same-sex marriage
19 Nov 2008
Marriage Needs Gay People
The "sanctity" of marriage is undermined more by heterosexual couples every day than by the prospect of same-sex matrimony, writes Sunili Govinnage
The debate over same-sex marriages is causing bitter division across California as protests rage against the passage of Proposition 8 — the ballot on constitutionally restricting the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman.While protesters have suggested boycotting Utah to punish that state for the Mormon church's support of the ballot measure, and the Governator talks about a Supreme Court intervention, it's time for every civil society to sit down and think about this whole gay marriage thing.
In April this year, the Rudd Government announced legislative amendments to remove discrimination against same-sex couples in areas such as superannuation, tax and Medicare. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission welcomed the move — although it was not until the finer details came out that it turned out that the announcement needed to be taken with a pragmatic grain of salt. The right of same-sex couples to marry was excluded from the amendments.
Patience and goodwill on this issue is running out. The Federal Attorney General announced that "the elimination of same-sex discrimination continues" back in September, but as at 19 November, the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws — General Law Reform) Bill 2008 is still sitting in that corner of limbo where things sit after the Senate Committee has reported but nothing further has been done.
And then there was Rudd and McClelland bullying the ACT by telling them they are not allowed to legislate for civil union ceremonies. In fact, Rudd actually "warned the ACT Government [he] would use Commonwealth powers to scuttle any laws to introduce civil partnerships in Canberra on the grounds it would too closely mimic marriage".
That report kicked the wind out of me.
Apparently the ACT is allowed to have a "relationship register", which means the unions are legally recognised, but it seems that letting same-sex couples gather in front their families and friends to commit themselves to each other is the gateway drug to ruining the moral fibre of society, and ergo anything closely resembling such a thing is an outrage that must be outlawed.
The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, High Court judge and poster-boy for idealist law students everywhere (see Facebook group The Justice Michael Kirby Appreciation Society), explained the status quo with his characteristic wit at the inaugural John Marsden Lecture in October:
"The relationships of same-sex couples can only be registered — rather like a dog or busker's licence. I hope that fellow citizens of good will who think upon this will not be surprised if many homosexual people in long-term loving relationships say politely to this differentiation: 'Thank you; but no thank you'."
Why all this opposition to same-sex marriage, though? According to submissions received by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during its enquiry into same-sex entitlements, "In law, marriage and the family are entitled to special recognition and protection", and "Marriage should not be devalued by treating it as just another 'couple relationship' [or] same sex relationships." .
Can't argue with that, can you?
Actually, American lefty-scum pundit Keith Olbermann does just that, and does it rather well, in his response to Prop 8 last week:
"I keep hearing this term 'redefining' marriage. If this country hadn't redefined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people ... The parents of the President-elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not redefined marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. ... Marriages among slaves were not legally recognised.
"You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognised if the people are ... gay."
"And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing — centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children ... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the sanctity of marriage rather than render the term meaningless?"
Apparently this "protection of sanctity" argument only works one way. Heterosexual couples can tarnish and destroy whatever "sanctity" their unions may have, but even the worst heterosexual marriage is not at risk of being annulled. Meanwhile homosexual marriages in which couples aren't adulterous and don't drunkenly beat each other into a pulp (for example) are not allowed to be recognised.
Marriage is not the intellectual property of any church or group. It's the identification of a bond between two people that is hopefully based on love, and no marriage is the same as another. So why are people so vehement in their demands for picking one definition over another?
There's only one common denominator when it comes to identifying a marriage, or what a marriage should look like — and that one thing is love.
Plain and simple. Love. You love someone. You want to share one life. You get married. Happily ever after. Or something.
Which leads me back to Olbermann's original question to people who support the sentiment of Proposition 8:
"Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want — a chance to be a little less alone in the world."
I, like Olbermann, would like to point out that I am not gay. I just believe in equality, that's all. And, in the spirit of those Californians who've put black tape over their wedding bands to protest Prop 8, I recently informed my boyfriend of four years that we will not be getting married until every other couple who wants to do so can do so as well. Too drastic? I've waited this long for him to propose anyway, so it's no big loss. It also means we can't get divorced like so many heteros.
