Why?
Q&A is the australian version of the long running BBC show Question Time and, after a ropey start, it is beginning to become as enjoyable as its british counterpart. (Although I do wish Tony Jones would stop saying "We'll take that as a comment" whenever somebody in the audience makes a comment.)
This week, they took a question via a video submission that asked the panel (specifically a gay cabinet member and a prospective opposition leader with a large gay electorate) why they supported the ban on gay marriage. (Unfortunately, there isn't a transcript of the question, so I can't quote it.) The man didn't want to hear about the discrimination that had been removed, just why they supported the ban.
But isn't the removal of discrimination the key goal? So why try and remove it from the debate?
I think there's a need to rethink the many reasons why the state recognises marriage. Some benefits are granted to married couples because it is viewed as the best model for raising a family. With today's lack of respect for the institution leading to the high rate of divorce, I suspect that this argument has been lost. Some because of the recognition that a married couple live "as one" and share all that they have. This is where arguments for recognising close sibling relationships come in.
Essentially, society has moved on from the Christian teachings that our laws are based on. There needs to be a new model that respects the views of everybody. For those who want society and the law to recognise that they live their lives together and benefit from all the rights and priveleges that support the good that comes from it, to those who see marriage as a religious sacrament witnessed before God.
This can only be achieved if the Government replaces the Marriage Act with one that allows for different forms of recognised relationships. Whether they be called marriages, partnerships or unions.
Labels: pov
|
|
permalink
