This time, let’s change the Marriage Act with love instead

Miranda Devine must’ve finally recognised that what happened to the Marriage Act in 2004 was wrong:

Forcing a change to the Marriage Act through fear is not tolerance, nor is it tolerable.

About time she called John Howard out.

But Miranda has a problem with that poll which revealed that an ever-increasing number of Australians support gay marriage – 62% then, but increasing – because the question had a preamble naming seven of the countries in which it’s already recognised by law. “Aha!” cries Miranda. “The poll arrived at its conclusion by asking a leading question.” Letting respondents know the reality of the situation – Miranda doesn’t deny that the preamble was quite true – undermines the ignorance the conservatives have been fostering in the electorate, on which marriage discrimination depends! She complains:

Obviously, asking the question in the way Galaxy did implants the idea that same-sex marriage is so commonplace and widely accepted in reasonable countries that to disagree would be perverse.

Or, in other words, when appraised of the facts that Miranda cannot and does not dispute, to disagree with marriage equality “would be perverse”.

Well, quite.

Meanwhile, over at The Australian, Christopher Pearson attempts to outline a conservative case against gay marriage, by listing the “sound, practical reasons” for keeping privileges aside for heterosexual matrimony:

Men and women tend to have different needs and priorities when they enter a mature sexual relationship.

Most men are not naturally disposed to be monogamous, for example. One of the purposes of marriage is to bind them to their spouses and children for the long haul and to give the state’s approval to those who enter such a contract and abide by its terms.

An argument which will resonate for all those whose marriage is about trapping a man, and will appall and alienate everyone else.

Another of the purposes of marriage is to affirm that parenthood is a big, and in most cases the primary, contribution a couple can make, both to their own fulfilment and the public good.

Infertile couples – including all those involving post-menopausal women – prepare for the conservatives to have your marriages annulled.

And… well, that’s all he had. The same stupid non-arguments that have been dismantled again, and again, and again.

The sad thing is that all these supposedly “pro-marriage” lobbyists, in arguing against marriage for people against whom they think the law should discriminate, is that they have to seriously sell marriage short in order to do it. They have to take away all that is good and beautiful about it – about long-term commitment, about love and support and care and family – and concentrate on frippery that excludes not only gay couples, but many heterosexual couples whose marriages the law already recognises. Marriage is not defined by child-raising, or infertile couples couldn’t marry. Marriage is not defined by religion, or non-religious people couldn’t marry. Marriage is not defined by archaic views of the sexes, or modern couples with very different gender arrangements couldn’t marry.

What’s tragic is that by concentrating on these peripheral, optional things, the supposed “pro-marriage” advocates make marriage seem like much less than it is. They make it sound like a nasty, sexist, oppressive, inhuman monstrosity that no sane person would enter willingly.

They’re tainting the thing they think they’re preserving.

PS Can you imagine how embarrassed these writers’ grandchildren are going to be if they ever find out how hard they used to work to try to maintain discrimination against gay people?

ELSEWHERE: China demonstrates how the lack of gay equality hurts straight people.

AND: IPA conservative Chris Berg puts a conservative case for gay marriage, smashing his compatriots’ most asinine line:

The most common conservative case against gay marriage is that the very idea is an oxymoron; marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman. But this seems less about protecting the sanctity of marriage and more about protecting the sanctity of the dictionary.

And even that is a stupid fight, because most dictionaries include a broader definition of marriage already.

5 responses to “This time, let’s change the Marriage Act with love instead

  1. {I don’t link to defamatory moronic crap, Leon. – Jeremy}

  2. I agree with you Jeremy. The arguments against marriage equality are infantile, always boiling down to “because I say so.” My friend Gigi at the Preston Market said “marriage isn’t between a man and a woman. Marriage is between olive oil and balsamic vinegar to make salad dressing. It’s mixing two different things to make something better.”

  3. hillbillyskeleton

    I’m glad the arch-conservatives have finally been forced out of their foxholes, which Howard expertly dug for them, into the cold light of day in the 21st century to try and argue their irrational case without him. So far they are failing miserably. I also notice that the powers that be in the Liberal Party have kept Abbott pretty quiet about the issue, other than mouthing the formulaic,”Marriage is between a man and a woman.” He might speak some homophobic/misogynistic truths otherwise.
    Devine’s arguments are a crock. So, all those Nation States, and States of America that allow gay Marriage know not what they do? Ahem, no.
    As for the outed, by Abbott, homosexual Christopher Pearson, his arguments are pure hypocrisy. As a devout Roman Catholic does he not realise that his homosexuality is an abomination under God? But that’s OK because that’s him, but taking it one step further to marriage is the line in the sand that cannot be crossed? Bunkum.
    Not to mention all the adulterers out there who seem to be able to abuse their marriage vows with impunity, according to the conservatives, because they are a man doing it with a woman.
    Still, no one has the answer to the question about marriage between a gender-reassigned woman and a man. That’s OK with the conservatives then?

  4. Right – that ‘article’ has sealed it – I no longer have any tolerance at all for those advocating against gay marriage. I’ve not seen the irrational stupidity of the anti-equality position laid out as clearly as Mr Pearson just managed to do.

    He presents not one single rational argument for the exclusion of homosexual couples from marriage. Not one. Even the arguments pointing out what’s good about marriage categorically fail to note how any of that would change with the introduction of gay marriage.

    But he adds some spectacular idiocy to the usual nonsense:

    Among the reasons the Greens are so keen on same-sex marriage is that they want to reduce the population and drive down national fertility.

    In other words Christopher Pearson believes that legal recognition of gay marriage will impact Australian fertility rates.

    Sorry – I had to bold that because it is the most idiotic thing I’ve seen written for a very long time. Presumaby Chris’ sperm are just waiting until the law is signed before they go on strike in protest.

    Chris Pearson – you are monumentally stupid and, more than anything this year, your article has convinced me of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your cause.

  5. Pingback: Don’t split the “no religion” result with joke answers | An Onymous Lefty

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s