I make sacrifices for this blog and one of the more recent ones was to listen to the new Totally Toxic “podcasts” where Dave and Jezza try to show the universe that they understand. In their latest effort Jezza sings the praises of a self-serving piece about Gay marriage from Kerryn Phelps (a lesbian in a long term relationship) where he claims that the long comment thread smashes any objections to the concept of Same sex unions being recognised as marriage. I reckon that its a pretty even thread with just as many well put arguments against Gay marriage than those in favour of it, but what he fails to mention is that there are also this series of comments form someone called “Jeremy”:
Jeremy says:
07:15am | 18/11/10
Knew it!
That is such a stupid argument – as if we can’t do more than one thing at once.
Jeremy says:
07:13am | 18/11/10
If it’s “for all intents and purposes” a marriage, then why not call it what I bloody is?
Jeremy says:
06:14am | 18/11/10
Exactly. Eloquently, irrefutable put.
Next they’ll resort to “but… but… There are other things we should be foretold about!” as if we can only do one thing at a time.
Jeremy says:
08:10am | 18/11/10
Bestiality is wrong, for one thing, because an animal can’t express consent.
Jeremy says:08:30am | 18/11/10
How is equality “special treatment”?
Jeremy says:
10:50am | 18/11/10
“Well, it can be argued that gay and lesbian couples already do have the same “rights” as everyone else: everyone over a certain age has the “right” to marry someone of the opposite sex.”
Um, no. I’m permitted to marry a woman, but my female friend isn’t. That’s discrimination. She’s denied a right I have, by virtue of her gender.
As for “let’s find points of agreement” – equality is kind of something you either have or you don’t. Anything short of equality is not equality, and I’m yet to hear a single rational argument why the government should discriminate against gay people.
Jeremy says:
11:02am | 18/11/10
“I think that if gay people want to be respected and accepted for who they are then they should accept that they’re not equal to heterosexuals”.
I love the circular logic in your second paragraph.“Marriage must be heterosexual because non-heterosexuals do not qualify”. Asinine.
Do you genuinely want an answer to “why can’t they be satisfied with second-class status before the law”?
Jeremy says:
07:13am | 19/11/10
“Kerryn, the problem with your argument that is you are suggesting marriage, a very particular and specific social institution, is the only way to ‘recognise’ same-sex relationships when it isn’t. “
No, she’s suggesting that the only way to have equality is for the law not to discriminate against people. Which is fairly self-evident.
Either gay relationships are to be treated equally by government or they’re not. If they’re to be treated equally then there’s no reason to make up a special new name for them, or devise a supposedly “equivalent” system – the only reason to do that is if you DO want to implicitly say they’re not equal.
Which is why “civil unions” aren’t the answer. Only full equality is.
And nobody on this thread has come up with a rational reason why they shouldn’t have it.
Jeremy says:
07:09am | 19/11/10
The equality side has a very clear and obvious “solution” – full equality. Do not specify genders in the Marriage Act.
Problem solved.
Its rather like hearing a tune that has been on the hit parade and its hard not recognise the familiar notes and lyrics. But you would have to think that for someone who writes under this Mission statement :
About Pure Poison
“Intellectual dishonesty is pure poison…” — Edward Lazarus
We expose the intellectual dishonesty, the flimsy arguments and the distorted data wherever they appear in the mainstream media. We challenge the punditocracy, and provide an alternative forum for discussing the day’s events. We welcome debate about politics and society, but constructive debate needs to be based on reason and facts. We’re doing our bit to hold the opinion-makers to these standards.
Would think twice about not being entirely open about his identity when commenting in a public forum.
That said if you want a more balanced piece on the subject which recognises the folly of Gillard dancing to the Greens’ tune on this issue then you need look no further than Christopher Pearson’s excellent piece in today’s OZ:
Speaking of dead ends, some American bishops have recently given a persuasive account of why same-sex marriage has come to look like a modest reform. They put it down to a culture where contraception and abortion are so widely practised that the crucial differences between a fertile couple, a couple childless by choice and a gay couple have been largely obscured and each partnership is seen as morally equivalent. They also lay some of the blame on a UN version of entitlement, in which marriage could be reduced to an unqualified abstract right.