Same-sex couples know about divorce rates too, yet many still want to get married. Perhaps their courage and enthusiasm will provide exactly the kind of renewal this worn old institution needs.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
"Marriage is not the intellectual property of any church or group. It’s the identification of a bond between two people that is hopefully based on love, and no marriage is the same as another."
This is a brilliant article.
I’m also not getting married until everyone can (and probably not even then, but still).
DDT Chumley
The feminist analysis of marriage was quite clear - marriage is about property - and slowly women have fought to regain property rights that were stripped from them by centuries of patriarchy and to establish themselves as active agents in their lives.
It is not so long ago that wives were property and could be traded away as happened in South Australia in the 19th century.
As late as the 1950s children were seen as property of the father and it was rare that a divorced mother got to keep her children.
Whatever the religious rituals are about the sanctity of marriage, it is the Family Law Act which is what applies to couples and most of the pressure for same sex "marriage" has been pressure to recognise the property rights of cohabiting people who have not been "blessed" with the string of legal assumptions about property that comes with the marriage ceremony.
You marry and immediately void all previous wills and if you died 10 minutes after the ceremony your spouse would be entitled to all your property.
You marry, accumulate property and superannuation and have children and then divorce it gets split 50:50 unless you are able to show that anything you owned prior to marriage was not financially serviced during the term of the marriage.
This is why prenuptial marriage agreements are entered into.
Unfortunately the Australian Family Law Act has now shifted to a point where even if you deliberately do not marry, should you have children, the property rights decreed by the Family Law Act will also apply to the "de facto" or common law marriage.
My advice to any young woman seeking to enter a hetero relationship is:
a) never have the father’s name put on any child’s birth certificate
b) live next door to him in a separate house
c) always have your own income.
It’s sound advice for same sex couples too.
This article, along with Keith Olbermann’s response, has kicked me out of ambivalence and into action. But what possibly sets me apart from most who are only now up in arms about gay marriage, is that I am gay myself.
Up until now I considered marriage a concept devised by the ignorant leaders of organised religion and controlled by the incompetence of legislators. Both of which have served primarilty to alienate me based on who I love.
The idea of saying "I Do" used to make me cringe but now I see it in a different light. I no longer ask "why on earth would I want to enter into Holy Matrimony when I have no faith in religion or regulation?" I now pose questions like "Why should I be denied something that might, in fact, make me happy?"
Now, not only do I want the the same access as others do to things that might bring me permanence and a sense of belonging, I know I deserve them.
Whatever they may be.
What a pity the excellent Keith Olbermann’s editorial didn’t come out prior to the vote.
The video should be compulsory viewing to all those who oppose same-sex marriage.
Protest for same-sex marriage rights 1pm this Saturday (22nd of November) on the steps of the State Library (Corner of Latrobe & Swanston st)
Endorsed by James Vygus, Queer officer for the National Union of Students and Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young
For more information go to http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1821&Item…
or contact James on 0412 906 978
Sir Elton put it thus; "What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. The word marriage is going to put a lot of people off" He went on to say, "I don’t want to be married. I’m happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married they can have a civil partnership, you get the same equal rights". This is not entirely true. You don’t get the right to hold a ceremony in a church, which is a sore point for some. And just as some gay or lesbian couples will settle for nothing less than a full-blown church based wedding, some couples would never dream of having their wedding in a church. It’s a moot point. Neither the federal government or the opposition support gay marriage or any other "marriage like" institution, but it will hardly matter once all the legislation for same-sex equality is passed. And I’m certain it will be. The coalition put up no opposition to the first bill, Steve Fielding being the only dissenter. When all the laws have gone through, same-sex de facto couples will have all the legal protections that mixed couples take for granted. If they still want official recognition, they can register their partnership (at least in Sydney, Melbourne, Tasmania and the ACT). They can even have an unofficial ceremony if they want. People are having them all the time.
For the reasons which have already been expressed above, I support equality for gay people, and their right to have their union recognised by the state. However, I would take issue with the argument that "marriage needs gay people" and in contrast would argue that marriage and homosexuality are inherently contradictory concepts. Marriage is a Christian institution of social control. It seems to me that gay people who want recognition by this institution are akin to black people wanting to join the KKK.
It puzzles me, therefore, why gay people would want recognition from an institution which has renounced, denigrated, rejected, dehumanised and persecuted them for thousands of years, and indeed, no matter how open-minded church leaders become, cannot possibly recant its view of homosexuality as an affront to God.
Unless the very unlikely step of rewriting the Bible is adopted, gay people are in effect asking for a blessing from a religion whose holy text contains quite unambiguous statements like:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.
Gay people, more than anyone, should reject the "sanctity" of marriage for what it really is: an antiquated method of social control designed by straight white men, for straight white men. Maintain your religious beliefs, by all means, and seek equality in the law, but do not waste your time trying to appease or seek countenance from a bunch of bigots.
Well said, Sunili.
Sunili: Much as I sympathize with your cause. Of course I think same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the privileges of straight-couples. But the one, from my perspective, impenetrable question I have about the institution of marriage for anyone, straight or gay is. Why TF would anyone want to get married? IMHO the only reason to get married is if your going to have children. Here I’m assuming that a beautiful name like Sunili was bestowed on a female. Please listen to me. Marriage is an institution thought up by men to control women. Be warned, I speak with considerable experience.
Sunili: Much as I sympathize with your cause. Of course I think same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the privileges of straight-couples. But the one, from my perspective, impenetrable question I have about the institution of marriage for anyone, straight or gay is. Why TF would anyone want to get married? IMHO the only reason to get married is if your going to have children. Here I’m assuming that a beautiful name like Sunili was bestowed on a female. Please listen to me. Marriage is an institution thought up by men to control women. Be warned, I speak with considerable experience.
Ben Pobjie: You shouldn’t encourage her. Really you shouldn’t.
Cheers
V.
bails11, it really is disappointing to see how many progressive minded people like yourself have lapped up the propaganda of the Christian Right on this issue- marriage is not nor has it ever been a solely Christian institution.
That you quote Leviticus (from the Jewish Old Testament) shows how far they’ve roped you in.
The institution of marriage existed prior to Christianity in every part of the world that humans have settled. In parts of Ancient China and Indigenous North America this even included same sex marriage.
Throughout history wherever gay men and lesbians have found a modicum of freedom they have held their own ceremonies to celebrate their relationships even if they were not recognised by their communities or the state.
Even in third world nations today where gay and lesbian individuals have no rights and homosexuality is harshly punished, gay couples are routinely arrested taking part in illegal gay weddings.
For most of the two thousand years that Christianity has been around, a church marriage with a priest was the sole preserve of the wealthy classes who could afford to pay the church- like the selling of indulgences, church weddings were a money spinner for the Church.
The words used in the Christian rite of marriage appear nowhere in the Bible and Christ established no such ritual.
The Christian marriage rite we know today was written hundreds of years after the death of Christ and has been updated down through the centuries.
Traditionally the poorer classes married through their own secular rites held in front of family and community- for my ancestors in Scotland this could involve as little as a public pledge with the wedding sealed by the couple jumping over a broomstick together.
In fact the only unique Christian rite is the rite of baptism- and even this they share with the Mandeans (followers of John the Baptist).
Marriage was good enough for my atheist parents (in my father’s case, twice) and its been good enough for many of my atheist and agnostic heterosexual friends.
That being said, there are an increasing number of Christian denominations around the world that consider gay and lesbian couples suitable for the Christian rite of marriage, with others in the process of holding the discussions needed for them to go down that road.
As of next year, the Church of Norway will be the first state religion to recognise gay and lesbian couples with not just full civil marriages but a full church wedding as well.
Many individual believers in more conservative denominations also believe gay and lesbian couples are acceptable for marriage even if their leaders do not. The right to freedom of belief is an individual right, not one to be dictated by church leaders.
The ban on same sex marriage not only discriminates against same sex couples and infringes on the separation of church and state, it also infringes on the right to freedom of belief and religion by stopping these progressive believers from seeing their beliefs practiced as they see fit.
bails11- you really think marriage was created by white people?
Bails — I point you to the words of Andrew Sullivan over at The Atlantic:
Venise: You may be one of the few people to guess my name is female, and I thank you for that. I get mail addressed "Dear Sir" all the time. Thank you also for your well-meaning advice. Having grown up through my parents’ horrible marriage, it is not something I take lightly, but I do believe that every couple owns the authorship of their relationship regardless of what conditions society may have historically tried to apply to it.
Thanks also to everyone for your comments.
- -
http://sunili.wordpress.com
Hey this is about equality!
Why should heterosexual couples only have to have mother-in-laws!
(-: