Love Doesn't Discriminate.
At the moment in Australia, there has been an ongoing discussion about same-sex marriage. The Labor Party will debate changing its existing policy (ie. marriage is between a man and a woman) on the issue at its National Conference in early December. So far, all the state branches, except NSW, have voted for change. Also, Labor MP’s will be allowed a conscience vote on it in Parliament. Prime Minister Julia Gillard herself says she supports the current policy. I think mainly she is trying to keep the religious nuts quiet: They can get rather shouty about issues like this.
Exhibit A: Recently in Canberra, somenutcases people gathered for something called National Marriage Day (yes, there is such a thing). They had gathered in support of the institution of marriage, which is under threat apparently from people who want to get married. Huh?
Let me start again. The case for same-sex marriage is gathering momentum and there are some people whose heads are in danger of exploding at the very thought of it. Queensland Senator Barnaby Joyce, for example, said “We know that the best protection for (his daughters) is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband and I want that to happen for them”.
See, his head exploded because he seems to think that allowing same-sex couples to marry means that it will become compulsory. I think. I really have no idea how his mind works. Or if it works at all.
According to other speakers, marriage is “special” because of the way it lends itself to begatting, which will come as a surprise to people who get married knowing they can’t or won’t have children and to those who manage to begat without a trip down the aisle. Whatsmore, say these moral guardians, allowing gay couples to marry doesn’t just redefine marriage (to what, one might ask - marrying to show love and commitment?) but will lead to the very destruction of it. Jeepers!!
Logic would suggest that gay couples wanting the right to marry is something of an endorsement of it as an concept but...I guess they don’t let logic get in the way of a prejudice.
But back to the current debate going on in Australia. Julia Gillard said recently she supports the status quo because marriage has "come to have a certain meaning and standing" (her words). This is, of course, reactionary nonsense, not to mention a tinny-sounding defence.
The very nature of marriage has changed throughout history: it was once a property transaction (the property in question being the woman) and a legal fix to determine inheritances. If you were rich / famous / royalty, it was a political tool to seek out alliances with other governments. Yep, princesses (and princes, too) were pimped out for the good of the nation. Doesn’t exactly scream "sacred union" does it?
Once upon a time, it was scandalous to marry outside your religion. Until the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, it was a punishable crime in some American states to marry a person of different skin colour. Today such bans seem outrageous and unbelievable.
Once upon a time, divorce was unthinkable as well and only available really to the rich / famous / royalty (hmm, an emerging theme…). Marriage was til death us do part. In Australia, in 1975, the no-fault divorce was introduced, followed by a record number of divorces in 1976.
Let’s not forget Las Vegas, where you can be absolutely blotto and decide in your altered state that a wedding sounds fab, grab someone and, no questions asked, get married at a drive-thru chapel. And when you wake up the next morning with a hangover and a spouse, you can annul these marriages, too. Don’t get me wrong - it sounds like fun but you could draw the conclusion that, for all this talk that allowing same-sex couples to marry would undermine marriage, a case can be made that heterosexuals are doing a perfectly good job of it themselves.
Normally, I wouldn’t comment on the goings-on of faux-celebrities like the Kardashians (especially when I could point out Elizabeth Taylor’s eight weddings) but some of them became hard to avoid recently because they visited Australia at the same time as announcing Kim Kardashian’s divorce, following on from hermoney-spinning sumptuous nuptials 72 days earlier.*
The very nature of marriage has changed over the centuries and the concept of it, determined as it always has been by us human beans, can continue to evolve. And Julia, if marriage has come to have a certain meaning and standing, it is this: a public declaration of two people's love for and commitment to each other and the legal recognition of this public declaration.
Simply, I have not heard a single logical or coherent reason why marriage should remain an option only for heterosexual couples.
When she managed to get the Carbon Pricing legislation through Parliament, Julia Gillard made much of being on the right side of history and on Climate Change she is. On same-sex marriage she is not. However, if not under her Prime Ministership, or...the next one, same-sex marriage will happen (and justice delayed is justice denied Prime Minister).
When it is eventually allowed, the time will come when society has moved on, undamaged by this new alteration to marriage, and people will look at those who resisted, shake their heads and laugh at the arguments they put forward. Because, throughout it's spotted history, sometimes marriage has been about love and that never changes.
