This is a good article..
Here's an idea: what if the Government introduced voluntary gay marriage?
* Lisa Pryor
* June 20, 2009
Isn't it heartening to see both sides of politics united in their determination to protect a vulnerable minority from the whims of the majority? Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull both oppose gay marriage against the wishes of the majority of Australians.
This week a poll was published showing 60 per cent of Australians supported the idea of equal marriage laws. Another 4 per cent were undecided, leaving just 36 per cent opposed to gay marriage. Among young voters, support rose to 74 per cent. The poll was commissioned by a lobby group, Australian Marriage Equality, and conducted by the pollster Galaxy.
The stance Rudd and Turnbull are taking may be unpopular, but not everything in politics is about popularity. Obviously they have decided in this case it is more important to protect the persecuted minority of Australians who identify as bigots, a minority whose lifestyle is under attack.
Sorry, I shouldn't use "bigot"; apparently that's not politically correct these days. I'll be rapped over the knuckles by the thought police. I'm sure they prefer to be called something euphemistic like "People Living With A Need To Exclude Other People From The Institution Of Marriage Because It Makes Their Own Marriages Seem More Special".
Even though laws have been tweaked to remove many forms of discrimination against gay couples, neither major party is willing to go all the way. They are not prepared to follow the radical lead set in godless, radical jurisdictions such as Belgium, Canada, Spain and the US state of Iowa, out of concern for the sensibilities of the 36 per centers. The philosophy is something akin to saying: "Hey, gay people, you say you want some chocolate? Have some delicious no-frills carob drops. I don't want to eat them myself, but I'm sure they taste just like the real thing."
It may just be possible to find a solution which respects the values of both the majority and the minority in this debate. And to this end I would like to propose a novel legislative solution: what if the Government introduced gay marriage as an option - but didn't make it compulsory? So that you don't have to have a gay marriage unless you want to? So that if you believe in marriage only between a man and a woman, you only have to enter into a marriage with someone of the opposite sex?
Lack of awareness about this option may explain why some people have been reluctant to support the equal marriage movement in the past. They may have been labouring under the misapprehension that a law allowing gay marriage will mean that good, gay-fearing women will be forced to slip into white tuxedos with lavender bow ties and declare undying love to ladies with mullets. Or that nervous blokes will be compelled to pack suitcases full of white shorts and fake tan and honeymoon with other dudes on Mykonos. It need not be this way.
Under my novel proposal, bigots would be free to keep marrying as they wish. Fundamentalist figures would still be free to preach, during marriage ceremonies, about how in God's eyes marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman is an abomination, how sexual love is something to be saved for the wedding night, and all those other things heterosexual couples go through the motions of believing because they want to marry in a building with high ceilings and a low cover charge.
Some will still be concerned that allowing gay marriage will erode "Christian values" in our society. This concern is wrongheaded, as it assumes most Christians are bigots, and I happen to believe that most are not. Most Christians, I would like to think, see love and acceptance as the most important elements of the Christian message.
All gay marriage will do is further erode the role of biblical literalism in our society, the same biblical literalism which, if we were serious about it, would allow us to own slaves, as long as we bought them from neighbouring nations such as New Zealand and Indonesia, as allowed in Leviticus chapter 25, verse 44, and compel us to execute anyone who pops into the office on a Sunday, as is the intention of Exodus chapter 35, verse 2.
For those who are still concerned, here is a better dilemma to ponder: what is so Christian about an institution which lets in straight atheists and even Satanists, but excludes gay Christians?
