“The battle lines are now entrenched. The Greens will not cease their campaign from one Parliament to the next and have made this cause pivotal to their identity.” Paul Kelly in the Weekend Australian
We all know that there’s going to be a fierce and divisive debate at the upcoming Labour Party conference, around the issue of same-sex marriage. The aim of the protagonists is to make it a part of that party’s policy platform. Many who are pushing it naïvely believe that with the vote of the minority Greens they can then make it law.
It seems they have become so persuaded by their own propaganda that they’ve made a serious mis- step, part of which, was to pitch their survey questions on the assumption that same-sex marriage was an issue of justice, discrimination and inclusion.
They knew of course that egalitarian Australians are pretty sympathetic to a fair go. But the more the issues have been aired the more it has become clear it’s not as simple as they wanted us to believe.
The community consultation.
Adam Brandt, the new Green member of the lower house, had thirty members of the lower house do a community consultation to check the level of acceptance of same-sex marriage in the community. The report is in, and in the words of Paul Kelly “It has been conspicuously under reported.” Of the thirty MPs twenty clearly signalled their community’s rejection of the idea of same-sex marriage, and of the remaining ten only seven gave support to actually change the marriage law. The seven open to change were certainly not the suburbs where people are predominantly about the business of raising young families.
Behind the scenes senior Labour ministers who had been ideologically committed to the same sex marriage cause, conceded that realistically it was most unlikely to pass in this term of government.
Political realists know that Parliamentary sentiment would at present be significantly opposed to the proposal, with a large number of Labour MPs committed to joining the overwhelming numbers on the coalition side, to vote against same-sex marriage.
Once again they’re out of touch.
The gay lobby raised their voice and the Greens, Get Up, the ABC and the Melbourne Age newspaper, all seemed to concur with the inference that ‘religious prejudice was the main blockage to progress.’
Many feel that those committed to lobbying may have made a tactical error in pushing for same sex marriage, because whatever you think of it there is significant sympathy to same-sex civil union, if it is not understood to be marriage.
And beating the discrimination drum loudly was clearly disingenuous and less than honest because there are eighty separate pieces of legislation removing discrimination.
No! It was cultural, and political, and mistaken.
It is politically mistaken.
It is mistaken politically because once again the Labour party seems to be following the Green agenda. It will further undermine the already thin moral authority of Prime Minister Gillard, who has already made it clear she opposes same-sex marriage.
It will inevitably elevate an issue that will further divide the Labour Party. With Labour’s primary vote of less than thirty per cent, it is unlikely to positively change the esteem the government is held in.
While there are many openhearted people ready to be sympathetic to what they believe to be the gay relationship dilemma, it certainly does not help to brand them as closed minded and illiterate religious nuts. As Paul Kelly pointed out, such a step, expresses total disregard, respect or empathy for the validity of the traditional point of view. For centuries it has been a common belief that marriage is between a man and a woman for comfort and procreation.
Paul Kelly went on to say that ‘this step will constitute the starkest repudiation by the Labour Party of its long ties with the Christian tradition. Its abandonment of the traditional idea of marriage has disturbed both religious and nonreligious people, many of whom have kept their heads down in the present climate of intimidation.’
More significantly it will herald Labour’s belief in a new social creed, that neither marriage or child rearing should be the preference of a man and woman union. The Green Labour coalition may just find they have kicked a hornet’s nest. In many ways the debate has only just begun, and I for one welcome it. There are many profound, cultural, social, and psychological reasons why the last thing we need now is to further undermine or confuse, the very institution of marriage that when done well, lays the foundation for a healthy and humane Society.
As former Prime Minister once said to a couple of gays who were pushing for same sex marriage, “I admire your attempt but you’ll never convince me that two blokes and a dog constitute a family.”
I don’t really see how you can see Paul Kelly as a reliable source on anything, let alone the Greens.
You haven’t demonstrated that it isn’t an issue of justice. Saying that lots of people oppose something doesn’t mean it is not a matter of justice – it can mean that it is a VERY urgent issue of justice.
Are only those who wish to change ‘cultural’?
How does Labor following the Greens become automatically a mistake? Is party unity really more important than justice?
Paul Kelly from the Australian preaching tolerance? Give me a break! I bow to his expert testimony about environments of intimidation – esp. with ref to the Greens.
I don’t accept the argument that because something has been around for a long time that it therefore shouldn’t be changed. Slavery?
This sentence simply doesn’t make sense, “More significantly it will herald Labour’s belief in a new social creed, that neither marriage or child rearing should be the preference of a man and woman union. ”
My view is that marriage should serve people, not people marriage. I think the value of love and caring is more important than adults’ sexual preferences. Many gays are more caring than many married couples I know.
I propose that Christians should just do away with marriage and enter into agreements without this word getting in the way.
Do you have any children yet Evan?
Martha Nussbaum suggests that states (American in her case)should stay out of marriage completely and offer a civil union for all and leave marriage to the domain of various religions.
Could this be a way to get beyond the apparent current impasse?
its a thought…..good to hear from you john
Just for the record, the Australian Labor Party is shortened to Labor (not Labour as you repeatedly and erroneously used).
Also, I disagree with this “For centuries it has been a common belief that marriage is between a man and a woman for comfort and procreation.” Marriage was more often a patriarchal union related to property rights and the production of legitimate heirs. It was often arranged, and it was not uncommon for the woman to be married against her will. It was rarely for love or comfort.
I think John might be onto something there. Any union that takes place outside of a religious institution could be known as a civil union (heterosexual or gay/lesbian etc..) Reserve marriage for religious institutions and people they are willing to marry. The more I think about it the more I think this might be the answer. Everyone who wants a life partner under the law enters into a civil union. If you want to be married go to your church, mosque, synagogue gurdwara etc… and have a marriage celebration so you are married in the eyes of your God. Hmmmmmmm… wouldn’t that take the heat out of the issue (further seperation of state and church for those who want to rebel against God)
I honestly cant say that same sex marriage is going to be a bad thing.
They are seen as Defacto with Centrelink and are able to have commitment ceremonies. I know a lot of gay couples that I would deem happier in their “marriage” then most christian couples.
When I worked in the brothels 9 out of 10 men that were served by any girl were those who were married, had children, served faithfully in the church and were these good role models. But yet they had failings. Others go to the pokies. These are also men that stand in church and say how terrible and sinful is same sex marriage. Well, probably not as sinful as buying women, playing pokies or being a drunkard.
Gay people arent out to hurt anyone they want their rights and so they should have them. Who are we to judge isnt judging for God and not us? It wont change who we are and it wont stuff up their children. Most people now raise their children without a mother and father. I dont want children and if I found a loving gay couple who really want children and a family then hey take every single egg I own.
A family isnt about gender it is about love, respect, honour, commitment and most of all respect. If they have that then who can deny them their freedoms?
I quite often ask people who complain about homosexual sex “How is you sex life?” They always reply without fail “Oh, how dare you its none of your business.” So I always say “then how is theirs any of yours?” It works the same with marriage.
It is really none of our business. It wont kill us or hurt us as judgement and dicipline is between them and their maker whoever his is or even Karma if it is really the wrong thing to do.
fantastic blog!
I adore this publish, loved any particular one regards for putting together. No guy is sensible enough by themself. by Titus Maccius Plautus.