No gay marriage. Forget the honeymoon
June 30th 2010 04:46
Julia Gillard’s honeymoon period is over. For me at least.
Australia’s first female-atheist-single-redhead Prime Minister was asked during a radio talkback session this morning whether she would move to legalise same-sex marriage.
If she had answered, “No, not right now, because I have promised a federal election within a few months and I want to be allowed to focus on big-ticket issues such as health and education,” she would have had a point. Opposition leader Mad Monk Abbott, a former Catholic seminarian who has warned of the moral perils of sex before marriage, would love that issue to help him grab attention and headlines in the run-up to the election.
It would also have been an honest answer, and another first for Australian politics.
Unfortunately, honest responses have a habit of waking the masses dulled by ponderous proclamations, and Gillard, instead of treating the electorate as adults, offered just another dump-truckload of turgid political spin for the public to gag on.
“We've got very clear Labor Party policy on this and it won't be changing,'' Gillard said. “We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that it is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman.'' Gillard said the Government had taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples. The stance also reflected her personal view, she said.
Spin it as you like, Prime Minister, this is not equality. You either believe gays should be treated equally, or you do not. Make up your mind. Make up your party policy’s mind.
To help you do so, please consider that a policy based on the precept that “marriage is for a man and a woman” is outdated.
It suggests a moral obligation for anyone getting married to have children. There is no such moral obligation.
It suggests a social obligation to have children. There is no such social obligation, as you would know, Prime Minister.
Probably much to Mother Nature’s sadness, there is no longer even a natural imperative to have children. The world is overcrowded as it is, full of poverty and misery in slums created by the rapacity and corruption of politicians.
Marriage is for many things. Procreation, at the heart of the “man and a woman” school of thought, is just one of them.
Most of all, however, marriage is about a statement of commitment.
Does all this reflect majority community thinking? In terms of pure numbers – something which a politician understands – probably not. But that doesn’t make it wrong.
As long as the government of the day continues to carry a policy which preaches that “marriage is between a man and a woman”, they will continue to foster community acceptance of inequality, and intolerance towards committed, loving gay couples.
Today the Prime Minister had the biggest chance yet to move towards the equality she spins, and she decided it would be politically inconvenient to take it.
This is “where we are at as a community now and I think that it is appropriate for these very sensitive issues that we are reflecting community views,'' she spun.
On that basis, that radical Abe Lincoln should have left the very sensitive issue of slavery well alone.
| 217 |
| Vote |
Comments (8)
Add Comments
