Jeff Poole: Love & Bigotry
Jeff Poole thinks we should take a long, hard look at what marriage stands for.
Recently in Brisbane about 2,000 people rallied in favour of discrimination under the cruelly ironic banner of ‘Equal Love’.
Until a year ago I would probably have been with them. My attitude then was simple: I don’t approve of ‘marriage’, but everyone should have an equal right to fuck up their own lives in their own way.
But it is precisely my commitment to equality that means I cannot – and will not – support the shallow and wrong-headed campaign for queers to become part of the irredeemably bigoted institution of ‘marriage’.
‘Marriage’ was originally the legal transfer of the ownership of a woman from father to husband. The ownership aspect was partly removed in the 1880s. It took a century for ‘married’ women to finally regain control of their own bodies when the practice of rape in ‘marriage’ was finally outlawed in Queensland in 1989.
This is the truth of the ‘traditional institution of marriage’ that the religious talk about when they oppose gay ‘marriage’ – and they’re welcome to it.
The supporters of ‘marriage’ equality ignore that history. They prefer to concentrate on wedding celebrations.
They choose to ignore recent history, too. Gay couples have had equal rights under federal law, except for the Marriage Act itself, since 2008. They prefer to trot out tired nonsense about ‘marriage’ being a public declaration of love that deserves to be recognised...
What rubbish! You can publicly declare your love anytime you want. Brisbane’s biggest society wedding of the year took place a month ago without any legal ‘marriage’ at all. Alan and Anthony bore witness to their commitment in front of hundreds of well-wishers and family, who can all now legally testify to their relationship. I wish Alan and Anthony every happiness!
No, ‘marriage’ is a legal contract that has nothing to do with love – this is the law, not Mills & Boon. 'Marriage' is all about ownership and responsibility. It is the legal recognition of spouses as next-of-kin in property and health matters – a spouse makes your medical decisions for you when you cannot.
And that’s where the unthinking me-tooism of the push for ‘marriage’ equality sticks in my throat. After decades of campaigning for the right to live free from discrimination I cannot believe we’re on the streets telling the world that only couples are worthy of legal recognition. Only couples are good enough to choose their next-of-kin. Only couples should be celebrated.
That’s not equality, that’s bigotry.
I refuse to discriminate against sexual minorities within our community, or outside it.
I refuse to bow to bigotry against multi-partner relationships, non-standard families and the celibate.
I refuse to restrict a simple human right: the right for you to choose your next-of-kin, the person, or people, you choose to take responsibility for you when you are at your most vulnerable.
I refuse to support ‘marriage equality’.
Comments (12)
In the U.S., there's another angle on the discrimination. People's homes are THE primary form of retirement savings. They enable people to live without rent when elderly, or to sell for cash to live off of. Single people cannot pool their resources to provide for themselves in this way, as only marrieds are protected from the estate tax on primary homes. Discriminates against gays who cannot marry. But it also raises the question: why should one have to be MARRIED to avail oneself of basic financial supports for retirement.
I am very glad that Jeff has brought this issue into the open among gays. While i also believe that same-sex couples should not be prohibited from engaging in the dubious and historically tainted tradition of marriage, as an almost-certainly life-long single gay man (with multiple partners), I feel suffocated, even oppressed by the notion that being in a monogamous life-long partnership with one other person is the ideal in life, and that there is something wrong with me for either not wanting it or not being able to find it.
Then again, i realise that gays (used in the old-fashioned inclusive sense) are caught in a classic trap here: support marriage and you support a very dubious, socially conservative institution; don't support it and you are seen as entrenching discrimination and defending the stereotype of gays - especially males -as lust-driven sluts. (And the problem with this stereotype is that it applies to ALL men, hahaha).
Well, Joseph, had a few more queer people voted for me for council, and not the conservative parties, we might see monogamous couples at least being nude.
Well said Jeff.
I don't think most people, and by people i mean those in the gay community, understand what marriage actually is. It was not originally about love and romance and equal rights that we see it as today. It was about property and if you want to go back even further, it was about securing a countries safety by marrying royalties.
I don't know a huge amount about this subject but think that's because I honestly have no intention on getting married or any really interest in conforming to how society think I should settle down and "get married" Let them keep there marriage and expected ways of living someones life.
Jeff, marriage will bring legislative equality. You might well take comfort in Israel where queer marriage will never be allowed.
Really Stuart?
You need to pay attention sweety. Didn't you notice that all the federal laws that discriminated against couples got changed in 2008?
Perhaps you're thinking about adoption and other state laws that will be completely untouched by the legal right to wear a long white dress...
Jeff, who said anything about wearing a "long white dress"? I'm a nudist!
Great! See you at A-Bay!
Interesting article Jeff.
But not all the Federal laws were changed to end discrimination. Even in private super the government joined with the LNP to allow discrimination in private super against couples not married. Most government funded nursing homes are private, and can discriminate legally as they are normally run by a religious business. We are not even included in the Federal Equal Opportunity Act. Even at the marriage inquiry, soldiers told gay soldiers get sent to the front line more as they are not counted as married. There is still much work to do to end Federal Discrimination against couples not married.
But Dave, this isn't about every aspect of discrimination - it's about changing the Marriage Act so queers like you and me can marry!
That's not a proposal by the way *grins*
That's all it will do - every other piece of federal l
egislation that discriminated against gay couples was changed in 2008!
See http://glrl.org.au/index.php/Resources/Media-Releases/24-November-2008-Historic-same-sex-reforms-pass-Senate-as-58-08-campaign-comes-to-a-close
Super can discriminate against unmarried people? Wrong.
http://www.ag.gov.au/Humanrightsandantidiscrimination/Pages/SameSexReforms.aspx#superannuation
Religious nursing homes can discriminate against clients? How will a change to the Marriage Act help - especially for singles or multi partner relationships? Best find an ethical - i.e. non-religious - care home.
We're not included in the Federal Equal Opportunity act? That's because the only act with that name is the Equal Opportunity in Employment for Women… And, again, what does that have to do with marriage or couples?
Finally you go into a bit of hearsay in the armed services… Irrelevant, straight unmarried are also discriminated against. It does prove my point - Marriage is all about discrimination.
The confusion that you're displaying is exactly the problem I'm trying to highlight. Thousands of people are feeling good about campaigning to end discrimination. But they aren't ending discrimination… They're entrenching it!
Jeff both parties voted down the change to private super, allowing discrimination against non married couples. In other words, you partner can end up fighting your relatives for the loot.
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/australia-news/new-south-wales-news/2008/10/22/private-super-dodges-equality/2321
It is not easy to find a nursing home Jeff. There are few places close to people's families etc. Not being married means some staff, as the federal inquiries show, can contact your family instead of your lifelong partner. Allowing religious businesses to discriminate with government funding is symbolic. It sends a message that GLBTI Australians and their relationships are worth less.
Governments have made marriage about rights and protections, then denied some people access to these rights and protections based on sexuality or having more then one partner. Many people view marriage as in important symbolic statement about their relationship.
Well said Jeff. I've been saying similar things on several web sites for a while. It staggers me that people believe the media beat-up without question... 'Marriage'. 'Equality'. The two words have been hitched together (pun intended) as if they're contingent. What nonsense. But that's how propaganda works. It's hard to argue against a principle like equality, so proclaim - ad nauseum – that this is what it's really for…. The Emperor.might be dressed for a white wedding to most of you but to me he’s stark naked.