If New York can do it…


Ok, I know I have written about this subject before, but in response to New York having made same-sex marriage legal, I just felt I needed to make further comment. I mean, come on –  if New York State can do it, then surely Australia can as well. Now I know that might sound odd, because after all NY is so cool, hip and liberal, so of course it passed there. Well actually, the State of New York is not all that liberal. When you take into account the rather ‘traditional’ country areas, it’s actually a tad right. More importantly, it has a very influential Catholic Church and they (along with the powerful political conservatives) carry much influence. So as you can see, some striking similarity with Australia. Oh and not only that, but the issue of marriage equality is in the hands of these legislators, not judges, which is the same as Australia (more’s the pity).

What is encouraging, and something I absolutely agree with, is that in New York they rejected having a “compromise” in that they rejected civil unions and went straight for marriage. Several studies have now clearly demonstrated that civil union schemes are unsuccessful in providing same-sex couples with full social recognition (and in some places legal recognition). The time for “intermediary steps” to full equality is in the past and same-sex marriage should be the focus for debate here in Australia. Those at a Federal level who offer civil unions in the hope that this will end the debate, are thankfully mistaken.

As I have touched on before, religious groups make a big song and dance about the issue and do a great job of muddying the waters, trying to make it a ‘religious’ debate rather than one of ‘legal equality’.  One of the main obstacles to reform in NY was the ultimatum from religious organisations for legal immunity if they refused to marry same-sex couples, refused services at faith-based child and welfare agencies, or even refused to rent them venues for wedding receptions. However, these exemptions already exist in Australian law, NOT that I agree with them, particularly if the organisations in question are getting tax-payer funding, which most do but that is a whole other matter…. . No religious celebrant in Australia can be forced to marry someone against their wishes. Churches have exemptions under marital status in federal law and sexual orientation in state law. So as far as I can see, these organizations already have all the exemptions they require, so butt out will you.

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

5 Responses to “If New York can do it…”

  1. BG Says:

    Marriage is a contract between man and woman to stay together and bring up children. To support each other and share the wealth of their union.
    Homosexuals cannot have babies without a third party as surrogate, this is the first stage of the marriage not being a true marriage. Love is not a prerequisite for marriage and sex is not love, despite being called “making love”. A relationship based on sex only (not making babies) is not a loving relationship. this is the second stage of the marriage not being true.
    Adoption of children by homosexual couples is grossly unfair to the child, esspecially if the child is heterosexual. Changing the law will open the gates to paedophiles adopting a child and onselling it to other paedophiles. This would be worse than hell for the child.
    There is nothing in the law that stops any 2 people living together for life if they want and if they desire extra security they can draw up a deed of sharing for the wealth they accumulate during the time they are together. The changes you seek are a meanf of discrediting heterosexual marriage for no good reason. After the laws (if it happens) are changed, the hatred and predujice against homosexuals will be far worse because you have vandalised a longstanding insttution that is respected by almost the entire comunity.
    I hope you can publish this letter to balance the argument.

    • macarthursmutterings Says:

      Ok, in the interest of a ‘balanced’ argument as you put it I have published your comment, although I can’t help feel that your own argument is less than balanced…

      You say that “Marriage is a contract between man and woman to stay together and bring up children. To support each other and share the wealth of their union”

      However, there is nothing in the wording of the Marriage Act to this effect? In fact the wording itself was in fact changed by the Howard government in 2004 to define marriage as “only permissible between a man and woman”. No mention of children.

      You say that “homosexuals cannot have babies without a third party as surrogate, this is the first stage of the marriage not being a true marriage” so if we take your line of argument here, heterosexual couples who cannot have children without the help opf a third party should also be banned from getting married ort have their marriage annulled.

      Also you say “A relationship based on sex only (not making babies) is not a loving relationship. this is the second stage of the marriage not being true” again this same rule could be used to ban heterosexual couples from getting married if they cannot make babies.

      Same sex marriage is not designed to subversively change the nature of marriage altogether, only to allow all the same equal rights.

      Your claim that “Changing the law will open the gates to paedophiles adopting a child and onselling it to other paedophiles” is frankly ridiculous and I challenge you to find a single piece of evidence in any country or state that has allowed same sex marriage to back this claim up.

      I on the other hand could give you countless examples of evidence that shows family violence in heterosexual marriage and the abuse and sexual abuse of children within heterosexual partnerships is at appalling levels, so again using your theory no Heterosexuals should be allowed to get married either.

      Someone else (a heterosexual no less) once put it better than me by saying: The struggle for same sex marriage is about much more than allowing gays and lesbians the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. It is a struggle for equality. It is a struggle for the legal recognition of the all-embracing power of that force we call “love.” All embracing, that is, not exclusive. I do not believe that love excludes. I believe inclusion is one of its prime characteristics. I won’t presume to add that I believe “most of us” agree with my perspective, but I know some people do.
      “Same sex marriage and same sex adoption are not dangers from which governments need to protect us. But the tyranny of religions destroying anybody’s democratic rights to these things, most certainly is.”

  2. Davethescot Says:

    Well said Colin. You have been extremely balanced and articulate through your comments. BG just come across as somebody who is paranoid and slightly unhinged. It fills me with disgust that people like him think they have the right to decide if a marriage is ‘true’. He should also be very very careful when talking about pedophiles whilst he is using religious argument. Enough said!

    To suggest that marriage is a contract to bring up children is just absolutely ridiculous. I know many heterosexual couples who have chosen not to have children. To suggest that their marriage is not loving, valid or ‘true’ is just absolutely absurd.

  3. Narinda Algar Says:

    Oh dear, Is this the only arguments that can be put against same sex marraige? Well, the answer is clear then. I have children, BUT they are a fantastic bonus to my marraige; which is an entirely personal union between my husband and I. As for the paedophile argument; this is just an offensive crock. Homosexuals are NOT paedophiles!!!! Heterosexuals; who can be in marraiges; who can be in positions of religious trust have, however been found to be. Open your eyes BG! Same sex marraige would not hurt anyone

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: