27 January 2006

A Slight Case of Overbombing Part 3 – Why people do not choose to be gay.

This is part 3.

Part 1 is here.

Part 2 is here.

So what is the federal government’s problem with gay marriage?

We have looked at the main reason given by pro-family groups and found it to be a complete load of crap, that is, that somehow, gay marriage is anti-family.

The Prime Minister is on record as having described marriage as being a sacred union between a man and a woman. And the Prime Minister, together with quite a few cabinet colleagues, would like to see it remain that way.

This is exacerbated by the Prime Minister’s thinking that children are required as a result of marriage. He was quoted in August 2003 as saying the following, “Marriage, as we understand it in our society, is about children, having children, raising them, providing for the survival of the species.”

Alright. I know a married couple who, after several years of not having children completely gave up.

By the PM’s thinking, this means that this couple should immediately divorce, as they will not be having or raising kids.

My parents-in-law have 2 children who have moved out of home. Should they immediately divorce as they are not having or raising children anymore?

And given that they are Catholic, would they find a priest willing to annul the marriage?

John Howard is only fooling himself if he seriously believes that this is the case.

More likely he has found another argument “against” gay marriage which is designed to distract from the real issue.

So what do we have that counts against gay marriage?

Anti-family? Bullshit.

Procreation required from marriage? Complete rubbish. Not to mention Stalinist – what if married couples don’t want to have kids?

There are no arguments that stand up.

We are left with no alternative, but to conclude this:

The federal government believe that gays should not have access to marriage rights/rites just because they are gay.

Which as we all know is a complete load of cobblers.

Fair enough. We’ll leave aside the small issue regarding the cowardice that federal government ministers display in not openly admitting to this, and look at some current affairs.

Normally, if an Australian wants to marry overseas, it is normal for the overseas marriages authority to request from the Australian mission certification that the citizen in question is in fact legally unmarried.

And it is also considered normal for the Australian mission, be it a Consulate-General, Embassy or High Commission to respond with the appropriate information.

Recently, the Australian Embassy to the Netherlands has been in the news after receiving orders from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to not issue certification where the Australian citizen is looking to get hitched to a person of the same sex.

I’ve had a gutful of this. It is one thing to have a government which we (sadly) elected enforcing their morals on us, but to be enforcing it on the Dutch authorities, who quite frankly have no say is beyond the pale.

It is a DISGRACE!!!

What a freaking embarrassment. Here’s me telling some of my international mates that, “Oh no, the likes of the Rev Pat Robertson would never happen in Australia,” and here’s our elected government foisting their opinions on to the rest of the world.

I’m absolutely disgusted.

What is worse about this, is that not cooperating with a foreign power in the normal course of diplomacy (which arguably, this is) is normally highly questionable.

Alexander Downer has a lot to answer for.

And it just gets worse.

The Attorney-General’s department has told marriage celebrants to specifically ensure that they refer to the parties in sexually specific terms such as, “bride”, “groom”, “husband” and “wife”.

I mean, really, why not just tell celebrants that they have to include that bit about brides promising to “love honour and obey”?

Dikkii. You’re straight. Why are you so pissed off?

It’s very simple, dear reader.

This is a civil rights issue, pure and simple.

If the conservative right win out on this one, what is then going to stop them from saying that the “sacred union” that they refer to must be performed in a church, synagogue or mosque etc?

Before long, it might end up as, “marriage is a sacred union between a white man and a white woman performed in St Swithins Anglican Church, Campbelltown. To the exclusion of all others.”

Fight this kids. Fight this with all your fucking might.

No comments: