Jump to content

Marriage Equality Not As Important As...


Recommended Posts

To all those who think that there are other matters of more concern than marriage equality, I submit that nothing is more important, more basic, than recognising the human right of everyone having the opportunity to pursue a relationship that promises happiness in our secular democracy. It must do so with freedom of expression, unhindered, uninhibited, by the beliefs of others.


The freedom to pursue happiness is only possible if we respect each other’s autonomy, our personal independence, to live without being the means to another person's ends without our voluntary consent. That is slavery.


To be able to choose our own, individual, marriage status, and have it lawfully recognised, is paramount to our society's acceptance of human rights equality. It must be the very basis of our law. It enables the happiness and goodness we would pursue for our relationships in a culture striving to recognise affection, compassion and love as the foundation for our evolving, continuing, humanity.


Link to comment

Des, you're describing morality and happiness devoid of religious connection. Those qualities have been usurped by religious entities for centuries. I like your stance on the matter better. Freedom, to be really free, means freedom from forced religious affiliation. People should be free to choose to be religious or not. Just as they should be free enter into marriage if that is desired.

C

Link to comment
To all those who think that there are other matters of more concern than marriage equality, I submit that nothing is more important, more basic, than recognising the human right of everyone having the opportunity to pursue a relationship that promises happiness in our secular democracy.

Des, I don't disagree, but in the defence of those who think there are other matters of more concern, we're talking tactics and strategy, not the end goal. You've described the end goal that we all want, but how do we get there? Is it time to go for official recognition of same-sex relationships, or are there other steps along the way that should be a priority?

In Australia, I believe it's time to go for same-sex marriage, but I've heard enough from our American friends to know that there are those that still suffer from the lack of anti-discrimination laws. What's the good of having same-sex marriage if you can't get a job because you're gay? Having an income is part of what's needed to "pursue a relationship that promises happiness in our secular democracy", so shouldn't that also be important?

That's where people differ. It's not whether same-sex marriage is a goal worth achieving. It's whether it should be the priority now or are other things, like anti-discrimination laws, more important? Australia is pretty good in that respect and in my opinion same-sex marriage is the right priority for us at this point in history. For the USA, though, I don't think it's that clear-cut.

Link to comment

Apart from the preamble of the U.S. Constitution providing, ..."for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." it is the Declaration of Independence which prioritises, "... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

However, more recent and I would maintain, more relevant, is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in its preamble,

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."

I urge anyone looking to investigate our human priorities to consult the UN Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, the first Ten Articles of that document.

Graeme, I agree that I described the objective, but such an objective must form the basis from which we administer, legislate and otherwise consider the welfare of humanity's day to day existence. The Articles of the UN declaration do not ignore the practical objectives of our aims, but demand the basis for their possibility.

In the desire to set priority we often forget that we already have these excellent guides to assist us in attending to the needs of the here and now.

It is obvious that there are many transgressions to the realisations of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, but chief among the aims are the empowerment of women, and anti-discrimination against minorities, including marriage equality. It is the latter which should take no more than a short vote in parliament to ratify what is a basic human right.

Therein is the centre of the discussion, the importance of human rights equality being paramount in the conduct and laws of our societies.

Link to comment

Some of you may be interested in looking at the following:

go.allout.org/en/a/oz-marriage-equality

​It is a petition to be delivered to the Aussie parliament in a couple of days.

Link to comment

Thanks Nigel. For those who can see it, here is our federal opposition leader addressing "thousands" at a Melbourne rally in support of marriage equality.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/thousands-rally-for-samesex-marriage-20150815-gizr8a.html

Link to comment

Gee, doesn't his position mean that he knows, for certain, that his opinions are better and more knowledgeable than those of those pesky Australian citizens? Isn't that how politics is supposed to work? No??

Colin :icon_geek:

Link to comment

It's all part of a whole. Marriage doesn't work if you are going to face discrimination in employment and housing.

That is what we are facing now in Mississippi and Louisiana. Gay couples who get married are facing retaliation.

As long as they were nice and quiet about their relationship, people left them alone.

Now they are getting "laid off" and they leases are not being renewed.

Link to comment

Yes, we are fortunate that Australia instituted anti-discrimination laws before marriage equality was sought. However, there is an undeniable attitude that having been granted a degree of protection by those anti-discrimination laws, we shouldn't need to have access to secular marriage contracts. Recognition of de facto relationships should be enough. This attitude denies equality for some members of the population and must not be allowed. It's not as if we are seeking to replace marriage, we simply want the same opportunity to choose marriage as everyone else has.

The current argument against marriage equality maintains that, "there are more pressing issues that need to be addressed first."

What's worse is that this argument is stated by some LGBTQ people as well as some straight allies and of course, the ant-gay brigade. I'm not saying that other things aren't important, but damn it, we are dealing with basic requirements for a democracy that protects minorities from the will of the majority when it adopts mob rule as being good enough. It isn't!

Granting everyone the right to marry, to choose marriage or not, is as important and as basic as freedom for and from religion.

Calling marriage for LGBTQ people by another name is nothing short of discrimination; intolerable, abhorrent and an abnegation of their human rights.

