Equal citizens?
Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced, rather disappointingly, in an interview, that she had no plans to amend current definitions of marriage. She supports the definition in the Marriage Act that defines marriage as the 鈥榰nion between a man and woman鈥�.
What is most problematic about Gillard鈥檚 statements is that, despite her non-religious background, her reasoning conflates secular and religious approaches to marriage. Civil marriages, performed by the state, are a secular option for couples to formalise their relationship.
In 2007, 63 percent of all marriages were solemnised by a civil celebrant.
While religion continues to play a significant role in politics, as a secular leader, governing a secular state, the prime minister should not permit religion to dictate the meaning of legislation.
Equality before the law and non-discrimination are fundamental human rights principles. Federal legislation should mimic this by allowing couples to marry regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Same-sex de facto relationships are now recognised at the federal level thanks to the federal Government鈥檚 2008 law reform package, which amended over 85 pieces of legislation to recognise same-sex de facto couples.
Marriage is not simply a question of rights, though. It remains the fundamental means through which intimacy and citizenship are publicly legitimated in this country. While legal entitlements between de facto and married couples are virtually the same, a lack of symbolic recognition for same-sex couples is troubling.
Denying same-sex couples access to marriage promotes a hierarchy of relationships. Couples are granted equal rights and entitlements but different statuses, essentially situating same-sex relationships as 鈥榠nferior鈥� or 鈥榣esser than鈥� heterosexual ones.
How can we expect to end homophobic attitudes to same-sex relationships when the law does not afford us the same respect it extends to heterosexual couples?
If Prime Minister Gillard is committed to promoting tolerance and equality of all Australians, she has to support changes to a discriminatory law that excludes couples access to marriage simply on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity.
SAME SEX WEDDING IS ABOUT EQUALITY, AND EVEN STRAIGHT POLITICIANS AND JUDGES IN COUNTRIES AS ARGENTINA OR SOUTH AFRICA, FROM CANADA TO PORTUGAL, FROM SPAIN TO SWEDEN TO NORWAY TO BELIGIUM TO NETHERLANDS USA’ STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SAW THAT…
Oh how refreshing it is to have a leader who wont be seen each sunday being interviewed outside a church having paid respects to an imaginery person !! Give her a break guys, she’s currently playing the ‘safe – get elected mode’. In time she will support total equality for gays….we hope !!
Under Kevin Rudd the Labor Party were leaking primary votes to the right to the Coalition and primary votes to the left to the Greens (but importantly retaining their preferences).
Clearly under Gillard the Labor Party has therefore tried to reposition itself further to the right on key issues – the super profits tax, asylum seekers, political correctness etc, well aware that they will retain left wing preferences because those voters will be very unlikely to preference Abbot ahead of Gillard.
It is exactly the same on the issue of gay marriage. Everything that the Labor Party says right now should be taken with a grain of salt. It is just dog whistling to appease right wing voters at this stage.
Paul I respectfully disagree.
All I’m saying is wouldn’t it be safer just to wait a few weeks until after the election. Why is that such a problem? In my opinion the current campaign is well intentioned but counter-productive.
Yes, let’s wait until the time is better to become equal citizens.
1. People aren’t going to vote against a candidate because of marriage equality. It’s consistently low on voter’s priorities.
2. See item 1 above. Piss off 60% of voters or the 40% that aren’t going to vote for you anyway?
Can I suggest to gay marriage proponents that now is not the right time to be pushing the PM to get rid of the discriminatory law for 2 important reasons:
1. If we do force the government’s hand and get them to say they will allow gay marriages if they are reelected then they will be defeated – simple as that. Despite polls indicating 60% support, the sad fact is very few people will change their vote to support gay marriage, but many more will change their vote to vote against it. Internal Labor Party polling is telling them the same.
2. Therefore the likely result of pushing more and more for a definitive statement and reasoning for not changing the clearly discriminatory law is that the PM will have to speak out more clearly against gay marriage to appease right wing voters – thus making it more difficult for her to do a backflip on the issue after the election. (sorry terribly worded but I hope you take my meaning).
I have petitioned the PM privately like many others on this issue but I do not expect or want her to make another public statement until after the election. Now is definitely not the time. After the election however I think everyone should go as hard as they can.