Swadeology

This is the third (and final) instalment in a series on Australia’s current debate over making same-sex marriage legal.

The first instalment looked at the backstory to the issue.

The second instalment looked briefly at the Yes and No campaigns, as well as my view on the issue.

In this final instalment, I’d like to look at a few of the key issues and try to shine some light on those issues.

——

The ‘Yes’ campaign has a pretty simple platform: It’s time for same-sex couples to get the same access to marriage as heterosexuals. Australia is an egalitarian society and it’s time our marriage laws stopped discriminating against same-sex couples.

The issues that have made this such a complicated affair are pretty much all raised by the ‘No’ side of the debate. They’re the issues that I’d like to address here.

——

Same-sex couples in civil unions are treated the same as de-facto couples and the law has already been changed to give de-facto couples the same rights as married couples.

Umm, no. This is not true.

Yes, de-facto couples (couples in a relationship under the same roof but unmarried) do get many of the protections offered to married couples under the law. But not all.

The rights of a married couple are established as soon as the marriage certificate is signed. The rights of a de-facto couple are different from state to state, and they also differ depending what area of the law you’re looking at. The definition of a couple used by Centrelink is different to that used under migration law, and different again to that used under family law.

Married couples have more automatic rights with regards to IVF at the beginning of life and more rights about health decisions for their spouse at the end of life. They have less complicated proceedings available for divisions of property, and estate management. They have more rights and simpler procedures when it comes to superannuation.

Another key problem is that civil unions are administered by state law. The Marriage Act 1961 is a national law and all marriages in Australia are recognised under this law. Civil unions are established under inconsistent laws across the states and territories that actually have them (you can’t register a civil union in Western Australia or the Northern Territory at all).

If your partner is in a car accident in Sydney and ends up in hospital, a doctor will immediately know what your rights are if you can tell them you are that person’s spouse. The terms are clear. Saying “I’m their partner according to a Queensland civil union” lands you in far muddier waters.

Furthermore, while Australian marriages are recognised pretty much everywhere around the world, civil unions registered in applicable Australian states are barely recognised anywhere – a big problem if a couple moves overseas for work.

This piece at The Conversation will give you the full breakdown.

The bottom line: significantly similar rights are indeed available to both married and de-facto couples but de-facto couples have to jump through a lot more hoops to get access to them (well, the ones they actually have access to). It’s far from automatic.

I don’t necessarily see a problem with parts of that. If a couple does not want to marry, if they don’t want to declare their relationship in public and commit to one another in that way, then that’s their right. They can choose to forego the rights that marriage offers them and stay as a de-facto couple if they wish.

The problem is, a lot of same-sex couples DO want to declare their relationships in public and commit to their spouses. They’re not choosing to live together as de-factos. They want their family unit just like their hetero brethren, and it’s being denied to them purely on the basis of their sexuality.

It’s discrimination.

——

Why can’t we just amend the laws around civil unions so that same-sex couples get the same rights as married couples, but without it being called marriage?

Because that’s not marriage equality. We don’t need to create something new and different for same-sex couples. We already have something – it’s called marriage.

There is social currency in marriage. A married couple is one that has decided to declare for one another in the presence of witnesses and according to the laws of the land. They carry obligations to one another and have rights under the law.

Marriage is understood by society. People know that some marriages last and some don’t, but they know that a married couple has been serious enough about each other to tie the knot and they respect that.

Former speechwriter to Tony Abbot, Paul Ritchie:

“Allowing same-sex couples to marry is not just a matter of law. It’s also a matter of heart and soul. It reflects a universal hope: to be blessed by family and friends, and to share your life, with its trials and tribulations, laughter and joy, with the one that you love.

“The institution of marriage affirms us as people; gives standing to our most significant relationship; and changes our families for the better. It is an institution that points to a better life and helps us answer the deepest question: can I selflessly love another and find meaning and purpose in that love? This is a conservative ideal,” he writes.

What’s at question here is whether or not the respect that society gives to married couples should be given to all couples, or just heterosexual couples.

This is where a lot of Christian conservatives get their noses out of joint.

To Christians, marriage is a sacrament – “til death do us part”. It’s a human manifestation of the unbreakable bond between God and humanity.

To the courts, marriage is a legal arrangement that’s defined by statute. Like all good first-world countries, Australia has a distinct division between church and state. The definition of marriage in this instance is a matter of law, not a matter of religion.

This really is a key point that gets stuck in a lot Christian craws.

