The Two Most Irksome Objections to Gay Marriage That Even Intelligent People Make

Alright, it's been a while since I've posted and this isn't even a real one. I have, however, been bitten by the need to have my say on the building storm surrounding Gay Marriage and the ALP's support of same.

There are two things bothering me about this issue. The first is exemplified by MP Tanya Plibersek in the following article:  http://bit.ly/bQqjIZ  (sorry about the cumbersome link, I'm sending this via my phone email). I am very bothered by a prevailling attitude from the ALP and the public in general that goes along the lines of 'don't you think you should be grateful for what you have? A few years ago you didn't have the rights you do now.' This kind of thinking, almost tantamount to 'God, haven't we done enough for you people?', is an amazing exercise in missing the point.

What Ms Plibersek, and our much-touted atheist PM Julia Gillard, seem to be brushing over is the fact that near enough is not good enough when it comes to human dignity. It is not enough to say 'we are treating you almost like equals. Can't you just be happy with that?'. That's insulting. That's degrading. Yes, equality before the law has improved for the better. But to demand that a community be grateful that their rights were awarded to them only after years of uphill battle is as ignorant as demanding that women be grateful that men let them work in the corporate sector at all, let alone for 70% of the salary.

The gay community demand only the equality and dignity that they deserve. Near enough is not good enough - you don't celebrate a compromise on human rights. You deride it and try to fix it. So before declaring the gay community ungrateful, consider first that no community should EVER have to be grateful for the right to be treated like everyone else.

The other problem I have is one that I come across time and again, and often from very well educated people who really should know better. I can't scare up the link for the ABC Drum article at the moment (damn phone) but will post it shortly. The comments of said article were illuminating indeed, and many more than one of them made the following point:

'All gays ever talk about is gay marriage. Can't they talk about something else, some REAL problem like climate change or asylum seekers or poverty or something that is far more important?'

It flows so easily from the previous argument. The gay community has it pretty good, so why don't they turn their attention somewhere else every so often? The objection to this is so obvious after even only a few second's thought, but rarely are those seconds invested.

We DO turn our attention elsewhere, all the time. We just don't do it under the banner of 'gays for another cause'. Should I have to differentiate myself when I'm placarding, speaking out or blogging as 'A gay for the separation of church and state', or 'I'm a homosexual and I also want to save the whales'? This is the ridiculous logical conclusion to such an objection. Just because gays don't announce themselves as such when supporting another cause does NOT mean that we do not support other causes.

Strangely enough, I have never heard anyone say 'damn breast cancer sufferers! How come they never talk about anything but breast cancer?'. A specific lobby - like the breast cancer awareness lobby, like the gay lobby, like the feminist lobby - will of course keep to their mandate. It is the duty of the gay lobby to lobby for gay issues. It would be head-scratchingly weird to announce that this year's big issue for the gay community is climate change.

So my plea is this: if you're going to get involved in the gay marriage debate, don't swoop in to announce that there are bigger problems and this is not worthy of your time. Fine, if you feel that way - but your precious time would be better spent commenting on those more important things instead of decrying one specific lobby's specific issue as a waste of time.

Gay Marriage is a contentious issue for a lot of people. Differences of opinion will happen. But when even the most intelligent of people think that close enough is good enough, or that the gay community is wasting everyone's time on something they think is trivial, it's hard not to be bothered.

So come on, Tanya. Come on, Julia. If you're going to oppose it, have the hide to oppose it openly. Don't insist that, while you don't support FULL equality, you should at least be congratulated for getting it close enough. You are not civil rights champions. You are obstacles.

Straight down the middle.

On the political spectrum, this is where I sit.

Not bad - but still a whiny libertarian.

Now that I can sink no lower...

...I can finally admit it: I'm gay.

So has been the case for two prominent politicians in the last few weeks. Most notably David Campbell, over whose resignation we are all still arguing the influence of media-driven homophobia. There has also been a fellow in the UK named David Laws who, as one of the higher ups in the Lib Democrats, has caused turmoil after it was found he was using taxpayer pounds to pay rent to a lover. For a house, that is, not for the love itself. I don't think.

I need to stress that I do not blame these men individually for what is, unfortunately, a very poor message and example to set for any up-and-coming gay youth, especially those about to enter politics. Only after these men had their lives and credibility utterly obliterated - loss of job, loss of family, loss of public trust and loss of privacy - did they feel that they 'might as well' be honest with everyone and admit that they've been gay this whole time.

For both of them, it was treated as though it was a horrible secret. Again, I don't blame them for this - it's the culture they were operating in that made it such an undesirable thing. But the implication from both of them is this: if only I weren't gay, none of this would have happened and my life would be far better.

They didn't say this, but then again they didn't have to. For both of them, being gay was a big problem. In fact, if Jason Ackermanis had written his stupid column with the words 'AFL Clubs' replaced with 'Political Parties', he may well have revealed himself to be a modern day prophet.

Democracy in Action.

Stephen Conroy, you could not be further off the mark.

Why do all of the world's communications and technology ministers insist on being utterly inept when it comes to communication and technology?

A Great, Intimidating Voice

I am, and have been for some time, and admirer of Christopher Hitchens.

I was directed to this article by a friend through the week and it reminded me of the fact that his autobiography, Hitch 22, was being released this week. I picked up a copy and am almost done devouring it. If ever there was a man who can put your intellect in its place with a limit of 200 words, it is Hitch. The pages of his memoir are so cram-packed with significant historical figures and events, all of which he was either present for or shared a drink with, that one can't help but be immediately intimidated by him. I catch myself feeling remarkably inadequate when I consider his intricate understanding of marxism and the delicate, yet dichotomously volatile, power shifts and balances of the sixties. I find myself jealous of the sheer number of causes that were begging to be fought for in the time of young Hitchens.

A bit of perspective brings me right back to present-day Earth, of course (there are ample causes waiting to be crusaded for right here and now - more on that in the next couple of posts). A little while ago I was overcome with an almost crushing sense of ignorance of the world around me. There was a month where I'd restricted my sleeping to a couple of hours each night - the rest of my time dedicated to learning as much as I could about anything that would interest me. I resented all the time I had wasted at learning institutions over the years. I hated the fact that I'd allowed myself to become complacent in my own headspace, committing the dreadful sin of believing my learning to be done and all that was left was application. The results of this feverish catchup on lost time were predictable enough - I burned out, forgot most of the detailed information I'd gleaned (if not it's general content) and made a compromise to continue learning as much as I could, from as many different sources, as long as I was waking up to a new day. For the most part this has worked out for me.

But every so often, one gets a whiff of inspiration to go that little bit harder.

'If you have never experienced the feeling that you are chained to the steam engine of history, let me assure you that it is a very intoxicating one.'

So goes one of the more memorable quotes from Hitch 22.

Someday, I'd love to know if he's right.

Some good news

I've fallen somewhat into a new bloggers trap of always reporting the bad and never the good, so I thought I'd turn that around with a brief good news post. It's not strictly related to atheism, but one of it's sister movements.

I was listening in live to the NSW legislative council debate on a NSW relationships register. The bill would allow same sex and heterosexual de facto couples to register their relationship with Births, Deaths and Marriages to save having to justify themselves to each and every government department from which they might seek benefits. The mood going into the debate was, from what I could gather, certainly not overwhelmingly postive. Then the honourable Penny Sharpe, who (along with quite a few fellow MLCs) gave a rousing speech in favour of the bill, tweeted this:

NSW Relationship Register passes 32 to 5

12 May 2010 10:39:22 PM
from mobile web

More Of A Dilemma Than We Might Want To Admit

Christopher Hitchens has done what he likes to do best - speak his mind.

This time, he's talking about Nicolas Sarkozy's pipe dream of banning the Burqa.

This is an issue that divides just about anyone - it divides feminists, it divides atheists, it divides muslims, it divides christians. It seems you can pick any group, usually cohesive, and find the very well-defined split running through it. People tend to know instantly which side of the debate they are on, too. I imagine anyone reading this has already made up their mind as to whether the idea of a burqa ban is a good or a bad thing.

It seems to me we need to ask a pivotal question: is banning a tool of oppression itself an act of oppression?

It is not as cut and dry as saying that banning the burqa infringes personal choice. Some women, it is true, don the veil as a matter of free will.  These are the privelleged few, however, and have never faced an altenative of disfigurement and violence should they refuse. Wearing the burqa is never a feminist decision - it is always, in all cases, a patriarchal one. To deny that is to do all those women who have no choice a very, very grave injustice.

Now, consider the other, very practical arguments against the burqa ban.

'It will create a great deal of animosity between the west and Islam'
'Women who cannot wear the veil in public will be kept indoors by their Islamic husbands'
'You risk violence against those women who choose to cast off their veil against their family wishes'

And note that every single one of these boils down to one central theme:

'If you ban the burqa, someone's gonna get hurt.'

It's my opinion that the French government, and the rest of us, ought to be railing against that kind of bullying than bowing down to it.