Who supports gay marriage?
Gays and lesbians certainly want the option, if our Twitter straw poll is any guide. “Yes I do,” said one today, “and as a marriage celebrant I want to marry same-sex couples rather than the second class ‘commitment ceremony’.” And another: “I don’t want to marry right now, but I do want the right to do so should I choose to in the future. It’s equality. Simple.” And: “Gay here, yes I do! Legal rights ahoy!” And: “hell yes I want & deserve the right should I meet the right fella.”
And of those who weren’t keen on walking down the aisle, as one said: “It would be nice to be unmarried by choice rather than because I can’t.”
There’s a bunch of lawmakers who believe in the cause, too. Like new Labor MP Stephen Jones, who rose in parliament yesterday to lecture his party on why the issue goes to “core Labor values of equality, fairness and dignity”:
“…marriage is an important institution in our society. It is a special relationship where two people say to each other and to the rest of the world that they agree to be bound together in love, exclusive of all others, for life. I believe it would diminish us all as a society if we were to say that we may exclude gay and lesbian couples from this celebration. That marks them as somehow less worthy or even as biological oddities. I respect the right of religious organisations and others in our community to disagree with this view and to continue to practice in accordance with their beliefs. Indeed, no motion or act of this place can of itself change those beliefs. But it is an entirely different thing to ask of the state to enforce it.”
He’s not alone. Labor ministers Mark Arbib and Anthony Albanese are on the record supporting the notion, with back-benchers Michael Danby and Sharon Grierson. Among the opposition Warren Entsch, Mal Washer and Simon Birmingham have all expressed support by our count, joining the Greens and independent Andrew Wilkie. Many more will come forward if their parties let them.
Australians generally, the surveys tell us, support the notion. Crikey had the Essential Research findings yesterday showing 53% believe people of the same sex should be allowed to marry, while just 36% still oppose. The generation that rejects gay rights — the result was essentially reversed in the 65-plus group — is, frankly, dying out.
Roy Morgan put out some data of its own yesterday, mapping pockets of homophobia around the country. The results aren’t really surprising.
But turn the question around. Of those who said homosexuality is ‘immoral’, how many of them are influenced by the fact our state and national governments collectively enshrine marriage discrimination, in the face of such widespread and emphatic political and community support?
Sometimes the symbolism alone is important.
DO I support it? Not really. But I don’t oppose it. I’m fairly indifferent about marriage full stop.
I was very disappointed with the contribution of my MP, Malcolm Turnbull, to last night’s debate on Adam Bandt’s motion relating to same-sex marriage. Seeking reflected glory from his father-in-law’s fine qualities doesn’t cut the mustard with me. Bragging about the Howard Government’s tiny contributions towards equality is silly. Philip Ruddock was an impediment in the process of reform rather than being a facilitator. Malcolm’s fig-leaf which he held to cover the Liberal Party’s past record of homophobia was its support for the HREOC reforms when the Liberal Party was in Opposition in 2008. However, coming late to the reform agenda is not the same as showing courage when you are in Government.
Murray Hill and John Gorton are the Liberal Party’s only heroes from the past for homosexuals. Warren Entsch, Mal Washer and Simon Birmingham are today’s heroes, but sadly, not Malcolm on marriage.
In last night’s debate, Philip Ruddock relied on the sentence that “marriage is a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life.”
The phrase “to the exclusion of all others” has been both misunderstood and misrepresented. The “for life” part no longer operates!
The part of the wedding vow which states “to the exclusion of all others” is meant to exclude adultery from one’s marriage, not to exclude same-sex unions from the institution of marriage.
While I respect Turnbull’s personal right to hold on to a traditional definition of marriage, he doesn’t represent his constituents’ rights to have change and progress.
We returned him in 2010 because we thought he might again become the leader of his party and because we thought he would be a progressive leader. Unfortunately, neither came to pass. There is still the possibility of his re-claiming the leadership but I think Wentworth may elect a Green MP next time unless Malcolm Turnbull stands for liberal progress instead of traditional conservatism.
On a very personal note, I have been married to my husband for 35 years.
For the first 25 years, until hormone treatment for prostate cancer rendered him impotent, we made love two or three times a day. That covers “to have and to hold”.
He has had two heart attacks followed by two coronary artery by-pass operations, Type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer and dementia, and a number of other medical misfortunes. I would call that “in sickness and in health”.
We have been finacially sound, then vulnerable, then sound again. I would call that “for richer, for poorer”.
My husband is an alcoholic and he lost his job because of that and rampant homophobia. Nevertheless, there have been many good things about him and many good times shared. I think that covers “for better, for worse”.
We are still married but he turned 80 this year. I suspect we will remain married “until death us do part”. I say that because, unlike those whose marriages are legally recognised, we can’t serve divorce papers on each other, even if we wished. We can only end our marriage by separation and desertion. He lacks legal capacity to do either and I wouldn’t abandon a man with dementia, who is dependent on me financially, physically and emotionally. That would be immoral!
I am no longer my husband’s lover but I am still his carer. That seems to cover “to love and to cherish”.
Some people may think our marriage is immoral. I think we have behaved with the utmost morality.
Come to think of it, I don’t know many straight couples who have demonstrated our level of commitment!
Its an old joke (from the New Yorker), but a good one…
“Of course I support gay marriage. I’m a divorce lawyer.”
Actually I’m a traditionalist, I come from the generation that ran a mile from the responsibilities, the limitations and (lets face it) boredom of marriage. We regarded it as a symbol of conformity and oppressive patriarchy. Only boring straight people got married, before they settled in suburbia. Yes I know the current push is all about property rights and superannuation , but all these years later I’m still having trouble seeing it as a”progressive” cause.
Who really cares about this?
I don’t believe in gay marriage. I don’t believe in marriage.
Talk about bogged down in nothing. In Australia, now, marriage is nothing more than registering your intent to stay with one person with a state government department. Or, worse, asking the state to play a supervisory role in your personal relationships. What’s that about? The state is more than welcome in the education, health, and law enforcement (etc) realms of my life, but not in whom I choose to be with. In other countries there are legal and financial benefits to registering such a relationship (which is ludicrous, but a reality), but not here. Hurray for anyone that wants to, but why?