One more step towards equality

As I’ve said before, if you oppose equality you’re on the wrong side of history:

The Senate in the American state of New York has approved a bill legalising same-sex marriage, virtually assuring final passage of the law.

They’re not the first, and they won’t be the last.

Prepare for the anti-equality mob to now ignore completely the utter failure of child abuse, polygamy, oppression of religious people and so on to sweep the place, as they always claim it will.

About these ads

32 responses to “One more step towards equality

  1. narcoticmusing

    But Lefty…
    The countries that have legalised gay marriage have of course descended into anarchy and compulsory anal sex and abused children and outlawed religions

    I of course just believed that and didn’t check it because it suited my demonisation.

    [end sarcasm]

  2. “Gillard: we’re not behind the times”

    http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2011/06/25/pm-speaks-at-wa-alp-conference/55386

    Wonder when we’ll hear about the WA ALP conference vote?

  3. “The first legal same-sex marriages in the United States took place in Massachusetts in 2004.”

    And that’s why the US is now in such a parlous financial state. :-P

  4. narcoticmusing

    We just need an ACA camera team and some dark, insidious music as background for filming a happy gay couple, and we are set for a new Lefty exclusive.

  5. That’s awesome Ronson. Actually two more to go – NSW and Federal, unless Federal decides to Just Do It after all the states pass it. July 9/10 for the NSW conference according to the nswalp.com website. So not long now before we’ll know.

  6. I think every Australian politician should watch NY state Senator Mark Grisanti’s speech:

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/06/25/NY_Marriage_Vote_Words_From_the_Floor/

  7. This is a wonderful result for marriage equality.
    It would be a wonderful result for this blog if SB would add his voice to those that celebrate this development.

    Libertarians have always supported the idea of marriage equality, true Conservatives, as opposed to Movement Conservatives, have always understoood the logical consistency of supporting marriage equality and Progressives (Lefties) have been the only ones who have supported and actively lobbied for marriage equality.

    I know that SB supports marriage equality, even though it flies in the face of the doctrines of his religious predilections.
    Nevertheless, SB is a principled person and, as such, eschews the doctrine in favour of logical and ethical consistency.

    Most newcomers to this blog might expect that SB would rue this news from New York.
    As somebody who has been around here for an uncomfortable number of years,I know that this is something that SB would rejoice in.
    To tell you the truth, SB is one of the most consistant defenders of human rights that I have ever come across on the Internet and in real life!

    If only we can get him to acknowedge that this is a small victory for “Lefties” against the fascism of Movement Conservatives.
    After that, we need to convince SB that identifying as Progressive (Lefty) is not sin because of the atrocities of the past, but a virtue because of the achievements of the present.

    *******
    Please don’t view this as an attack against SB.
    I only refer to SB because he’s the only only Anti-Left person who has the guts to show up here.

  8. narcoticmusing

    “Although I am a constitutional office-holder, he [Kirby's partner] is not protected under federal law as a spouse or de facto spouse of a Justice would be. His open participation in my public life is proper and rational. Hiding the truth because some people do not wish to face it is over. Most people hope for such an intelligent and enduring relationship in life. But as judges and barristers know from life and work, better than most, finding it is elusive. When it occurs, it is invaluable. Law is important. Life and love are even more so.”

    -Hon Michael Kirby, former Justice of the High Court, 2005.

  9. phyllis5tein

    And now I’m waiting for the gay remake of The Wedding Singer

  10. Splatterbottom

    Marek, you obviously know that I have consistently supported laws such as those New York is now legislating. The reasoning is not hard to grasp: if you believe in human liberty and due process then this requires that the law should be applied equally to all. I don’t know why I have to be called on to reiterate this view on every thread concerning this topic. I don’t have much to add to what I have already said, and not much is said here that I disagree with.

    Religion has a role in the personal lives of its adherents, but has no claim to have its agenda legislated. Even if a majority wish to legislate a particular agenda they have no right to do so if it means the restriction of the liberty of others or that the law does not apply equally to every citizen.

    On a personal note I resent having to live in a society where dear friends are denied their basic rights. I want to go to their weddings and celebrate their love and the public commitments they make to each other. Unable to do this I feel demeaned and tainted by my own country.

    I still find it shocking that it was not that long ago that homosexuality was decriminalised. I was then in my mid twenties and up to that time had lived under laws which resulted in the harassment and persecution of gays. We had the same argument then as now – all prejudice and no rationality.

