What it is about is homosexuals wanting public affirmation that their sexuality is more than just OK or acceptable to the wider community. However in this country there is almost no problem at all with homosexuals being out and proud. We have done a damn good job of accepting people who are openly homosexual. There is almost universal acceptance of the recent changes to the way that homosexual couples are treated under the law here.
Greens MP Adam Bandt has introduced a motion to the House of Representatives calling for members to recognise community support for gay marriage in Australia.
The motion urges MPs to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue.
The Opposition is against the motion and Prime Minister Julia Gillard says Labor policy recognises marriage only between a man and a woman.
But Mr Bandt says he believes if MPs were to go out into their electorates they would find the public has a different view.
“It is the power of love that has brought us to this moment in the debate over marriage equality,” Mr Bandt told Parliament.
“And it is the power of love that will force this Parliament and this country to face the reality of what marriage and love means in the 21st century.”
Mr Bandt moved that Parliament should note the growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry and the widespread support for equal marriage in the community.
If the likes of Adam Brandt are so sure that the community supports their position why are they not advocating that this be put to a popular vote at a referendum? Well it probably has something to do with the fact that although a lot of people support the right for anyone to fuck any other consenting adult and for anyone to set up whatever sort of household they please they are actually quite content with the definition of marriage in the current marriage act and they see no reason to change it.
The only reason that this “debate” is getting any traction from Labor members of parliament is that it is a convenient distraction from that party’s more general policy malaise. That and the fact that having this debate is obviously part of the pound of flesh demanded by the Greens for their support to a Gillard minority government. When it comes down to I think that Phillip Ruddock is right on the money:
Philip Ruddock, who was attorney-general in 2004, said marriage should be limited to those who could procreate.
“The Opposition does have a clear position on that question, and it believes marriage is a union between a man and woman,” Mr Ruddock said.
“And the Opposition does not support any change to Commonwealth law that could diminish the institution of marriage and will continue to oppose any action that would alter that status.”
He said civil unions were recognised by the states and there was nothing to stop people being in de facto relationships.
This push will produce lots of smoke and lots of self-righteous noise from the usual suspects but it will ultimately make not a scrap of difference.
Cheers Comrades
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
The whole idea of MPs “gauging” the view of their consituents is an absurd one: such a process can produce any outcome, depending on how its done.
Want to say your constituents oppose gay marriage? Then go to construction worksites and pubs full of old men and you will get the answer you seek.
Want to say they support gay marriage? Then if you are a Labor MP, probably all you need to do is attend a meeting of your local branch.
I get the clear impression that the gay marriage push is more about drum-beating, attention seeking and gay “rights” than it is about any real desire for the vast majority of gays to be legally married. The fact is that marriage is an age-old convention based around the principal of a man and a woman co-habitating. Its origins and entire history are 100% heterosexually based and are the ultimate symbol of heterosexual lifestyle, aims & way of being. Why then do any gays want to emulate a long-standing heterosexual practice like marriage? It doesn’t make any sense and, in most cases, gays would be far better off having clearly defined unions that separate their assets and incomes. Its not like if they split up one partner needs supporting or gets to keep the kids. Maybe there’ll be an argument over who gets the cocker spaniel but then again, that can be defined by agreement too.
I agree with Ray here.
For those advocating gay marriage et al, I have two words for you, as to the reason why it will never happen.
The Church !
As I’ve always maintained, I am ambivalent on the issue of gay marriage, however, I don’t see it as a denial of “human rights” like some of the advocates are stating.
In fact Susie O’Brien has written in the Herald Sun today that marriage is a “fundamental” human right and has likened the denial of gays to be legally married to apartheid in South Africa and the treatment of blacks in the southern States of the USA pre civil rights changes. We’ve heard the same sort of comparisons & arguments from drum beaters like J Sear too but that’s just taking it too far in my opinion.
A denial of “fundamental” human rights is something that severely restricts, inhibits and disadvantages the ‘victim’ causing them pain & sufferring and limits their social and/or economic position. You know, their ability to have the same opportunities to enjoy life that everyone else has. However, I don’t think you can say that gays & lesbians suffer any such victimisation or disadvantage in Australia in this day & age.
The battle for gay equality has actually been won and I struggle to see the necessity to change the Marriage Act unless it’s just as some kind of symbolic victory march. Are they really sufferring through not being able to be called ‘Mr & Mr’ or ‘Mrs & Mrs’? Crikey, even a lot of hetero couples maintain separate surnames and the Ms title after being married. Are they socially or economically deprived by this? I don’t see how.
The problem is not – as the drum-beaters like O’Brien, Sear et al try to point out – that “62%” of Australians say gays should have the right to marry, it’s that 38% or thereabouts are still pretty strongly opposed to it. And they oppose it for a variety of reasons, not because they are “bigots” as O’Brien, Sear et al constantly (and rudely) proclaim (although obviously a small percentage are).
As for Adam Bandt claiming it’s about “love” and “love will conquer all”, give-me-a-break. We’ve done the 60s hippy “All you need is love” bit before haven’t we? How did that work out? He needs to get real and, btw, for someone who has been in Parliament for 5 minutes he sure has a lot to say. Maybe he needs to learn the ropes a bit better before he starts telling us how it should be.
Since when has it been a requirement of two people “in love” to get married in order to co-habitate and share the joys of living the rest of their lives together (or more like about 10-20 years of it for at least half of them)?
It used to be … in the dark ages before we realised and accepted that marriage wasn’t the be all and end all of happiness and the mark of a strong relationship. You know, when we realised that defacto couples have equal (dare I say “fundamental”) human rights too.
So why would we want to go back to those times? To the straight laced, don’t-live-in-sin Victorian era where couples living together out of wedlock were frowned upon. Isn’t that a regressive step and not progressive as Bandt, Sear, The Greens and (now) O’Brien claim it is?
The Greens – moving us backwards!
Ray
I agree with just about all you say here but I can’t resist this.
You say
and Julia Gillard insists that Labor is “moving forward” so that must mean that in a de-facto coalition the Greens and Labor are going nowhere!
Well the Greens ARE in reality retrograde, Iain, as much as they claim to be “progressive”. As for the juxtaposition of the ALP’s slogan of “moving forward”, well it makes for a better balance, I guess. Someone has to keep them in line.
I would like to see a gay, green asylum seeker move in next door to Iain. One that hates motor bikes, old cars and beards. Oh and its a female who likes to wear a Burka, preferably lesbian.
Have I missed anything?
IW
If you were to move in next door to me you would find, in the first instance, That you would not be that close because the nearest house to me is 100m away, secondly that I am a most friendly good neighbour who would be very quick to offer you a cuppa tea and a choice of biscuits or fresh dates (my favourite) and the polite respect that I offer everyone.
forgive the cliches but:
Some of my best friends are Greenies
I have family members and friends who are Gay just as most people do and they are just as welcome as you would be in my house.
My extended family has people of many ethnicities and different faiths which I think is great.
Have you ever ridden a motorbike? You don’t know what a pleasure you are missing 🙂
I have yet to meet anyone in person who does not like and respect me for building my own car and the fact that I have a very nice old Liberty as a daily driver.
As for the Beard maybe when you grow up you realise that having one is the indicator of a real man 😉
Yes, he/she should also be a cyclist. In lycra.
Ray I draw the line at Loonies in Lycra!
Yes, that would do it for me too. What about a drug dealer living next door, how would you like that? And would you dob them in?
That very much depends upon how much of a threat they would be to my family.
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
not relevant to this thread. apols, but you have no open thread. probably worthy of a post in it’s own right anyway iain..that is if you dare… 😉
Eric
Have you read the book in question?
If you want to buy me a copy so that I can read it I will write a post on it.
But form the link you post it looks like a typical conspiracy theory tome and not one I would pay money to read. In future You are welcome to send such suggestions to my email address if you find no suitable “open thread” I think that open threads have value when your blog reaches a certain commentary volume but I don’t think that I am quite there yet 😉
Gay people have exactly the same rights as every one else under the marriage act.
The whole argument it a furphy.
A gay man has the same right as a heterosexual man. He may, (if he is 18 or older and not married already) marry one only unmarried woman.
The converse is true for women. They may marry one only man under the same circumstances.
There can be no argument maintained that there is discrimination against homosexuals in the marriage act.
[…] Iain Hall gives his thoughts from his Sandpit: If the likes of Adam Brandt are so sure that the community supports their position why are they not advocating that this be put to a popular vote at a referendum? Well it probably has something to do with the fact that although a lot of people support the right for anyone to fuck any other consenting adult and for anyone to set up whatever sort of household they please they are actually quite content with the definition of marriage in the current marriage act and they see no reason to change it. The claim that the push for “Gay” marriage is all about “love” is just utter bollocks […]