ideas: on government
Forget marriage, it’s in the vows
I’m not even sure the gays should get married.
Not because of their repeated failure (not through lack of trying, mind you) to procreate and produce more mixed-up children for an over-populated world. Nor because of the almost certain decline in moral standards gay marriage would bring to society. Not even to prevent the inevitable rush on people wanting to marry their pets, dolls and beloved inanimate objects.
I’m just not sure why you’d want to sign up to such an antiquated, failed institution. Those so desperate to protect the “sanctity” of marriage – and what does that even mean, by the way? – are more sanctimonious than anything. This quaint little tradition of binding for life works for some, and good luck to them. To most – statistically, certainly – it ends in divorce. Or worse, the gritted-teeth version of marriage where the misery lasts until death do they part. I’m with Bill Leak…
Like many political debates, the outcome is less important than the debate itself. And like debates on all the other progressive issues in society, the ones that so rile and consume conservatives, the issue of gay marriage once again got hijacked. Considering same-sex marriage is never really a debate about gay rights, merely an opportunity for conservatives to extol their theory on why homosexuality is amoral or sinful or a ‘choice’. The gay-deniers, if you will. Just like the debate on the abortion pill RU486 last year was never a debate about abortion options for women and the health and wellbeing outcomes of the medication, but a forum for people like Tony Abbott to rail against the needless deaths of unborn children. Politicians are even worse than journalists at putting aside personal prejudice to debate the real issues at hand.
There was plenty of that on display at the recent Labor Party national conference. The Right, led by the Prime Minister, ganged up on the groundswell of supporters within the Labor movement advocating for change to defeat attempts to amend marriage laws. Instead, a solution passed to “consider” a national system to “register” gay relationships. It was an entirely predictable outcome sealed well before the debate itself. But it’s what came next that was most damaging.
The Right end of the front bench rushed to the awaiting microphones. The resolution, they breathlessly panted, would not undermine the institution of marriage. (“Undermining” this grand institution is another of those weasel words conservatives use to justify their bigotry.) Attorney General Robert McClelland led those soothing the flock:
“This resolution is not intended to and does not support any form of legislative or other action that in any way undermines the institution of marriage which is defined… as being between a man and a women.”
Phew! Deep breaths… Crisis over.
That’s another ugly little political ploy: the not-so-secretly-coded messages in the rhetoric to appease key constituent groups. ‘We’ll write down the names of the gay partners somewhere but, don’t worry, we don’t like them anymore than you do.’ John Howard could teach an entire semester of this in political courses. And Kevin Rudd – an agent of change as much as Paris Hilton is a serious artist – is proving to be no better.
It wasn’t the failure to win support for gay marriage that set back the acceptance of same-sex relationships. In a legal framework that now essentially provides equality to partnered-up gays, they can live without the silly ceremony. The words used in the debate – and the words that weren’t used – were much more hurtful. To those who struggle within themselves to accept their sexual persuasion, it will be the words of Rudd and McClelland and others – from the bastion of regression and recrimination, the Liberal and National parties, too – that will burn on the brain and make life just a little harder.
The lack of courage from any Labor MP, from any faction, to stand up and publicly offer their acceptance of gay relationships without caveats is so bitterly disappointing for anyone who believes in equality and a liberal democracy that embraces all its colours, creeds, faiths and sexual identities.
It is the most ugly politics. Certainly, much more of a threat to society than two loving people of the same sex walking down the aisle. Should they so choose.
Related posts:
- How Bartlet made me an idealist
- The Right does love you. Mostly
- More ideas: on government
- More ideas: on policy
Tags: Discussion
2 comments for “Forget marriage, it’s in the vows”
Post a comment
couple of issues there – gays have the right to choose to get married, anything else is patronising. doesn’t matter how many hetero marriages end in divorce, that’s got nothing to do with it.
and to answer your comment about Phelps joining Labor, the point is that people’s politics are usually about more than their sexuality. the ALP will eventually come around, but in the meantime people still need to have their other politics issues respected. Just look at the gay conservative movement in the states – they vote with Republicans because tax cuts are more important to them than gay marriage.
Barry,
You may have misread my flippancy on gay marriage. I’m not anti-gay marriage. I was making the point how damaging the debate can be, aside from the outcome.
As for Phelps. Clearly people’s politics are more than their sexuality. I would not dare to suggest anything but when it comes to the clearly fiercely intelligent and formidable Dr Phelps. But I have a firm, if idealistic, view that the issues that are fundamental to us – any issue – should not be compromised. I believe she endorses party policy by default in joining the party, and it puts Labor in a difficult position in having someone publicly against policy (as we’ve seen with Garrett). It is a personal decision and the individual is the only one it has to sit well with; I just don’t believe in signing up to a platform that you are fundamentally opposed to in some areas.
It’s a great debate – this idea of lobbying from the sidelines OR compromising your views to push for change on the inside – and I have plenty to say on it. But I want this to stand as my bitter disappointment for some of the rhetoric that came out of the gay marriage debate. That’s the point I was making here.