They want marriage how they see it. It’s theirs. It’s ordained by God and being married is something special that they don’t want to be confused with something so fundamentally sinful as homosexuality.

Other ‘sins’ are OK. But not this one.

It doesn’t matter that many of the people getting married are Hindus, or Muslims, or Buddhists, as long as it’s a man and woman. It doesn’t matter that many of the people getting married are shite at being married and end up divorced (multiple times), as long as it’s a man and a woman. It doesn’t matter that many of the people getting married are shite at being parents to their progeny, as long as it’s a man and a woman.

A conservative Christian sees all those situations as redeemable. They can equate their marriage with those people by saying ‘there but for the grace of God….’

But not this. Homosexuality has a special place in hell to them. Presumably one without lubricants*.

While it’s mostly unspoken, one of the things Christian conservatives hate the most is the idea that two gay people getting married might be equated with their marriage.

They want the word ‘marriage’ to themselves.

This is why you hear things such as “I’ve got nothing against gay people, but…..” and “I’m happy to see their rights protected, but……”

I’ve actually had one person propose to me that a new arrangement could be set up for same sex couples called a Homounion.

I’ve heard Christians raise concerns about gender fluidity, free speech, political correctness, paedophilia (which I consider ironic, given the nature of some priests in the Catholic church) and other issues. When it all boils down to it, though, Christian opponents to same-sex marriage simply want marriage to be the singular domain of people who bump uglies in the way it’s described in the bible.

I’ll say it again. In this debate, on this question, the word ‘marriage’ is a legal definition in a statute. It’s not the religious interpretation that people are seeking to re-frame here.

It’s a point. of. law.

As the wise man says… If you don’t like the idea of gay marriage, don’t get gay married.

——

Changing the definition from the current “between a man and a woman” will open Australia up to people marrying animals, and even stranger things such as bridges.

Yes, one Australian politician gave that as an example. Hit the link to see the story.

There is a LOT of dis-information being circulated at the moment and it’s designed to whip up fear of the unknown.

A classic example is the notion that changing the existing definition in the Marriage Act 1961 (a man and a woman) will leave the statute unclear on gender, or even completely genderless. And if the statute is genderless, then it’s just two….. things getting married – hence the reference to a person marrying a bridge.

Bollocks. Unnecessary, fearmongering bollocks.

Why assume that the wording will change from “between a man and a woman” to a genderless statement? Why not trust that our legislators can re-word it to something like “between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.”

That wasn’t so hard to solve, was it?

——

“This is all part of a strategy for gay people to recruit and abuse children.”

This sort of rubbish is actually being bandied about. Seriously.

——

Kids deserve a mother and a father

This is something that’s a little easier to empathise with. “I grew up with a mother and a father and I liked it that way, therefore every kid should have that.” It’s easy for us to relate to (if you had both parents and the outcome was a good one).

Personally speaking, I’m not opposed to the notion that a child should have knowledge of (and preferably access to) both biological parents. I definitely don’t see that as a dealbreaker, however.

I don’t see it something that happens now, either. There are kids in broken homes all around the country that don’t see one (or more tragically, either) parent.

Having both Mum and Dad around isn’t a formula for success. Having a good family around you is a much better deal, and there are social studies to prove it. Being hetero provides no guarantee of being a solid family. In fact, I’d argue that in 2017, a family comprising same-sex parents is likely to be stronger than most, because they’ve had to fight to get there.

What kids need – what society needs – are solid families, not prescriptions as to what those families look like.

——

“Same-sex marriage is a trojan horse for…..” (killing free speech, rampant political correctness, promoting gender fluidity via the Safe Schools program, insert hobby horse of your choice here)

Rubbish.

This is the classic Strawman argument, designed to whip up fear and distract from the actual issue at hand.

Once again, the ballot has only one question on it:

If any of those side issues are a chance to be affected by changes to the Marriage Act 1961, then that’s the time for legislators to do their job and ensure there are protections in place so that people who want to get married can get married, and the reasonable rights of others aren’t infringed.

The law is there to do a job. Make sure the lawmakers get it right. That’s all part of the parliamentary process.

Also, let’s not pretend that these issues are going to go away anytime soon. The ‘No’ campaign would have you think that these are issues solely because same-sex marriage is being proposed.

Does anyone really think that if same-sex marriage is not implemented – i.e. if the ‘No’ campaign wins – that the content of the Safe Schools program will stop being an issue? Do you think Andrew Bolt will stop whinging about free speech?

