verging_on_random

Gay marriage?

July 13, 2008 on 10:59 pm | In Uncategorized |

One of the many peculiar characteristics of politics in the USA is the amount of passion that the issue of gay marriage generates in the community. A recent court decision in California looks like it’s kicked the whole controversy off again:

PHILADELPHIA, July 11 (UPI) — Same-sex marriage is emerging once again as a divisive issue for the U.S. electorate, the Pew Research Center reports.As the presidential election approaches, more Republicans and white evangelicals say the issue is one that will be important when they decide whom to vote for.

Four years ago, when President George W. Bush defeated Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Supreme Court had recently made gay marriage legal in the state, and many states had referendums on the ballot opposing marriage for homosexuals. This year, a California ballot initiative seeks to reverse a state Supreme Court ruling that a legal ban on same-sex marriage violates the state constitution.

You might recall that Howard tried to get some mileage from the issue a couple of years ago. He introduced legislation declaring that marriage was the union of a man and a woman, which was thoroughly pointless because that was already the law. Maybe he just wanted to show solidarity with his best friend forever George Bush, who was canvassing at the time a constitutional amendment along the same lines; or more likely he hoped the Labor Party would get itself in a tangle trying to respond and he could do his usual snide trick of painting the opposition as crazy hippies who were trying to destroy the fabric of society. In many ways Howard spent his career preserved in the 1970s. He’s still there.

Anyway I could have told him he was wasting his time. There are just as many poofter bashers amongst union officials as in Australian board rooms (metaphorically speaking of course) and Labor supported the legislation with scarcely a murmur.

I doubt that gay marriage is an issue that stirs people up in this country. Sure there are a few crazies who froth at the mouth about the fatal damage that such a move would inflict on our society but by and large I suspect Australians are distinctly underwhelmed by the whole argument. I reckon a large chunk of the population would say “Nah don’t agree with it but I’m not going to lose any sleep about it” and most of the remainder would say “Ummmm like I care” or words to that effect.

For my part I do not agree with the concept of same sex marriage, if by that it is meant that gays and lesbians should be able to enter a relationship that is regarded as identical to that which straight couples enter into. On any objective analysis it is not identical; marriage connotes notions like a husband and a wife that are simply inapplicable to gay relationships. I don’t see why straight people, who after all comprise the vast majority of our society, should have to accommodate a change in the longstanding concept of marriage just to satisfy the small minority of gays who have decided they want it altered.

I also have to say that i would find the idea of participating in a marriage unacceptable. Some uninformed writing might perpetuate the stereotypes of ‘male’ and ‘female’ personalities in gay relationships but that is a terrible over-simplification of the true situation. Some gays in permanent relationships might think of themselves as conventional married couples who just happen to be the same gender but I believe a larger number don’t think that way. They regard their relationships as sui generis and I believe that’s how the law should treat them.

These are examples of situations where I want the law to change:

• When I die I would want my partner to be my lawful presumptive heir and to be automatically delegated decisions about funeral arrangements and the like;

• If I were to become incapacitated, I would want my partner to be the lawful authoritative decision-maker on questions concerning my treatment including whether to turn off life support

• I would want my partner to be automatically regarded as my lawful next of kin whenever the nature of that relationship arises, for example in cases of accident and emergency or in financial matters including superannuation;

• If my partner is not an Australian citizen I would want him to have the same immigration rights to this country as my non-Australian wife would.
  

Some of these things can be done now but only after completing lots of wills and powers of attorney and the like. Others cannot be done at all.

I believe parliament should create a statutory relationship that incorporates these rights. I don’t see any point in calling it marriage; it’s not, and it would not carry any of the implications for the status of children that go with the idea of marriage. I don’t much care what they call it … just let them create it so same sex couples can attain the same security in their relationships as is available to everyone else through the institution of marriage.

Once the legal relationship exists, gays and lesbians will be able to sort out the ceremonial aspect of things involving white doves and tuxedos and whatever else takes their fancy. However unless it creates a concrete legal relationship, these ‘commitment ceremonies’ will remain largely meaningless. A unique legal relationship for same sex couples creating rights like the ones I listed would be a great boon for many gays and lesbians, provide comfort to their families who worry about the twilight legal world in which same sex couples are forced to live now, and tend to enhance the stability of relationships. Moreover, it would not cause one shred of damage to the institution of marriage or to society at large.

The Rudd Government apparently intends to amend all sorts of laws to accommodate some definition of same sex relationship, which will presumably be hedged about with legal uncertainty and require people to prove the nature of the relationship before they are entitled to the benefits of the law. It would be much better served to cut the crap and create a new legal relationship into which same sex couples can enter, and with that one administrative act, create a coherent set of mutual rights and obligations.