    I feel saddened, sickened even, that I have to write this at all. It really isn’t that much to ask of people – that they allow to others the same rights they themselves enjoy.

    As to the anti-left thing, I should point out that I have some appreciation of the contribution of the left to our society. I’ll save the negatives for another thread.

  11. It beggars belief why JG is digging her heels in over this. I really don’t understand her position on this.

  12. It beggars belief why JG is digging her heels in over this. I really don’t understand her position on this.

    Not that hard to understand really – she is motivated by the same thing that motivates everything she does: the desire to get and to stay elected.

    Gay marriage is a gimme for Gillard: she can oppose it, thus assuaging her socially conservative voters, without losing any votes to the Liberals. She loses a few to the Greens in the other direction but I think she’s calculated it as a net gain overall.

    Take it as a given at this point that she has absolutely no principles whatsoever other than the attainment of power.

  13. jordanrastrick

    Gay marriage is a gimme for Gillard: she can oppose it, thus assuaging her socially conservative voters, without losing any votes to the Liberals. She loses a few to the Greens in the other direction but I think she’s calculated it as a net gain overall.

    Take it as a given at this point that she has absolutely no principles whatsoever other than the attainment of power.

    I predict the Gillard government will legalise gay marriage if elected to another term.

    At the moment, they simply have too many difficult policy battles going on at once to want to open up a contest on another front. Its sad and shitty that people’s rights are upheld because of political timing, but I think its the reality.

  14. given at this point that she has absolutely no principles whatsoever other than the attainment of power

    I guess that’s more what I meant when I said I can’t understand her position on this. I understand it’s a fairly crass grab for re-election, but I think I’m genuinely dissappointed that she is just another politician who’s happy to disregard other’s rights for the sake of her own political arse.

    Naive, I know.

  15. Eloquently said SB.

    I don’t know why I have to be called on to reiterate this view on every thread concerning this topic.

    You don’t. I was just being mischievous.
    You have a habit of offering multiple and hyperbolic iterations of outrage when you think the Left is being silly, yet are churlish in ackowledging when we’re not.
    I think it’s nice when we agree. I was just wallowing in the warmth of the moment. ;-)

    Cheers

  16. Every time I heard some of the pathetic arguments that the fear mongers have about same-sex marriage I think of this clip from Ghostbusters (which, ironically enough, was set in New York).

  17. “I guess that’s more what I meant when I said I can’t understand her position on this. I understand it’s a fairly crass grab for re-election,”

    But that’s the odd thing – gay marriage isn’t really a crass grab issue – 70% of the electorate support it. A few bigots in marginals are against it sure, but since they’ll vote Liberal or Family First anyway on a bunch of other issues, then why is Labor bothering to chase them on this one?

    “I predict the Gillard government will legalise gay marriage if elected to another term.”

    Legalize it now, and then when the sky doesn’t fall in during the next two years, the anti-gay bigots are neutralized as an issue next election. Wait until after the next election and it becomes an issue that the conservatives can use to drum up noise during the campaign to distract from something else.

    If crass politics is all the Gillard government is about, then they should get this one out of the way ASAP. Fill the newspapers with pictures of happy Just Married gay and lesbian couples and then dare the bigots to run ads next election that boil down to “we have to make these happy people miserable and unequal again”. Even swing voters will see the evil in that.

  18. narcoticmusing

    70% of the electorate support it. A few bigots in marginals are against it sure

    And that is the crux of it. While 70% are for it, almost none of them will vote purely on that issue, particualrly while neither major party supports it – it means there is no ‘pro-homosexual rights’ alternative (notwithstanding that there of course is, I’m generalising that most people do in fact vote for one of the two major parties). So it is all risk, no gain. Because those bigots you mentioned, WILL vote against it, but with no one really voting for it, it is only liability.

    It is pathetic. It should be a straight forward human rights issue FFS, not an election issue. This should not be a partisan issue.

  19. jordanrastrick

    A few bigots in marginals are against it sure, but since they’ll vote Liberal or Family First anyway on a bunch of other issues, then why is Labor bothering to chase them on this one?

    Labor is not focused on winning votes directly over this issue. They just want to stay on message, to use the finite attention the media will give them to convey their policy stances on climate change, asylum seekers, the NBN, the budget and other contested areas, as well as reinforcing Coalition weaknesses in domains like IR. If they open up a debate on a symbolic area of social progressiveness such as gay marriage at this time, they risk lending further ammunition to the idea that their agenda is being set by the Greens, and that they are distracted from addressing the economic issues that matter to the majority of the electorate. Most voters may support legalising gay marriage, but they would probably also (falsely) think the government has “better things to be doing”.

    This should not be a partisan issue.

    No, it shouldn’t, and if it had bipartisan support we wouldn’t even be talking about it any more.

  20. “Most voters may support legalising gay marriage, but they would probably also (falsely) think the government has “better things to be doing”.”

    Better things to be doing than improving equality and human rights? You do realize how condescending it is to gay people to say that? “Sorry, you have to wait until straight people decide to make you a priority”. That’s the same argument that moderate white people used 50-60 years ago to make black people wait just a little bit longer for civil rights – “when things calm down, you’ll get your rights then”. How long is too long?

    “Better things to be doing” presumes that the government cannot do more than one thing at a time. With 150-odd bills passed in parliament so far, on a huge range of issues, it is ludicrous to suggest that the number of more important things is insurmountable. Presumably there are government minsters who spend their time on other issues besides carbon price, refugees, etc. The limiting bandwidth here is not the number of “better things” – it is the narrow amount of media time available to sell the policy in tiny 10-second sound bites that cannot be twisted out of context by the conservative media.

  21. jordanrastrick

    Presumably there are government minsters who spend their time on other issues besides carbon price, refugees, etc. The limiting bandwidth here is not the number of “better things” – it is the narrow amount of media time available to sell the policy in tiny 10-second sound bites that cannot be twisted out of context by the conservative media.

    Of course. Nonetheless, the media environment is a constraint the government must operate under.

  22. narcoticmusing

    Unless one introduces similar provisions to Canada where the media is not allowed to intentionally mislead or deceive the public. But then, oh the gnashing of teeth we’d see if any Government considered that! It’d make today’s corporate fearmongering seem petty… even though it is.

  23. narcoticmusing

    Better things to be doing than improving equality and human rights? You do realize how condescending it is to gay people to say that?

    You realise how fast things are moving compared to say, ANY other group of rights? Compared to say, women’s rights? They too had to wait for white men to say, ok, lets give them a voice and even now, we still don’t have equality. Native title required a white High Court and there were still people wanting to legilsate around it to undo it. It is all bullshit, but white men, gay or not, still have more rights than a black woman.

  24. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “They too had to wait for white men to say, ok, lets give them a voice and even now, “

    Why the gratuitous reference to “white men”?

  25. narcoticmusing

    Because it was white men, SB. That’s just history, not an attempt to be anti-white men :)

  26. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic, a lot of women are still waiting, but not on white men.

    Why did you single out “white” men as though they were the only men oppressing women?

  27. jordanrastrick

    SB, narcotic said:

    Compared to say, women’s rights? They too had to wait for white men to say, ok, lets give them a voice and even now, we still don’t have equality.

    When women were for instance granted suffrage:

    * In Australia, Aboriginal men could not vote

    * In the U.S., African American men could be citizens and had equal rights to vote de jure, but of course de facto they often continued to suffer serious levels of disenfranchisement in the southern States.

    Thus I think its pretty reasonable to in both these cases to single out white men as the primary oppressors of women, at least in those nations at those points in history. Of course that’s not to deny that sexism is perpetrated in all cultures by people of all races, or that women have greater achieved equality as of today in Western nations than in certain other places in the world where white people don’t happen to be a dominant ethnicity.

  28. narcoticmusing

    Actually, I at no point stated that white men oppressed women or were the only ones to do so – you read that into it, but I didn’t say nor intend that.

    I actually pointed out that white men emancipated women, not that non-white men don’t oppress them. Skin colour doesn’t factor into whether they oppressed women, but white men were the power holders and thus were the ones relied upon to make the decision.

  29. narcoticmusing

    Btw, TY Jordan.

    I’m not the world’s greatest history buff, so I certainly appreciate the far more informed and educated minds here than mine. I just thought it was general knowledge that only white men were in government and most other positions of power then… not that much has changed in that regard.

  30. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “I just thought it was general knowledge that only white men were in government and most other positions of power then”

    Apologies Narcotic. I didn’t read your statement as being restricted to Australia.

  31. narcoticmusing

    There are other countries? ;)

    Np, SB. I didn’t mean (for once) to be controversial :)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s