Home » Posts tagged 'Civil union'
Tag Archives: Civil union
If you have listened to this song before then it should not have escaped your attention that the process of making good gravy is just as important as the nature of the the ingredients I hear the song on the radio this morning as I read Janet Albrechtsen this morning.
Gay marriage is not akin to securing the vote for women or ending apartheid. After all, civil unions are commonplace. Gay couples enjoy the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples. If they don’t they should. But the political battle to claim the word “marriage” for homosexuals is an elite agenda of the political classes for reasons not always honest.
Take the disingenuous claim that traditional marriage is an evil form of discrimination against gays. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in Hollingsworth last week, “when the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”
Yet, those who oppose gay marriage for legitimate reasons are too often treated as morally inferior, out-of-date, and worse, bigoted.
Whether it’s a snooty editorial from The New York Times ridiculing the “incoherence” of opposing gay marriage in Hollingsworth or mocking grumbles from the audience on ABC1’s Q&A, too many gay marriage advocates have chosen the wrong way to advance their cause.
Redefining marriage in a way that promotes social cohesion means winning people over with reasoned arguments rather than trying to guilt them into agreeing.
What our activist friends seem to forget is that for the sort of social changes they desire they have to convince rather than coerce a change from those of us who want to see marriage remain as a heterosexual institution.
Patience is a virtue that seems far too removed from the activist mindset, maybe it shouldn’t be so if they want the changes they desire to be enduring accepted and effective.
While I don’t support the concept of same sex marriage I do endorse the idea of civil unions so I found the conclusion to Malcolm Turnbull’s Michael Kirby Lecture delivered at Southern Cross University last night is worthy of note:
Let me now turn to the politics of the matter. The Labor Party has resolved that there will be a conscience vote on this issue, although the party’s policy is to support gay marriage. The Liberal Party has resolved not to have a conscience vote on this issue, and the party’s policy is to oppose gay marriage.
Many argue that the Liberals’ lack of a conscience vote means the gay marriage bills will not pass. I don’t think they have the numbers to pass, but I am far from convinced that in the present Parliament they would have the numbers even if a conscience vote were permitted.
So what is to be done? In my judgement, while the numbers are not there for gay marriage in this Parliament, they are certainly there for civil unions. We should not miss the opportunity to legislate for civil unions for same-sex couples in this Parliament. I recognise that will be seen by many as not good enough. But it is better than nothing and, as I said in the House last week on another issue, it is a great mistake to allow your conception of the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
It is said by the ”marriage or nothing” advocates that if the Parliament were to legislate for civil unions there would never be a move to marriage. On the contrary, it appears that most jurisdictions which have legislated for gay marriage have first provided for civil unions, including the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Norway and Canada. The United Kingdom and France, which recognise civil unions, are both proposing to legislate for marriage.
Personally I think that civil unions should be enough in their own right rather than changing the marriage act but that is just my position. However I suspect that as the zealots for this cause who have been banging the “all or nothing drum” with unseemly vigour for the last few years will find that they will end up with nothing.
As a supporter of Civil Unions for same sex couples I was a little concerned that the declaration that a LNP government would scrap the hastily created Civil Unions act in Queensland because it seemed to me to be a wrong decision. Fortunately as it turns out Newman has found a way to amend the legislation to create a compromise that we can all live with.
Of course the so called “equal love” zealots like Rodney Croome or our learned friend are going to be horrified and they will see this as a retrograde step but they don’t really like the realities of democracy anyway. No, putting the the zealots to one side this decision is a sound and sensible one that protects the interests of couples without offending those of us who believe that marriage is a profoundly heterosexual institution that does not need reform. Well done indeed Mr Newman
A great piece today in the Oz from my favourite Marxist Brendan O’Neil where he succinctly explains why some otherwise sensible conservatives are taking the plunge to support this seemingly innocuous err, cough, splutter, “reform”.
Of course I expect that our learned friend will be onto this piece like a starving hound would be onto the fox, with a great deal sound a fury (signifying nothing) but we only have to look to Canada to see just how bad the repercussions will be if this so called reform is ever to be made manifest if the activists and fag hags ever get their way.
So lets leave the marriage well enough alone and if homosexual relationships need any sort of legal recognition and social acknowledgement then lets do it through other legal and social instruments like some sort of civil union or relationship register.
I have just read the revelation in the Oz that Tony Abbott’s sister is herself both Gay and in a committed relationship and more importantly that this has not meant that she has become persona non grata at the Abbott household where she has been welcome with her partner on numerous occasions.
Cheers again Comrades
Update the second
As predicted our learned friend has produced a rant about Brendan’s piece in the OZ and also as predicted he is very hound like in his he desire to attack and maul the fox here but I think that he has just ended up with a mouth full of straw and dead air:
Now I am actually a student of our learned friend’s rhetoric and usually he tries to at least find something in the text which he can twist and turn to his purposes but on this occasion he goes one step further and totality invents and argument that O’Neill is not even making:
O’Neill actually argues that – get this – the government stopping trying to encourage gay people to marry straight people (which seems cruel to the straight people who marry them, to be honest) is “an invitation to yet more state interference” in our lives.
Yes, there’s less state control of our lives when the government arbitrarily tells us whether we can marry that man or that woman, purely on the grounds of our gender.
It’s the most bizarre black-is-white up-is-down argument I can remember ever seeing.
I may be wrong, but after reading the O’Neill piece in question five times I can’t find where he argues this at all. of course Our leaned friends fans uncritically accept his argument without question
Worse still our learned friend totally misrepresents O’Neill’s actual argument as well by a mixture of selective misquoting and derision:
Brendan goes on to give us some even sillier stereotyping and false assertions (“A gay relationship is fundamentally one of romantic love, far more so than traditional marriage is”), absurd claims (“In Canada… the words husband and wife, even mother and father, have been airbrushed from official life”) and dishonest strawmen (“Collapsing together every human relationship under a mushy and meaningless redefinition of ‘marriage’”), but that backwards freedom-is-slavery line appears to be his main point, and, unlike the above common furphies, a line I’ve never seen before.
If our learned friend had actaully done some research about the situation in Canada he would discover that there is nothing made of straw or dishonest about the way that official nomenclature has been altered in reference to family and parental roles in the wake of gay marriage there. Unlike our learned friend Brendan O’Neill actaully knows what he is talking about when it comes to the situation in Canada.
The rest of Sear’s rant is just his typical foaming at the mouth wild hound dog raving he is desperately trying to get a mouthful of that O’Neill fox but all he has managed to get is teeth around is a few handfuls of rather rank straw. In typical totalitarian style he declares himself winner as if asserting something will make it so and all the while the fox is sitting there doing a bit of indifferent grooming and leading the chorus of laughter at our learned friend’s foolishness. What a lovely way to wake up to a beautiful day!
Cheers times three Comrades
- CLE on Same Sex Marriage and Civil Unions (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
- The U.K.’s Marriage Equality Debate Heats Up (newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com)
- Homosexual Partnership. (iangardnerdotcom.wordpress.com)
- “Why gay marriage is a very bad idea” (ebougis.wordpress.com)
- What Effect Will Gay Marriage Have? (queerlandia.com)
- Gay marriage: The fight is on, but who is calling the shots? (independent.co.uk)