Yours in equality
* For the record, I doubt Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries (see I know his name - I wish I didn't) did it for the money but the wedding ended up becoming so huge that it could have been classed as an economic stimulus package for California so they had to go through with it, regardless of cold feet etc. I mean, people would have lost jobs…But that’s enough of the Kardashians. What do they do again? Why were they here? Handbags? Really?)
Exhibit A: Recently in Canberra, some
Let me start again. The case for same-sex marriage is gathering momentum and there are some people whose heads are in danger of exploding at the very thought of it. Queensland Senator Barnaby Joyce, for example, said “We know that the best protection for (his daughters) is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband and I want that to happen for them”.
See, his head exploded because he seems to think that allowing same-sex couples to marry means that it will become compulsory. I think. I really have no idea how his mind works. Or if it works at all.
According to other speakers, marriage is “special” because of the way it lends itself to begatting, which will come as a surprise to people who get married knowing they can’t or won’t have children and to those who manage to begat without a trip down the aisle. Whatsmore, say these moral guardians, allowing gay couples to marry doesn’t just redefine marriage (to what, one might ask - marrying to show love and commitment?) but will lead to the very destruction of it. Jeepers!!
Logic would suggest that gay couples wanting the right to marry is something of an endorsement of it as an concept but...I guess they don’t let logic get in the way of a prejudice.
But back to the current debate going on in Australia. Julia Gillard said recently she supports the status quo because marriage has "come to have a certain meaning and standing" (her words). This is, of course, reactionary nonsense, not to mention a tinny-sounding defence.
The very nature of marriage has changed throughout history: it was once a property transaction (the property in question being the woman) and a legal fix to determine inheritances. If you were rich / famous / royalty, it was a political tool to seek out alliances with other governments. Yep, princesses (and princes, too) were pimped out for the good of the nation. Doesn’t exactly scream "sacred union" does it?
Once upon a time, it was scandalous to marry outside your religion. Until the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, it was a punishable crime in some American states to marry a person of different skin colour. Today such bans seem outrageous and unbelievable.
Once upon a time, divorce was unthinkable as well and only available really to the rich / famous / royalty (hmm, an emerging theme…). Marriage was til death us do part. In Australia, in 1975, the no-fault divorce was introduced, followed by a record number of divorces in 1976.
Let’s not forget Las Vegas, where you can be absolutely blotto and decide in your altered state that a wedding sounds fab, grab someone and, no questions asked, get married at a drive-thru chapel. And when you wake up the next morning with a hangover and a spouse, you can annul these marriages, too. Don’t get me wrong - it sounds like fun but you could draw the conclusion that, for all this talk that allowing same-sex couples to marry would undermine marriage, a case can be made that heterosexuals are doing a perfectly good job of it themselves.
Normally, I wouldn’t comment on the goings-on of faux-celebrities like the Kardashians (especially when I could point out Elizabeth Taylor’s eight weddings) but some of them became hard to avoid recently because they visited Australia at the same time as announcing Kim Kardashian’s divorce, following on from her
The very nature of marriage has changed over the centuries and the concept of it, determined as it always has been by us human beans, can continue to evolve. And Julia, if marriage has come to have a certain meaning and standing, it is this: a public declaration of two people's love for and commitment to each other and the legal recognition of this public declaration.
Simply, I have not heard a single logical or coherent reason why marriage should remain an option only for heterosexual couples.
When she managed to get the Carbon Pricing legislation through Parliament, Julia Gillard made much of being on the right side of history and on Climate Change she is. On same-sex marriage she is not. However, if not under her Prime Ministership, or...the next one, same-sex marriage will happen (and justice delayed is justice denied Prime Minister).
When it is eventually allowed, the time will come when society has moved on, undamaged by this new alteration to marriage, and people will look at those who resisted, shake their heads and laugh at the arguments they put forward. Because, throughout it's spotted history, sometimes marriage has been about love and that never changes.
Yours in equality
* For the record, I doubt Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries (see I know his name - I wish I didn't) did it for the money but the wedding ended up becoming so huge that it could have been classed as an economic stimulus package for California so they had to go through with it, regardless of cold feet etc. I mean, people would have lost jobs…But that’s enough of the Kardashians. What do they do again? Why were they here? Handbags? Really?)
Comments
Post a Comment