The blue-collar social conservatives of the outer suburbs inhabit a less theoretical world. They are often unapologetically tribal in outlook and their best hopes are often invested in their children.
Most parents on low wages routinely make sacrifices on their kids’ behalf in ways middle-class couples seldom do these days. There is also still something self-sacrificial among many of them on marriage: the notion that it’s hard work much of the time but worth the effort.
There is another core constituency, sometimes overlapping, who have been critical to Labor’s victories in the past two elections. I’m talking about not just the Christian vote but the votes of people who are adherents of all the main, organised religions.
Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists all take the institution of marriage very seriously. As things stand, Labor can normally count on a fair share of those people’s votes. However, the electoral implications of giving them a faith-based reason for voting for the Coalition are obvious.
There are clearly very big electoral loses to be had for Labor if they succumb to the temptation to go with the Loopy Greens on this issue and for a party that is holding onto the treasury benches by the skin of other peoples teeth it just ain’t going to happen. But really, having accorded same sex couples the same status as any other de-facto couple the country is clearly not prepared to go further at present, maybe they never will be. As Sir Humphrey would tell the minister “that would be very brave” and I think that Gillard is far too happy being in the lodge to give it up for let a little thing like Gay marriage .
The Greens are dreaming on this one.
Cheers Comrades
Pingback: Tweets that mention Jezza says… Hmm but for a more balanced view of the issue read Christopher Pearson | IAIN HALL's Sandpit -- Topsy.com
This quote from the thread above that you’ve reproduced is one I’ve seen Jeremy repeat ad nasuseum. But it’s plain illogical:
That’s a lawyer using semantics to reach a conclusion that suits his own agenda. But it’s an invalid conclusion. The Marriage Act does not deny rights to females to marry females; it simply doesn’t address that issue. It can’t discriminate against something it’s not dealing with. When it was enacted it was done so to legalise marriage between opposite sexes and like all laws it reflected contemporary views. There was simply no thought put to gay marriages at the time and ergo no intent to discriminate. The Marriage Act stands alone as an effective instrument and requires no changes to make it work better or fairer. It was specifically designed to cover the formalisation of heterosexual relationships into a legal union called “Marriage”. The Marriage Act is for heteros wanting to be legally joined as partners. It works just fine and has served us well with minor changes being made here and there to reflect current trends, however, it remains an instrument dealing solely with heterosexual relationships not same sex ones.
If contemporary views have altered to say that same sex couples should have rights equal to hetero couples – and they have, and all except the real bigots in our society agree with that – then the answer is NOT to drastically reword the perfectly good wording of the Marriage Act governing hetero unions, but to simply enact another piece of legislation that gives same sex couples exactly the same rights.
I don’t like the term ‘civil union’ but I think there needs to be a separate act for same sex marriage because, let’s face it, the two types of relationships (hetero & same sex) are not exactly the same.
Why shouldn’t there be separate Acts to recognise those separate relationships?
Jeremy, and the other hetero Greens pushing this issue for political purposes, would argue there should be no such distinction made and to do so is “discriminatory”. Bullshit. The law makes distinctions between different groups of people all the time and the very reason it does that is the exact opposite of what Jeremy argues – it’s to remove discrimination against minority groups!
The Native Title Act comes to mind, under which indigenous people (a distinct minority group) are given title to land they can prove an ancestral connection to. It recognises that aborigines did not keep a Torrens style record of their land ownership but are (by possession and use) entitled to claim ownership & title based on history, with certain conditions. It’s an Act I wholeheartedly agree with, btw.
The point is that the Native Title Act was set up to give indigenous people THE SAME RIGHTS as other Australians who had more formally inherited their properties under western style laws. By Jeremy’s logic though, there should not have been a Native Title Act and, instead, the government should have completely changed the existing laws governing property rights to engross Native Title. End result – a real mess.
I agree with Jeremy that a law should not discriminate but there is nothing wrong with the laws making a distinction between the types of relationships and giving each its own piece of EQUAL legislation.
I favour the ‘Same Sex Marriage Act’ as the name of the Act to govern marriage between same sexes. By doing so it preserves the feelings of the large (very large) portion of the community that does not want to see the law governing their legal union diminished.
Am I the only one who thinks this whole debate is all about semantics, ie what we actually call gay relationships which want to be legally recognised?
So good you said it twice, Leon?
Obviously you’re NOT the only one who thinks semantics are being used by Jeremy, the Greens etc in this debate. Read the comment above your first one.
I deleted your duplicate comment Leon
Ray
Even I am happy to endorse some sort of civil unions for homosexual couples and realistically that is the only way that any sor of “gay marriage ” could ever be widely acceptable, well enough for it to be a reality in this country.
I believe most gay people would accept that gay marriage is different to hetero marriage and that it requires a separate Act. The main drum beaters wanting to rewrite the existing Marriage Act are hetero. They are just trying to exert political influence to get noticed and gain support as the so-called progressive party. You know who I mean – the retrograde Greens.
I tend to agree with that Ray But I think that Christopher Pearson* is right about it being political poison for the ALP they have be so foolish to let the Greens wedge them on this issue, But then they have hardly covered themselves with any glory since they managed to get into government.
*who is a Gay conservative
My bet is on Gillard going for a separate Act. I don’t think it’s poison to do that – it’s the best way of satisfying all concerns. The Greens are in no position to dictate on this issue or indeed on anything else. They can only have an influence – not force things – on the government. Which is as it should be considering their lowly numbers in both houses.
Jeremy says: Um, no. I’m permitted to marry a woman, but my female friend isn’t. That’s discrimination. She’s denied a right I have, by virtue of her gender.
Um, no, Jeremy. You are permitted to marry a member of the opposite gender – and so is your female friend. Exactly the same right. That’s “discrimination”? Oh, dear.
Am I wrong on this? Back when I was a youngie, in the 60s and 70s, marriage was considered unfashionable. Young people didn’t want the ‘Band of Gold’. The hippie generation balked at following hundred year old traditions to legitimise their relationships. Their relationships didn’t need ‘legitimising’ in their eyes.
Since then, the marriage vow, and more importantly, the marriage ceremony, seems to have once again resumed prominence in society. Why? We fought to break these bonds, yet a younger generation seems enamoured with the idea of a ‘white wedding’. Although ‘white wedding’ means anything other than what it once did.
Sure, let’s have a ceremony, or more properly, a party, because given the divorce rates, let’s not pretend a marriage is in any way a binding contract, commitment or spiritual union. At best it’s a reason for a post-coital party and that’s it.
So why are the powers that be espousing this archaic tradition being re-vamped to include homosexual couples?
Surely they wouldn’t want to adopt so flawed an arrangement? How is this archaic tradition fitting for their 21st Century emergence into society? Surely they’d want to show this brave new world that we no longer need archaic institutions like marriage, instead of insisting that, after hundreds of years they want to wedge-tail themselves into this old existence.
Gay and hetero couples already have equal legal rights. This spat is about being able to be called, ‘married’.
It’s a joke. It’s time for a new social order, a new social tradition. Forcing it down the throats of an older generation is going to achieve nothing. The original Marriage Act was written as being between man and woman. Rather than rewrite it, why not write a new 21st Century act. It’ll take a few years, but you can rest assure that once all the older people are long gone, you’ll have your brave new gay world.
With thanks to Ray Dixon for giving me the original idea…
GD, I’ve previously pointed out that the Greens and other so-called ‘progressives’ beating the gay marriage drum are actually advocating a return to the Victorian era when ‘living in sin’ was frowned upon and you had to be married to co-habitate. This latest slogan they’ve adopted of equal ‘love’ is so hypocritical. Love between partners who are NOT married is every bit as equal to those who are.
I don’t agree though that we should rewrite the existing Marriage Act. Leave it alone for those who want it. And if gays truly want to be married then by all means give them their own separate legislation – to cover same sex marriages/relationships.
The reality is that this issue is being pushed for cynically motivated political reasons. The Greens – who in reality are anti-progress, anti-growth & retrograde – want to be known as the progressive and innovative party to capture the imagination of younger voters and those not happy with the status quo. What better way to do that than attack an institution like marriage and demand it be torn down and rearranged to include homosexuals? It’s political grandstanding, pure & simple.