same love, same marriage, same rights
/
I haven’t blogged in a very long time, partly because I no longer watch news in Australia and I am then not pushed to reply to issues. However I have just arrived back from a few months overseas to a “national survey” on marriage equality. Whilst many people I know are voting yes, I have heard various arguments on why people are voting ‘no’. I respect any opinion that is based on information and facts but I, and no one else, needs to respect opinions that are not. While all people are equal, not all opinions are equal. We cannot go around saying whatever we want and except people to acknowledge and consider any unjustified opinions equally. Whilst people are allowed to vote no, the arguments and opinions on the ‘no’ side are misguided and if possible I would happily have the debate with each person (and have with a few) that says they are voting ‘no’ based on hysteria and misinformation. Until that is possible, I have addressed them here.
Because they have equal rights under the law and de facto relationships
This is not true in Australia. There are differences in the law for de facto relationships and marriage in many areas including in property settlements and spousal maintenance. One of the most important rights which are not given to de facto couples is being the next of kin, which is extremely crucial in cases of medical emergency and death. For example, in these cases, a person in same-sex relationship may not have the right or access to their partner to make medical decisions that affect their lives or even allowed to see them. De facto couples have the burden of proof before the courts before they will be granted rights that married couples can access. Besides all these factors under the law that dismiss the claims that same-sex couples do not need to the option to marriage, it’s still beyond the point. To exclude those couples from access to marriage is discrimination.
NEXT.
Because it’s against religious teachings
‘No’ votes generally come from a religious background and interpretation, even though religion should not be a part of this debate. The question of same-sex marriage is a legal one, and religion and the law are meant to be separate in Australia. That should end the debate but it doesn’t. Just based on human rights, religion should not impact the individual rights of others. Religious freedom in Australia allows each person to choose their religion or not have a religion and that person not be discriminated against based on that choice. It does not mean that they get to use their religion to control the lives of others. People choose their religion, they then choose to interpret a book written thousands of years ago, there is no logical way those choices should override the rights of others, especially in cases like sexual orientation which is not a choice.
NEXT.
Because it infringes on religious expression
I have heard an argument that allowing marriage equality under the law, would infringe on freedom of religious expression. The argument is that once it is legal for same sex couples to marry then people would not be allowed to discriminate based on their “religion” or more accurately their views in which they use religion to justify. The example often used is where a person might be made to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. There is no law which forces people to make cakes. The issue in these cases in other countries is not that someone just didn’t make a cake, they specifically refused to make the cake because the couple was homosexual and said so. They did so in order to discriminate, to humiliate and degrade that couple for their sexual orientation. That is the part that would be against the law. And to be honest, there will be enough amazing people making fabulous cakes for same-sex couples they would rather give their money to anyway.
NEXT.
Because they believe in ‘traditional marriage’
This is one of the main arguments used to argument for the ‘no’ vote. But honestly what does that even mean? For one, being ‘traditional’ anything does not make it automatically better. Just because we have done something for a long period of time does not mean it’s the best approach which is why laws, societies, practices and people change for the better. Specifically with marriage, ‘traditionally’ women and children were the properties of men and raping of women was legal. Did we want to go back, hold onto that type of marriage too? Also, ‘traditionally, otherwise known as up until 2004, the definition of marriage under the law did not include “man and a woman to the exclusion of all others” to exclude same-sex couples from marrying.
NEXT.
Because of the safe-school programs
Safe School’s is a national government funded program which is “aimed at creating safe and supportive school environments for same sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse people by reducing homophobic and transphobic bullying and discrimination in schools”. The argument from some ‘no’ voters is that the program would be forced upon students, like has occurred in other countries. First of all, I am not sure how a program in schools which is aimed at reducing bullying and discrimination is an issue. Further to that basic and fundamentally straight forward idea, any program in schools, is introduced by considering the overall benefit to all students. That is why in other countries, when this issue has been before the courts, the law has found in favour of these programs because the law will weigh up the rights of those involved. If parents want to object to anything regarding their children in schools they can, but because a few might object does not mean that particular subject will stop. A parent who doesn’t want their children doing sports because they might get hurt cannot just object to that and the class stops because it’s to the overall benefit of students. Beyond the above, the question in the survey is directly to the equal rights of marriage between adults. If same-sex couples are allowed to marry at that very moment everything else does not automatically change. ‘No’ proponents argue that it will make it harder to oppose Safe School’s type programs, but changing the law regarding marriage back to not discriminate does not concurrently instil a law or practice that would hinder parental complaints on curriculum.
NEXT.
If you don’t like two men having sex, they already do. If you don’t like two women having children, they already do. The survey is just a question regarding the legal definition of marriage between two consenting adults. If you don’t want same-sex couples included, then of course you can vote “no” but do so admitting that you want to discriminate against a group of Australians. Don’t hide behind other reasons to justify your vote. Don’t say to those same-sex couples that your ‘no’ vote is not a reflection of your opinion of their relationship being less than a heterosexual couple because that is exactly what you are saying by wanting those couple to be excluded from the legal right to marry.
Our generation cannot rest because minority groups have achieved more rights, because we have 80 percent or 90 percent of rights is not enough. Equality means equal and we have to continue the fight because we owe it to those that fought harder than we will ever know to get us where we are today. We owe it to ourselves to say it’s not good enough to have gained some rights, to be “almost equal”.
It is one of the greatest social challenges of our time to be empathic, to fight for the equality of all, even if it does not affect you personally. In the words of Macklemore in ‘Same Love’ “I might not be the same, but that's not important, no freedom 'til we're equal, damn right I support it”. Maybe that is why Macklemore’s performance of that song at the NRL Grand Final last weekend in Australia was met with such strong opposition from the ‘no’ side. It was claimed the performance was subjecting fans to a politicised Grand Final, ignoring the fact the ‘Same Love’ reached number one on the ARIA charts in 2012, was the year’s 14th biggest selling pop song in Australia, and one of Macklemore’s most popular songs so it would be on their playlist regardless of the current national survey. But maybe those in opposition of Macklemore’s performance were made more uncomfortable because here was a white, straight, well-off man just like them fighting for the equal rights of others.
This national survey provides a simple, straight forward question on whether the law regarding marriage in Australia should be equal for all people. Once again in the words of Macklemore “a certificate on paper isn't gonna solve it all but it's a damn good place to start”. To some of those individually not effected by the inability of same-sex couples to marry, it may seem at times to be a futile argument, that same-sex couples are just whinging. But this survey asked us to answer a simple question that that effects same-sex couples legal rights. It’s about their equality under the law and the acceptance of their relationships. No person should feel less than the next in Australia because of their sexual orientation. Non-discrimination and equality has, and will be, the greatest passion of my life. Marriage equality isn’t giving special rights, it’s giving equal rights. I want homosexual people to know there is nothing wrong with them, just at times there is just something wrong in the country in which we live. If ‘yes’ is the majority outcome of this survey, it will be one of my proudest moments to be Australian.