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”.
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.