It is a human rights issue.

We suffer from not having a Bill of Rights.

Link to comment

With all due respect, I disagree...

Let me preface this comment by saying that I am pleased that we can have marriage between same-sex people and that those that want to, can.

I am more pleased that homosexual relationships no longer have to exist in the shadows or risk imprisonment if discovered. This is the real advance that has made the difference and gay marriage finally legitimizes it.

That being said, personally, I am against it.

If you are in an accepting church or on a beautiful beach at sunset with friends and family, do you really need the State's participation and involvement when swearing an oath between yourself and another person?

When it comes down to it, in the eyes of the State, heterosexual marriage is about heirs and property. Love has nothing to do with it.

If you want to buy a house with another person, form a limited corporation that has terms of dissolution built in. If you want a your partner to receive your assets form a reciprocal trust.

In my mind the only practical reason for a binding marriage contract is for child adoption or death bed visitation. If you think I am against advancements for gay people, I'm not. I would make the same recommendation for straight people.

I see gay women and the GBLT, politically correct factions as the driving force sheparding homosexuals into socially acceptable conformity. I consider gay marriage a Trojan Horses with all the bad things about heterosexual marriage concerning divorce and alimony.

If an oath between yourself and another person falls apart, do you really want the State to come in and force resolution?

Considering that many gay men, like myself, make bad choices, do you really want to be liable for your partner's dishonest debts? I could go on..

It is good that we can marry if we want to, but is it really a good idea?

Link to comment

Equality means just that, not more for some and less for others. The opportunity to marry, to choose to marry must be available for all.

Love has everything to do with whom you choose to share your life. You don't have to marry them, but here in Australia our social services assign a de facto status to my long, very long, relationship with my male partner - even though we cannot marry each other- yet. We don't get a choice if we want to claim our pension. And we can't afford to live without that pension. As long as we wish to live in this society we need that pension

As a lawyer friend pointed out to me, all the benefits and contractual agreements that accompany a marriage contract would be a legal nightmare if he had to try to cover everything that a civil marriage contract already covers under federal and state laws.

On your point regarding assimilation into the mainstream of the culture, acceptance to enjoy the same status as heterosexuals is the very objective of recognising LGBTQ rights as human rights. However, the recognition of human rights entails the right to live outside the boundaries of conformity. Indeed, conformity has always been the tool of totalitarian governments, not to mention, religions.

The recognition of the autonomous, independent individual who rejects that conformity as the hallmark of our greatest thinkers, is what drags us from ignorance into the light of reason. Marriage being available to all and not just some is not going to extend conformity, but if it is available to one group, it cannot be denied to others. Assimilation into a culture is something we do, that we permit ourselves to do because we want to participate in that culture. Or maybe we want to offer it new and wondrous directions with insights and discoveries yet to be found by those who reject conformity, whilst still living in our midst. Indeed, I think this kind of rebellion against authority is what gave us our freedom from being imprisoned in our countries, and will eventually spread to those countries who still persecute people because of whom they love.

It is also, too much to think that we can determine just how relationships will develop in the future. At the moment we have marriage as a commitment of two people to each other. This happens amongst primates and they like the sense of security it affords their love for each other.

Will it last? Obviously, not. "All things must pass."

Ultimately, we cannot tell others how to live their lives. We can however, agree to treating them equally under the laws of our society. That means they must have the right to marry each other if they so desire.

Link to comment

Equality means just that, not more for some and less for others. The opportunity to marry, to choose to marry must be available for all.

Love has everything to do with whom you choose to share your life. You don't have to marry them, but here in Australia our social services assign a de facto status to my long, very long, relationship with my male partner - even though we cannot marry each other- yet. We don't get a choice if we want to claim our pension. And we can't afford to live without that pension. As long as we wish to live in this society we need that pension

As a lawyer friend pointed out to me, all the benefits and contractual agreements that accompany a marriage contract would be a legal nightmare if he had to try to cover everything that a civil marriage contract already covers under federal and state laws.

On your point regarding assimilation into the mainstream of the culture, acceptance to enjoy the same status as heterosexuals is the very objective of recognising LGBTQ rights as human rights. However, the recognition of human rights entails the right to live outside the boundaries of conformity. Indeed, conformity has always been the tool of totalitarian governments, not to mention, religions.

The recognition of the autonomous, independent individual who rejects that conformity as the hallmark of our greatest thinkers, is what drags us from ignorance into the light of reason. Marriage being available to all and not just some is not going to extend conformity, but if it is available to one group, it cannot be denied to others. Assimilation into a culture is something we do, that we permit ourselves to do because we want to participate in that culture. Or maybe we want to offer it new and wondrous directions with insights and discoveries yet to be found by those who reject conformity, whilst still living in our midst. Indeed, I think this kind of rebellion against authority is what gave us our freedom from being imprisoned in our countries, and will eventually spread to those countries who still persecute people because of whom they love.

It is also, too much to think that we can determine just how relationships will develop in the future. At the moment we have marriage as a commitment of two people to each other. This happens amongst primates and they like the sense of security it affords their love for each other.

Will it last? Obviously, not. "All things must pass."

Ultimately, we cannot tell others how to live their lives. We can however, agree to treating them equally under the laws of our society. That means they must have the right to marry each other if they so desire.

DesDownunder,

Thank you for the thoughtful response to my comment. Actually, we are in agreement. I prefaced my post saying that I was glad that the choice to marry same-sex now is possible but my personal decision would be no..

My comment is based on my own choice and my tendency to be suspicions towards the motives of the State coupled with the volatile and unreliable nature of sexual liaisons, especially in men and even more especially in the young.

If you are older and desire just to settle down for companionship reasons, do you really need to marry?

The need for social service would be a practical consideration but isn't a state pension available whether you are married or not? The social services in the US aren't very good.

It should be obvious to you by now that I do not have much faith in the institution marriage, same-sex or otherwise. But, that's me and not everyone else in the world..

Link to comment

The need for social service would be a practical consideration but isn't a state pension available whether you are married or not?

Yes, the pension is available whether married or not, but If social services (known as Centrelink in Australia) judge you to be in a de facto relationship, or if you are married, then they pay a reduced rate of pension on the grounds that two people living together in a relationship don't need as much money as two people living alone. I actually wrote this up as a warning when they did this for same sex couples a few years ago.

Whilst I might be sympathetic to not needing to marry, I think I might be much more aggressive in my attitude towards fighting for marriage equality, for those who want it. I certainly find it necessary to be loud and proud about the human rights equality aspect.

It's the anti-authoritarian in me that mistrusts politicians and our present staid Prime Minister Abbott seems intent on sidestepping the same sex marriage issue to the point of never allowing it to happen in Australia.

Will my partner and I ever get married?

If there is a political or a financial benefit then yes I guess we would drop into the registrar of marriages and sign the application.

We might do it just to annoy the bigots.

Link to comment

It's all part of a whole. Marriage doesn't work if you are going to face discrimination in employment and housing.

That is what we are facing now in Mississippi and Louisiana. Gay couples who get married are facing retaliation.

As long as they were nice and quiet about their relationship, people left them alone.

Now they are getting "laid off" and they leases are not being renewed.

As this is the stuff of lawsuits, let the fun begin!

C

Link to comment

With all due respect, I disagree...

Let me preface this comment by saying that I am pleased that we can have marriage between same-sex people and that those that want to, can.

I am more pleased that homosexual relationships no longer have to exist in the shadows or risk imprisonment if discovered. This is the real advance that has made the difference and gay marriage finally legitimizes it.

That being said, personally, I am against it.

If you are in an accepting church or on a beautiful beach at sunset with friends and family, do you really need the State's participation and involvement when swearing an oath between yourself and another person?

When it comes down to it, in the eyes of the State, heterosexual marriage is about heirs and property. Love has nothing to do with it.

If you want to buy a house with another person, form a limited corporation that has terms of dissolution built in. If you want a your partner to receive your assets form a reciprocal trust.

In my mind the only practical reason for a binding marriage contract is for child adoption or death bed visitation. If you think I am against advancements for gay people, I'm not. I would make the same recommendation for straight people.

I see gay women and the GBLT, politically correct factions as the driving force sheparding homosexuals into socially acceptable conformity. I consider gay marriage a Trojan Horses with all the bad things about heterosexual marriage concerning divorce and alimony.

If an oath between yourself and another person falls apart, do you really want the State to come in and force resolution?

Considering that many gay men, like myself, make bad choices, do you really want to be liable for your partner's dishonest debts? I could go on..

It is good that we can marry if we want to, but is it really a good idea?

Your last sentence says it all. We should be able to marry if we want to. Period. End of statement. If you see personal reasons not to, then don't. But if you want to, for whatever reasons, you should have the same basic right to do so that everyone else does. Being able to marry means gay people are one step closer to being equal citizens.

C

Link to comment

As this is the stuff of lawsuits, let the fun begin!

C

Sadly, the problem is that it isn't the stuff of lawsuits because no laws are being broken. In the states in question, there's no anti-discriminating laws. The people involved are quite able to fire someone or decline to renew their lease. Even if you could prove that it was because the person is gay, there's no law against that.

Link to comment

There are I would submit two fundamental rights:

  1. The right to life, the enjoyment of life and to have control over ones own life.
  2. The right not to be discriminated against, in any aspect of ones life.

​The right to marry is, I would argue, a by product of the second fundamental right. All other rights I would submit derive in one way or another from these two. We have marriage equality in the UK now but I see many areas where gay men and women are still discriminated against - to some extent I see the provision of equal rights in marriage as something of a sop by the current prime minister as a way of keeping the gay vote happy whilst not having to tackle some of the more difficult questions, like the position of certain charities not to consider gay couples as adoptive parents.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Your last sentence says it all. We should be able to marry if we want to. Period. End of statement. If you see personal reasons not to, then don't. But if you want to, for whatever reasons, you should have the same basic right to do so that everyone else does. Being able to marry means gay people are one step closer to being equal citizens.

C

Yup. Nuff said.

Colin :icon_geek:

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...