These are all sideshows. They’re Strawman arguments designed specifically to get people upset and waste time. They’re issues that can, and will, continue to be discussed and legislated upon.

——

CLOSE

I’m fine with people having religious convictions about marriage and what it should be. I’m fine with people voting their conscience. I don’t necessarily agree with your convictions but I respect them and I’ve got no problem with that.

What makes me scratch my head, though, is people ignoring the REAL question and choosing to muddy the waters with dis-information and, in some cases, outright deceit.

Same-sex marriage will create more families. It’ll bring dignity and respect to a group in our society that have been figuratively and literally bashed for decades. It’ll give the people who want to access it much-needed and much-deserved rights and protections under the law. It’s not going to hurt you, or your family.

Modern WASP civilisations have got plenty of things wrong over the years. We kept slaves. We didn’t let women vote. We didn’t let indiginous people vote. We didn’t allow interracial marriage. This is just another thing that future generations will look back on and say “what was all the fuss about?”

Same-sex marriage will be legislated in Australia eventually. Be on the right side of history. Of justice.

Vote “Yes”.

——

* I should apologise to my Aunty Joan and my sister for the lubricants gag because there’s a fair chance they’ll read this. Actually, Aunty Joan will probably find it quite funny. So sorry, Sis.

This is the second in a 3-part series on the question of same-sex marriage, which is currently being ‘debated’ in Australia ahead of a non-compulsory public vote that is not binding on the government (and if you’re wondering “if it’s non-compulsory and non-binding, why have it?” – please join the massive queue forming on the left).

Part 1 of this series discussed the backstory to this issue.

Onwards and upwards, then….

The Ballot

This is the question on the postal survey form sent out to Australian voters in the last few weeks.

It’s pretty simple. Or it should be.

Advocates for same-sex marriage feared the idea of a plebiscite – a compulsory vote that’s non-binding – because it would be pre-empted by a campaign during which they’d have to justify their existence to the rest of the country.

They feared the idea of a non-compulsory postal survey even more.

Of course, the Prime Ministers (both former and current) went to great pains to talk about the need for respectful debate on the issue. The current PM will stick to that. He’s a centrist and has been outspoken on his support for same-sex marriage for some time. He’s also sitting on a razor-thin majority with hard-right conservatives holding him to the party line.

The former PM – the man who first set the plebiscite (that we’re not having) in motion – has already broadened the issue to be about free speech, religious liberty, and the stamping out of political correctness. As we all knew he would.

The ‘No’ campaign is made up primarily of two groups of people.

First, there are those who oppose the idea on religious grounds. They believe that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Any change to the law, which currently describes marriage as being between a man and a woman, would be contrary to God’s will. They are here to see that God’s will is adhered to. They have come up with a whole grab-bag of issues, which I’ll discuss later.

Second, there are the garden variety homophobes, who don’t think anything should be done to advance the rights of homosexuals at all. They’re not necessarily religious. They just don’t like poofters and lezos.

The remainder on the ‘No’ side is a mixed bag of people who don’t like change of any type and probably think it’s too much, too soon.

The ‘Yes’ campaign is, according to all recent surveys, the most popular and will hopefully be the side popping champagne corks on November 15. The question of same-sex marriage has enjoyed popular support for many years and most recent polls have support sitting at around 60%. The remaining 40% is divided between ‘No’ and ‘Unsure’ so there’s a reasonable chance of support being more than 60%.

The vast majority of the ‘Yes’ vote will come from city-dwellers, who are typically more progressive than their country counterparts. The ABC’s Vote Compass has a great breakdown of the support for both sides, mapped according to each electorate in the country.

——

The Yes Campaign In a Nutshell

The Yes side, in line with the question on the survey, is keeping things simple. The survey paper has one question only, and you tick either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ as a response. The question at hand is:

Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?

The Yes side say that this is all about marriage equality. Australia is an egalitarian society and within such a society, a couple should be able to access marriage, regardless of whether that couple is mixed-gender or same-sex.

That’s a pretty simple answer to a pretty simple question and I think it resonates with most fair-minded people. It certainly does with me.

Perhaps I should add a little more perspective here.

——

My Personal View

I grew up going to Sunday school as a child and later in my youth, attending a Pentecostal church. I was no model young Christian – very few of the young people at our church were at that time were – but I tried. We tried. We were a tight-knit group and we rose, fell and grew together. I even spent a year at a bible college, in 1991. I was a music/worship leader at both of the churches where I spent the majority of my time until age 30 and the Music Director at one of those churches.

All that’s to say that I grew up in an environment that didn’t encourage much tolerance for ‘sin’ (which is an irony, given a lot of the things I experienced and saw at the time).

We preached love and tolerance for all people but we rarely had to demonstrate any of that because, by and large, we moved in our own circle of like-minded people. If we’d have run into a gay person back then we would have 1. crapped our pants, then 2. tried to pray the gay away (hoping for either interpretation of the phrase to take effect).

I have since walked away from the church and no longer consider myself a believer. That’s a path I have walked over a long period of time, from around 2001 or so until now.

I’ve lost a few friends over that, which is sad, but it’s been for the best. I’m super-thankful for those friends that have stuck with me and I cherish the time I get with them. They’re great people of real substance.

I don’t regret my time in the church, though I’m still angry at certain people and a number of things I experienced. Overall, though, it taught me a lot and it gave me a solid moral grounding around which the rest of my life has been based.

That background, then, forms part of the prism through which I view this issue.

I’m not a gay man and I can’t say I understand the attraction that gay men or women have for one another. It’s a mystery to me.

I have had, and continue to have, gay family members, friends, and colleagues. None of them have judged me. None of them have hurt me. None of them have tried to hit on me. None of them ever tried to convert my stepkids. None of them have done anything other than live their lives, do their jobs, and enjoy themselves.

Perhaps the most poignant thing I can say about the gay people I know is that they’re basically unremarkable in many ways. They have issues that they’re passionate about, hobbies that they indulge in, they’re sports fans, political wonks, artists, creators, and from every observance I’ve made, they’re extremely productive. They’re…. people.

None of my gay family or friends have ever infringed upon my life in any way. In fact, many of them have shown me more acceptance than maybe I deserved, and definitely more than some of the so-called friends from my churchy past.

Who am I, then, to deny these most ordinary of people the right to marry?

In fact, it’s not even a question.

If two people are in love with one another and want to get married, they should. If we are to pose restrictions on that, let’s keep it to age and (maybe) crack addiction.

——

This issue is being debated very passionately in Australia right now. You’ve got my perspective, above, but that’s just me and my thoughts. There is a whole range of issues being thrown about.

In the next (and final) instalment in this series, I’m going to take a look at the major issues being talked about and how those issues are, in many cases, being manipulated and how the facts relating to those issues are, in my considered opinion, nothing to be scared about.

My home country is fighting with itself right now. The issue? Same-sex marriage.

Rather than do what they were elected to do (legislate), the Australian federal government, which has the sole legal jurisdiction over the definition of marriage, decided to outsource its job to the people. They’re holding a nationwide, non-compulsory vote on whether or not the definition of marriage within the Marriage Act 1961 should be changed to allow for same-sex marriage.

Ballots have been mailed to citizens around the country and the Yesses and Nos will be tallied as of November 7. The results will be announced on November 15.

——

Backstory

The issue of same-sex marriage has been on the agenda in Australia for a while.

A public poll held in 2004 showed that only 38% of respondents were in favour of same-sex marriage, with 44% against and 18% undecided. Just three years later, those results shifted to see 57% supporting same-sex marriage, with just 37% opposed and 6% undecided. Same-sex marriage, or Marriage Equality as the campaign is currently called, has enjoyed majority support in Australia ever since. Most recent polls show support over 60% with opposition resting between 20% and 30% and the remainder undecided.

What happened in 2004, you ask?

The Prime Minister of the day (and shit cricketer) John Howard, advocated changes to the Marriage Act 1961 that included a definition of marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage wasn’t at the front of many people’s minds before then, but it certainly was after.

The Marriage Amendment Act 2004 was prompted by a couple of Australian men who got married in Canada, where it was legal, and came back to Australia seeking to have their marriage recognised in Australia. The more specific definition – between a man and a woman – was therefore inserted to prevent any further attempts to have overseas same-sex marriages recognised under Australian law.

While The Marriage Amendment Act 2004 passed through parliament with bi-partisan support, it did not go through unnoticed. In many ways, the passage of this act was the tipping point for discussion on the issue and the birthing suite of the Marriage Equality movement we see today.

Those who had ‘opposed’ same-sex marriage up until 2004, simply because they’d never really thought about it, began to ask why? Or perhaps more poignantly, why not? The debate around same-sex marriage has been gathering steam ever since.

Former PM Kevid Rudd was opposed to it in 2007.

His replacement, Julia Gillard, was also opposed to changing the definition in the Marriage Act 1961, but the Labor Party she led allowed its MPs a conscience vote on the issue when it came to parliament in 2012. Gillard later stated she’d changed her personal stance on the issue, saying she supported same-sex marriage.

Kevin Rudd returned to the Labor leadership in 2013 and also announced a changed position, following a period of personal reflection and discussions with gay colleagues. Rudd vowed to introduce legislation if the Labor government was returned in the 2013 federal election. Labor was defeated in that election, bringing the Liberal/National (conservative) coalition into government.

The Prime Minister who won that election, Tony Abbott (a monumental prick for reasons that go far beyond this issue), is firmly against same-sex marriage. He declined the idea of having a vote in parliament on the issue while he was PM, promising instead that the government would hold a plebiscite (remember that word) during its subsequent term in office. He never got to keep that promise, however, as his own party voted him out of the leadership in 2015.

His successor, Malcolm Turnbull reaffirmed this pledge to the conservative base at the subsequent election. Turnbull is a progressive conservative in favour of same-sex marriage. While he currently leads the party, he has a razor-thin parliamentary majority of just 1 seat and is consequently hostage to the far right of his party. He probably wouldn’t have won the leadership if he’d changed the party’s policy on this issue.

That’s how we got here. But where is here, exactly? And what does it mean?

——

The Plebiscite (that Australia is not having)

It’s important to note that it was a plebiscite that was initially proposed by Abbott, because that’s different to what is going on right now.

A plebiscite is a compulsory vote on an issue. The outcome of the vote is not binding on the government, but reasonable people would hope that the government would respect the will of the people.

Tony Abbott offered the plebiscite as means of acknowledging the reality of the issue in the minds of the public. He also offered it because it let him put the issue on the backburner so he could go about being a bastard in other ways (his disaster budget of 2014 being chief amongst them).

The offer was and should be regarded as cynical. Abbott is a skilled campaigner on wedge issues, having dragged the Monarchist movement over the line during the Republic referendum in 1999. His M.O is to create fear and doubt over issues of substantial change, believing that in the presence of fear and doubt, most people will stick with the status quo rather than opt for change. Despite popular support for a Republic in principle, the ‘No’ vote won the referendum.

It worked then, so why not now?

Abbott proposed the plebiscite because he knew that it would be both non-binding and divisive. Outsourcing the vote to the people means that the people would fight amongst themselves, a perfect scenario for the type of anxiety that feeds his blackened soul.

You can’t just hold a plebiscite whenever you feel like it. It requires legislation. When the enabling legislation for the plebiscite was voted down in parliament for the second time, the government opted for a postal survey, which is what we’ve got now.

A postal survey is an even worse option than a plebiscite.

Once again, I hear you asking Why?

The postal survey is exactly what the name suggests. Ballots are posted out to everyone on the electoral roll. Voters then mark their preference on the ballot paper and send it back. Simple, right?

No.

There have already been stories of ballots being taken out of mailboxes, or being blown about neighborhoods by the wind. And those happenings are just the beginning as to why this was a seriously bad idea.

Perhaps the main reason this is a terrible idea lies in the fact that unlike a plebiscite, voting in the postal survey is non-compulsory. As well as being non-binding. That’s why people have been seen offering ballots for sale online. They don’t have to fill them out, so why not make some money??

The Australian government, led by the supposedly fiscally responsible Conservatives, is spending $122 million Australian taxpayer dollars on a survey that will sow bitterness, is not compulsory for voters to respond to, and does not bind anyone in the government with respect to its outcome.

I mentioned sowing bitterness in that last sentence. That is perhaps the saddest outcome of this government’s mistake. It’s one of the reasons Tony Abbott chose the plebiscite option instead of having the cohunas to face legislation in parliament.

The plebiscite-cum-survey was always going to be prefaced by a period of VERY public debate on the issue before votes were due. Despite pleas for decency from all sides (some of which could be rightly viewed with a liberal dose of cynicism), that debate was always going to be vicious. It was always going to be framed in such a way by those opposed to change so as to create maximum anxiety amongst those who are undecided.

And so it has been.

In my next post on this topic, I’ll address some of the ‘issues’ that have been raised and the way they’re being used to distract from what is a pretty simple question: