there is a device that confers equivalent legal rights to marriage, that is available for all couples.
I'm interested to know exactly what concrete behavioural liberties you believe having your modern relationship labeled "marriage" confers. You mention committed relationship, but exactly how much commitment does a Las Vegas ceremony take? The secular construct of marriage you mention was a business construct in the European tradition.
You only think you're inferior when you say: As long as I can't get married, I am less than all those who can. What happens when someone invents a new word to describe exclusively heterosexual marriage? You call the language police? If society respects your relationship (like your orientation), it doesn't matter what you call it; take pride in it. Homosexual people can't call themselves straight, either; this doesn't make them intrinsically "less".
Marriage doesn't need to be a human right any more than baptism does (I'm sadly aware the UN disagrees). If baptism were withheld from demographic x and that demographic wanted rights to baptism, I would oppose them for the same reasons. Not because I have a problem with x, but because nobody needs baptism (assuming its current moot legal status).
I may have lured the trolls off IRC. Nevertheless, I did think the video was relevant and sufficiently satirical that an allusion wouldn't cause everyone offense; regrets are mine.
6 August 2009 at 9:22 pm
Comparing marriage to baptism seems totally ridiculous to me. Marriage isn't only a religious institution or concept. It exists outside of any particular religion or religion family and has secular importance. Baptism is about membership into a particular religion, not about the thousands of secular legal rights one gets with marriage (which one doesn't get in many places simply with unions)
The secular construct of marriage you mention was a business construct in the European tradition.
I'm well aware of that. The fact is, it is now far more than that in our society. Furthermore, as a business contract, it was used in Rome (a society where homo- and bisexuality were far more normative than they are in our society) by two men the same way as a man and woman used it. That's hardly an argument against gay marriage.
The point is that straight society telling the LGBT community that we can't have "their" word "marriage" is discriminatory, prejudicial, bigoted, and harmful. I do think that marriage is a human right. It has great significance in many human societies, not just western society.
I've never even said that I personally want to get married myself, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have the choice, if I so choose. Just in the US, the federal from a gay couple using the word "marriage" means that they have to pay far more taxes than a straight married couple, in many states you can't adopt children unless you're married, even if the child is biologically your partner's, you can't visit your spouse or child in the hospital, you can't get health insurance, you cannot inherit from your partner if they die, or can be forced to pay an exorbitant death tax (see Annie Liebowitz), and over a thousand other rights that come with straight marriage that gay couples are denied – even if a couple has a legally recognised civil union.
And as I already said, even if the situation is changed, DOMA repealed, and civil unions have the same legal recognition as marriage, the fact that gays aren't allowed to legally call their relationships "marriage" is just another form of "separate but equal". It still puts gays underneath straights as less than, not equal. It still dehumanises and diminishes our right to be completely equal to straight people.
It does matter what one calls it because words have social, psychological and anthropological significance. A newly invented word wouldn't have nearly the impact or significance as "marriage" does in our society. It is fundamental part of our society, and that cannot be ignored simply because it is easier to do so. In order for gay people to be equal we have to have all the same rights as straight people, just as black people needed exactly the same rights and treatment as whites to be equal, and women as men. You can't separate out one segment of society and still try to argue that they're equal. Sexuality is in the end, totally irrelevant. Straight (male, and in many places, white) society has dominated nearly forever, and it's time to correct that injustice.
The fact that you're arguing against this at all just shows how massively your straight privilege blinds you to the realities of being a sexual minority in a society which devalues and dehumanises based on that minority status.
11 August 2009 at 7:04 pm
craig,
I thought that was wonderfully put. If you allow I may copy and paste some of that into other discussions I am having.
Dean,
I also love south Park and hate too much PC. BUT humor must be in context and this didn't feel like the right place in the conversation. It was more the lack of seeing the serious damage this inequality is having on millions of people than the joke itself that bothered me.
11 August 2009 at 7:14 pm
Jeffrey, you certainly may.
11 August 2009 at 10:21 pm
Daniel,
I was looking into some of the basis for the accusations that churches would be forced to perform Gay marriages and it seems to mostly come from a canadian case where a man working for the government didn't want to perform his duties in a state marriage on religious grounds. Correct me if I am wrong but that is a long way off from telling churches they must do the same.
11 August 2009 at 10:46 pm
Also, there was a case in the US where a New Jersey church refused to let a lesbian couple use their privately owned but tax-free public pavilion for a civil union ceremony. The church wanted both public money and the right to discriminate and the court said you had to choose one or the other. The anti-gay marriage advocates in he US distort the story and leave out key facts to make it seem as if the gov't is making churches accept gay unions, which of course is bullshit.
11 August 2009 at 10:51 pm
Also a case in Rhode Island where the Catholic voluntarily chose to stop offering adoption services because they accept public money, because they were afraid the court was going to say to them basically the same thing (there was no legal action), either you don't accept any gov't money and can discriminate as you wish, or you have to treat everyone equally. The crazies (especially the Mormons) pretend the gov't again forced the church to close their services because they wouldn't accept gays. In neither Canada nor the US had either government mandated religious institutions be gay-friendly. They've just said that in states (or all of Canada) where there are anti-discrimination laws on the books, you can't accept gov't funds and break those laws. Either you're totally private or you're public, you can't be both, which makes total sense to me.