To: Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee (legcon.sen@aph.gov.au)
Subject: Marriage Equality Inquiry Submission
Name: Frikle
Address:…………
Phone Number: ………..
Submission Status: The submission, including my name, can be made public.
Dear Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee,
I fully endorse the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009. On a personal note, I’m ashamed that my country has allowed such a blatant and destructive form of discrimination to continue for so long. A number of my friends are in the predicament of second-class citizenship and it’s an unpleasant, harmful force in their lives.
There are two main secular arguments against gay marriage: that this goes against the “traditional” definition of marriage, and that the social consensus is against it.
In terms of “tradition”, the historical reality is that there is no intrinsic definition of marriage. Marriage has always evolved based on social consensus. As documented in the book Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, it’s gone from a tribal arrangement meant to keep social order to a contract based on family alliances to a a loving relationship (influenced by the Islamic idea of courtly love) to a relationship between a bread-earning husband and a stay-at-home-wife to a relationship between people of more equal standing. Since the reality has always followed social consensus this is what we should follow as well.
More Australians have shed their prejudices against LGBT people than ever before. A recent Galaxy poll showed a 60% support for gay marriage in Canberra. Although Canberra is more socially liberal than most of Australia, there is definitely a trend of rising support.
It’s time Australian law reflects the actual consensus of people. To delay will not only be unjust but will lead to the law becoming increasingly irrelevant. It will be akin to the urban legend of the archaic NSW law that allowed a husband to push his wife into a duck pond (but only if she was a gossip). Laws that are out of date with social consensus only undermine respect for our legal system.
Most importantly: with all these arguments being wrong, there remain no secular objections. So, disallowing gay marriage is actually a form of religious discrimination, a simple case of [some] religions dictating law for all of society. Which obviously contradicts two things that make Australia great: its secular legal system and its religious freedom.
Regards
Frikle
| YOUR TURN if you’re an Australian citizen. Be sure to include name, address and phone for authentication (in lieu of a signature) and whether the submission can be made public |
3 comments ↓
“It’s time Australian law reflects the actual consensus of people.”
No, no and no!
Spare us any law that reflects the consensus of public opinion. People are idiots and never more so than when they agree.
Laws should be formed based on justice, fairness and, okay, a shared sense of values. But, perhaps most importantly, they should be created in a cold, measured manner, not in a rush to meet fleeting public opinion.
“A number of my friends are in the predicament of second-class citizenship”
Well, I actually consider them lucky to not be allowed to marry, but if they’re old enough (albeit obviously not wise enough) to want to get married then who the heck are we to stand in their way.
Well like it or not the law cannot be divorced from social consensus for long! If it does the people will simply rise up and establish what they wanted all along. So we do have to take it into consideration.
Furthermore, if consensus starts moving towards fairness that is an extra reason for change (if it starts moving away from fairness it’s a different story).
Laws are easy to implement and virtually impopssible to repeal.
Once a law is in place if public opinion shifts all that happens is the law is rarely, if ever, enforced but the law remains on the books.
This means if a future administration so desires it can use the law for its own nefarious schemes.
If that seems far fetched then why hasn’t Obama reprealed the Patriot Act? Or why did it take the EU to force the UK to remove it’s Blasphemy Act? Or why is it still legal to kill a Scotsman in York on a Sunday if he is carrying a bow and arrow?
We should be slow to legislate allowing a cooling of heads before rights are either bestowed or, more importantly, removed. Emergency legislation, when necessary*, should have regular votes in parliament to ensure it is still necessary for the country.
*Emergency legislation is NEVER necessary.
Leave a Comment