This has been floating around in my head for ages and one time I got all inspired to write it but it just never happened. Lost the moment. It’s hard cause you never really get the moment back again. And it’s a complex issue with complex thoughts and I no longer have access to what made me think those thoughts in the first place!
I think the words ‘gay marriage’ eclipse other issues being faced by gay persons and makes their cause seem trivial.
I for one assumed that gays could enter civil unions and adopt children in Australia.
And I was shocked to discover that in some states they can’t!
But I never heard about it, I looked it up of my own initiative.
I think a lot of people think “gay marriage? well, whats so great about marriage? I’m not married, it’s fine. Is that really all they’re complaining about? can’t they be together and buy a house and have kids like the rest of us!?”
I never really hear why gays want to get married outside of ‘because everyone should be able to marry who they love’.
But not every gay even wants to get married.
I still think they should have the choice.
But I don’t know why they’re making it the focus of their campaign when they’re discriminated against in so many other ways.
Maybe they think marriage represents all the other things they can’t do now, that it will open the door to adoption and such.
But not if you don’t tell us that’s why you want it, right?
And also there have been instances of discrimination against all couples that aren’t white, straight, christian, married and fertile that are just branded as a gay marriage issue in the media, maybe because the gay rights issue is so centred on marriage instead of those specific rights.
Like in some states of the USA in the last couple years when they increased the waiting times or outright banned non-married couples and singles from accessing IVF. Or when peoples in a relationship don’t have the right to see their partner when they’re in hospital. It’s everyones right, it won’t just be solved with gay marriage.
In any case, I do think that marriage is not just a piece of paper – it’s a glamorous party! Very preferable to me than the non-event that is declaring (in a boring form-filling way, not a romantic way) a de facto relationship.
I’m still shocked by Julia Gillard’s justifications for not supporting gay marriage, I think they are weak and irrelevant… not that she’s PM anymore, but I sort of still think of her as such and the fact that she didn’t support it as PM shouldn’t be forgotten now.
I remember her declaring that religion had no place in politics and that she was an atheist.
But then voted against gay marriage on the grounds of her traditional, catholic upbringing.
Why does your upbringing matter, Julia? Your upbringing is not mine, or the next Australians, or the next.
Your personal issues should not be an excuse to deny a harmless right to thousands of Australians, supported by a million other Australians.
You, as the Prime Minister, were supposed to lead the country and provide what the people wanted.
Now, out of office, she claims she does not support marriage of any kind due to the radical feminist views she formed in college – I might have hoped a person’s views would have evolved in 30 years, and they wouldn’t cling to them at the expense of others!
She had the choice not to get married.
Why can’t she afford a similar choice to the gay community, whom she claims to have nothing against.
Not introducing legislation to ban marriage altogether, while actively discriminating against gays by denying them marriage, just seems hypocritical and makes her point moot.
Then why vote against it? Why not speak out for it now?
I can only believe that she is and was acting in the best interests of herself and her political party, and not necessarily Australia, by not adding another controversial issue to the table.
Because I can’t believe a sensible person would think like her but still not come to the conclusion that they should advocate for the freedom of others (and not ‘freedom’ from an ‘oppressive institution’ that they think is lovely and choose to enter into)
A Prime Minister should not be some fascist moral police who can’t make a decision unclouded by religious motives (hello Tony Abbott)
But, I could be completely wrong, whatever, I have no sources.