Gay Marriage

Why I’ll be saying ‘I don’t’

A timely word from Sherry Sufi on the myth of ‘marriage equality’.

no

Why Vote No, by Sherry Sufi, September 7, 2017:

Australians will soon make a choice on redefining marriage.

This is a good thing.

It helps us settle one of the most divisive social issues of our time.

We will move forwards as a nation, whatever the outcome.

Making an informed decision requires basic familiarity with both sides of the debate.

Yet it’s nearly impossible to argue against same sex marriage.

Not because the arguments in its favour are invincible, but because nine times out of ten its supporters are unwilling to tolerate a different viewpoint.

They find it easier to defame the character of their critic than to fault the logic of the critic’s argument.

This leaves us with a social media landscape that is dominated by arguments ‘for’ same sex marriage, while the arguments ‘against’ it remain grossly under-represented, if not misrepresented.

What no one from either side of politics seems to be bringing up is that any campaign for social equality should ultimately be about equal treatment, not equal ‘classification’.

We agree, black and white people should be treated the same.

But we don’t classify them as one race because they’re not.

We agree, women and men should be treated the same.

But we don’t classify them as one gender because they’re not.

We agree, Buddhists and Christians should be treated the same.

But we don’t classify them as one religion because they’re not.

We agree, poor and rich should be treated the same.

But we don’t classify them as one demographic because they’re not.

We agree, gay and straight couples should be treated the same.

So why should we classify their relationships as one institution—marriage—when they’re not?

Western civilisation has a proud history of facilitating campaigns for equality that were just and noble.

Those campaigns had no interest in seeking equal classification.

African American slaves never sought to be classified as white Americans.

They sought to be free like white Americans. And the 13th amendment took care of that in 1865. American women never sought to be classified as men.

They sought to have the same democratic rights as men.

And the 19th amendment took care of that in 1920.

Both campaigns came to a graceful end.

If Australia’s so-called marriage ‘equality’ campaign was seeking equal treatment, it would have come to a graceful end almost a decade ago when the Rudd Government passed the Same Sex Relationships Act (2008).

This little known Act extended to gay couples the same legal rights, benefits and facilities as straight couples for taxation, superannuation, immigration, social welfare, medicare, aged care and child support.

Yet prolonged insistence to redefine marriage comes with implications.

Current Australian law says marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

It specifies both the gender and the number of participants.

If we are to redefine marriage at all, why stop at two?

There are cultures where a man can take multiple wives.

Arbitrarily picking and choosing to facilitate one minority view while neglecting another is neither democratic nor pluralistic.

I for one believe we should keep the current definition of marriage as it is and I believe most Australians would too if they considered the points raised here.

More than 90 per cent of Australians voted in favour of Indigenous Australians having the right to vote in the 1967 referendum.

We are a politically mature nation that knows when to vote for the right social change.

If the upcoming vote was about equal treatment, it would be imperative to vote yes. But it isn’t.

I will be voting no and I encourage you to do the same.

9 thoughts on “Why I’ll be saying ‘I don’t’

  1. | Australians will soon make a choice on redefining marriage.
    Well no they won’t. They will have the option of participating in a non-binding, postal, plebiscite.

    Scottish millionaire and alleged tax avoider, Brian Souter, in 2000 paid £1m for a referendum in Scotland on the government’s plans to scrap Section 28, the Thatcher era legislation which stifled open discussion about LGBT issues, including safer sex education and initiatives that would help young people to make better life decisions.
    Source: dailyrecord.co.uk

    3,970,712 ballot papers were posted out and 31.8% valid votes were returned, a turn out rate lower than any Scottish national election.
    The campaign was ultimately unsuccessful.
    Source: Wikipedia.

    But back to your post.

    There are no ‘White Americans’, white people were immigrants in the North American continemt.

    | And the 13th amendment took care of that in 1865
    ..in the USA.

    | And the 19th amendment took care of that in 1920.
    ..in the USA.

    And in the future we can expect further amendments to the US Constitution which will hopefully further embody the Conservative values of equality and equality before the law.

    | More than 90 per cent of Australians voted in favour of Indigenous Australians having the right to vote in the 1967 referendum.
    And yet the Australian Constitution continues to enshrine in Law discrimination specifically applicable to these Australians.
    For instance: Section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution.

    How can I have confidence in the Australian voting population, in a non-binding, postal, plebiscite?
    Will enough voters, in this petition vote representatively as the whole electorate would in an official referendum?
    For a Fair Go for all and equality before the law?

    Let’s hope, pray if you like, for our continued acceptance, love for, celebration of and the embracement of all peoples, equally.

    In fact the country of Australia, a country of immigrants that celebrates acceptance and diversity which makes it so great, only exists and even to this day, by decree of an Act of the British Parliament. Let us hope that hard won freedoms achieved there can be similarly enacted in Australian law.

    17 years is a long time since Brian Souter’s failed Scottish plebiscite. I would rather hope that our population is now even more enlightened.

    polyuk

    1. Fair enough, although I’d argue giving people a say on the institution of marriage which defines society and predates Australia, is better than stalemating the issue until Labor wins government.

  2. Marriage is a union sanctified by God’s local representative. If a same sex couple can get that done, fine. Anything else is a contractural agreement. Getting “married” before a justice of the peace and calling it anything other than a legal agreement is a stretch. That being said the last organization that should be defining marriage and deciding whom can get married is government. None of it’s business. Don’t get me started on government issued marriage licenses. A license requirement is a right taken from you and being forced to pay for it’s return. Usually not a 100% return.

    1. Yeah and thats a fair argument I’ve heard plenty raise. But given the government is involved in divorce, child custody etc, I think it would be very difficult to remove it from marriage.

Leave a Reply