“A private moral view that same-s-x couples are inferior to opposite-s-x couple is an improper basis for legislation…
“Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homos-xuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.”
And so US federal judge Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8, the California vote that vetoed same-s-x marriage. Denying homos-xuals the right to marry, he effectively argues, is unconstitutional. The mood outside court, and across the nation, was euphoric. Appeals will come, no doubt, but this is what change looks and feels like.
During the trial, Harley Dennett writes for Crikey from the US capital today, Judge Walker asked the lawyer defending Proposition 8 what harm was caused by same-s-x marriage. His response?
“I don’t know. I don’t know.”
Political harm, perhaps. Julia Gillard has repeatedly spoken out against gay marriage during our federal election campaign (Tony Abbott’s opposition is well-known). Such an irrepressible global movement — Wikipedia counts 44 countries that allow gay marriage, joined last week month by Argentina — is a step too far in Gillard’s small-target strategy. A Little Australia in every respect.
But Judge Walker’s question remains: just what harm will it do?
Vote 1: Secular Party of Australia
What harm will it do???
Why we won’t have enough people on the planet!!
There’s only 6 1/2 billion of us… I’m sure we need more 😀
If you exclude the personal moral bias implications of the judge’s question, as he himself indicated was a proper course of action, then the question of harm can only considered from the perspective of society as an organic whole. What are the implications, or where is the harm, of same sex partnerships / marriages / etc for the collective social organism?
Over the short term (i.e. during the natural lives of the so implicated individuals) it would be reasonable to assume any negative social implications would be at least counter balanced by potential benefits stemming from likely having happier, healthier partnered up social contributors actively participating within the social organism.
So the only implication of note for society becomes one of longer term sustainability. And that consideration must centre on the fact that possible contributors to the ongoing genetic story of society are potentially not contributing as effectively as they could if they were in mixed sex relationships.
From a purely Australian perspective the long term effect of artificially suppressing breeding pair numbers seems to support the current political push to keep population numbers in our country to a minimum. So you’d have to argue that, personal moral bias aside, allowing same sex marriages is something both political parties implicitly support in their social sustainability policies in the lead up to the current election.
Julia Gillard has a senior minister who is a lesbian as is one of her senior staffers. How long can she pretend that this is a marginal issue? Who does she seek compromise with? Religious bigots? What is the historical and cultural basis for opposition to same sex marriage? Is it the same historical and cultural basis for support of slavery, antisemitism and oppression of women?
You are either equal or your are not. There are no degrees of equality.
@JamesG
Julia Gillard already believes that old people don’t vote Labor.
She needs to learn that religious bigots don’t vote Labor, either.
She won’t lose their votes and she’ll never win them.
Why waste Australia’s time pandering to their homophobic agendas?