Marriage Bill arguments and tactics

Finally, a couple of politicians in power have opted for a sensible way to get the necessary change of events concerning same sex union: I think it was Phillip Ruddock who proposed that John Howard’s bill or amendment be scrapped; when he was PM he changed the Marriage Bill so that it read “a man marrying a woman”; previously it read “two people”. This would be the simplest way to achieve the necessary change. On Q&A on Monday night he called this the French solution; post the French Revolution, authorities removed the Catholic churcg as an ultimate authority. Without using the exact words, they did in fact establish a phrase of Christ’s as social reality: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”. Therefore, religions are able to continue their belief systems within their buildings, while civil ceremonies can be enacted under civil jurisdiction.

However, we need to reassure a lot of religious leaders that they will not be forced by legislative pressure to marry two people of the same gender, or two people of indeterminate or unspecified gender, although a number of enlightened religious leaders are seeing the light. Evangelical leaders, for instance, are agreeing to marry same sex couples. After all, christian institutions in the past have had a poor record of siding with Nazis or KKK, of supporting slavery, cruelty to wives and animals.

During the above mentioned Q&A session, a religious bigot raised the issue of being forced to service a same sex ritual with whatever goods: cakes, stationery etc. Someone on the discussion panel wittily said that American companies in the past would have serviced gangster marriages.

Still, I fail to understand why someone has not countered the conservative christian’s argument that a child requires two parents of opposite genders with the reality of the frequency of a woman raising children on her own, or even that two men raising children lovingly and caringly is preferable to domestic cruelty.

Julia Baird in her weekend SMH article countered the argument about the traditional definition of marriage with the observation that all the patriarchs of the Old Testament were polygamous; the work of sexual historian John Boswell suggests that the contemporary definition of homosexuality was unknown in even recent times and it may have been practised with social sanction.


About anton veenstra

tapestry weaver, fibre artist, gay/qr activist, multiculturalist
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s