In her latest Mamamia column, Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Tanya Plibersek makes a case for changing the Marriage Act.
Over the Easter long weekend I went to beautiful Tasmania for a wedding. Friends and family of the couple had gathered from around the country and around the world. There wasn’t a dry eye as the mother of the groom, a marriage celebrant, married the couple as the first light drops of autumn rain fell from the sky.
When twin rainbows emerged over the Huon river like a purpose-made backdrop just in time for the photos they seemed a fittingly optimistic symbol.
This young woman and man were celebrating the journey they’ve made already, and declaring to their friends and family that they’re in it together, for the long haul.
It is truly beyond me how something so joyous should be denied to a whole group of Australians just because the person they’ve fallen in love with is the same gender.
Related content: This video turns the anti-marriage equality argument on its head.
Marriage is, for some, a religious sacrament. No-one I know is suggesting that churches should be forced to provide that sacrament against the rules of the church. But marriage is also a legal commitment made before the state, and a celebration involving family, friends, and community.
There is no ethical justification for the state denying same sex couples the legal rights and responsibilities marriage brings, nor our community denying the public acknowledgment of the legitimacy of same sex relationships.
The Australian community is way ahead of their government on this: more than three in every five Australians support marriage equality.
More than 20 other nations have already taken this step, including, recently, the country where my parents were born, Slovenia.
Opponents of marriage equality say marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, but many of our traditions have evolved – and improved – over time.
Opponents say that marriage is for having children: well, many same sex couples are already parents.
Related content: Penny Wong has just welcomed her second child.
And many couples who don’t want children, or can’t have them, still choose to marry.
Opponents say that same sex marriage devalues or mocks marriage. The opposite is true – it shows how important marriage is that so many are prepared to fight so hard to be allowed a right that others take for granted.
For over a year I have had a private members’ bill ready to introduce into the parliament to change the marriage act to allow same sex couples to marry. I would like one brave Liberal or National party member to co-sponsor my bill to show that bi-partisanship is possible on this issue.
But unless Tony Abbott allows his MPs a conscience vote on marriage equality any legislation is doomed to fail. It’s time the Australian parliament removes this last legal discrimination against same sex couples, because almost equal is not good enough.
The Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP is Deputy Opposition Leader and the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Top Comments
Judging by some of the rabidly "Christophobic" comments in some quarters, and also by the hostile comment in this forum by the person calling himself "Albert Baldry", all I can really say to them is: "who are the "haters" now, hmmm?".
BTW, beyond all of the vituperative hyperbole, much of the pro-SSM argument seems to run like this: #1. All love is equal, so therefore anything no respecting that love is "hatred" ("homophobia"). #2. Since most of the standards have been lowered anyway we should just get rid of any that remain. I don't believe people are really thinking of the consequences of these "mantras", as idiots are *already* pushing for so-called "polyamorous" marriages (Canada, USA & Australia), paedophiles are pushing for "equal rights" and political representation (Holland) and even trying to drastically lower and even remove age-restrictions altogether (UK, USA, Holland, Australia & etc). The other side to this coin are those brave souls who refuse to kowtow to the illiberal and increasingly totalitarian PC dogma of activists, instead choosing to publicly live according to their uncompromised conscience, and who are increasingly persecuted and also prosecuted as a result. This includes, for example, business people who've been increasingly attacked and sued &/or prosecuted because of their traditional socially conservative beliefs and opposition to SSM (USA, UK, &c), medical and/or educational professionals increasingly pressured to comply with laws that contravene moral and/or religious constraints even when part of religious organisations (UK, USA, &c), parents pressured and even prosecuted for refusing to allow their children to become indoctrinated by pro-homosexual sex education (USA, UK &c), and even religious personnel sued or prosecuted for refusing to be constrained by laws that would otherwise seriously undermine freedom of religion (Sweden, Canada, etc). If you don't believe me you can do the research yourself.
The point I'm making is that once SSM is morally and legally accepted and enshrined in statute law, then, judging from recent history and the experience overseas, there are enough spiteful "Christophobic" haters out there who will deliberately attempt to crush resistance to SSM from social conservatives and traditional Christians and silence any dissent from public space wherever it may be - in all sectors, both in government and also in private industry.
Is this the society we truly want, a place where the only "Free Speech" is PC and everything else is silenced? A society where the oldest and most fundamental freedom we've had - that of being free to practice one's religion according to one's conscience - is replaced by diktat from authoritarian PC regimes?
Homosexual couples have the same rights as de facto heterosexual couples already, so what more could you want? A white wedding in a church?
Why attempt to imitate heterosexuals anyway? Why not make your own traditions?
PS Please don't confuse my opposition to SSM as "homophobia". I have several homosexual friends anyway; but moral, religious and/or socio-political arguments against SSM do *not* equate to hatred let alone "violence".
Seriously? You say you're not homophobic, but your post says otherwise.
"Since most of the standards have been lowered anyway we should just get rid of any that remain." - So a homosexual relationship is worth less than yours? Letting two people who love each other who happen to be the same gender is somehow lowering standards?
You compare gay marriage to paedophilia. How is that not homophobic?
How to spot a bigot: "I'm not homphobic/racist/Islamophobic, I have plenty of gay/black/Muslim friends"
Yeah, so your next door neighbour's best friend's cousin is gay and you've tolerated them on occasion. That doesn't make you friends. Looking down on someone else's relationships as not as important as yours, means you are not their friend.
PS I'm not Christianophobic, I have several Christian friends. And turns out, you can be a Christian and not a bigot - who would have thought!
It seems that you have erroneously narrowed the suffix '-phobic' to solely define hatred of something. A similar misunderstanding happens within anti-homophobic circles too - the ~Anti-gay people aren't scared/they're just jerks~ (etc) memes come to mind.
Although '-phobic' as a term is prone to anthropomorphism, consider that hydrophobic substances, for example, don't have sentience and therefore can't hate or fear water. They show *aversion* to water - in this case expressed as compositional incompatibility.
You see, aversion can be expressed in different ways, including hatred, fear, discomfort, kinesis...
I don't know where your personal homophobia stems from, and I'm guessing that what you have shared here is but one form of its expression. Nonetheless, I do think that it's important that those who have social leanings like the ones you admit YET deny homophobia, know themselves.
By definition, and based on your own description, you are a homophobe. Own it.
Slightly off topic - but did Mamamia - the Aussie woman's friend - cover the story about the Nationals' call for a better deal for stay at home mums?
I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't interest you, but I'm also willing to believe your wholly-supportive (ha ha) article about it is just buried in the mess that is your front page.