Claire Van Ryn, The Examiner, 28.8.12
CLAIRE said: THE Greens are fighting fiercely to protect the Tarkine wilderness in Tassie’s North-West. This significant tract of temperate rainforest has been upheld as a sacred place worthy of protection. People feel strongly about it. Over the past few years we’ve seen protests from community groups and heartfelt speeches from Greens pollies against changes mooted including the Tarkine tourist road and forestry and mining operations. The Tarkine is beautiful and effective as it stands, they have cried. The Tarkine is a place with World Heritage values. The Tarkine nurtures life and should not be altered. Proponents for change reply that opening up the Tarkine would give access to all, enhance economic benefit to the region and show off something the rest of Australia doesn’t have. Ironically, these are the very arguments that Tasmania’s Labor-Green government is using to rip apart the sacred place that is marriage.
BRETT said: Drawing an analogy between marriage equality and wilderness conservation is a very long bow to draw. It is a patently ridiculous opening premise to an argument that somehow manages to become even more preposterous.
CLAIRE: This government is willing to toss aside the heritage values of marriage as it stands, to topple the way things have been for a millennia (like the Tarkine) just so that a minority can have a look in.
BRETT: Marriage is a man made institution that has NOT been around for a millenia, and has in fact been changed by man many times in its very short history (short if you compare it to the history of the Tarkine). Dumb analogy. Really, really dumb analogy
CLAIRE: Joni Mitchell’s tune Big Yellow Taxi crooned from my car radio the other day: “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone. “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.” And as I gripped the steering wheel, blinking into the sun, I wondered if those lines would describe marriage one day.
BRETT: For god’s sake, don’t try to hijack Joni Mitchell for your feeble argument! It’s a fair bet this protest singer would be in favour of marriage equality and I’m pretty certain she’d be keen to protect the Tarkine too!
CLAIRE: As a married woman I am uncomfortable with the plan to redefine marriage. Can you even do that – redefine an institution that so many of us have used as the axis of family and life? Redefine a contract?
BRETT: Nothing about your marriage, your marriage certificate, or your relationship with your husband is going to change. Nothing. And anyway, straight couples get out of their marriage contracts all the time!
CLAIRE: Technicalities aside, marriage has served us well. We have not served it so well as revealed in high divorce rates, but when marriage is respected and its boundaries obeyed, it is the blueprint for family happiness.
BRETT: Are childless married couples a family in your puerile view of the world?
CLAIRE: Part of the reason is its exclusivity. Marriage is unashamedly exclusive.
BRETT: Marriage is not legally exclusive. Adultery is not a criminal offence. Striaght people do it all the time. Governments decide who can get married. Spouses decide what the rules (boundaries) are within the marriage – and the rules vary greatly!
CLAIRE: Not for a man and a bevy of women. Not for a brother and his sister. Not for a man and a man.
BRETT: Oh, you mean it excludes gay couples. It used to exclude mixed race couples too. Should we go back to that?
CLAIRE: It is exclusive to defend those under its protection: children.
BRETT: Why shouldn’t the children of gay parents be protected? My straight friends have been married for 20 years and don’t have kids. Should their marriage certificate be revoked? Should reproductive capability be a pre-requisite for a marriage license? Ok, I’m being stupid, but you started it Claire.
CLAIRE: I’m sorry – this is not an issue of discrimination. That word has been bandied about to knock fear into anyone voicing opposition, to quash the discussion.
BRETT: Unfortunately it didn’t quash your voice. And it sounds to me like you are an advocate for … discrimination. There, I said it.
CLAIRE: This is a matter of homosexuals wanting what heterosexuals have.
BRETT: Ah, a moment of clarity! Yes! That’s what we want. It’s called equality. Hang on… I think you actually DON’T want homosexuals to have what heterosexuals have. Damn, that sounds like discrimination.
Did you even read this tripe back before you clicked send?
CLAIRE: Political correctness gone awol.
BRETT: Some might call it PC, some might call it HR (Human Rights). And did you really mean ‘awol’??
CLAIRE: So, you’re gay. You are welcome at my table any time. I can open my heart to you, love you like any great friend, I just can’t agree with your lifestyle and your need for a marriage contract.
BRETT: Well there’s a nice passive aggresive slap in the face! Obviously you think you are better than gay people (hence your right to get married). In fact you are so much better than gay people you’ll even have them at your table despite their inferior lifestyle. Oh what a beacon of tolerance you are! Pity a child of yours that happens to be gay.
CLAIRE: In a recent interview, Greens leader Christine Milne commented: “The Tarkine is one of the jewels in the crown in terms of Tasmanian wilderness.” I would say likewise is marriage to community. Should we not defend it with the same vigour?
BRETT: Have i missed the point? Your whole argument is so jaw-droppingly ludicrous I almost thought it was a parody of the anti-gay marriage lobby. Could you actually be arguing in favour of marriage equality by demonstrating so capably how dim-witted and offensive are the arguments against it?
To borrow your own inane analogy… go chain yourself to a tree, Claire. The bulldozers are coming.
Today I sent an open letter to the Prime Minister Julia Gillard. You can read the letter on my previous post.
I have offered the letter to the Geelong Advertiser for publication, shared a link on Julia Gillard’s Facebook page and will offer it to DNA magazine.
I’ll keep you posted with its circulation. Wish me luck. And if anyone has any suggestions of where else to publish, let me know!
An Open Letter to the Prime Minister
The Hon Ms Julia Gillard MP
Parliament House
Canberra
The issues of marriage equality and gay rights have been in the news both at home and abroad in past weeks. I would like to ask you some questions to help me better understand your position on these matters.
Addressing the United Nations in Geneva this week, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton delivered a landmark speech about gay rights. She declared “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights”.
My first question is: Do you agree with Hilary Clinton, and therefore believe that gay rights ARE human rights?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which Australia is a signatory) states that “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family”. There is no “unless they are gay” escape clause. It does not say that a man must marry a woman, any more than it says a man cannot marry a man.
My second question is: Do you accept that the right to marriage is a human right as stated in the UDHR?
I will assume that you answered yes to both questions, which brings me to my third question: If you agree with Hilary Clinton , and accept the validity of the UDHR, how is it possible to view your stated personal opposition to marriage equality as anything less than support of a violation of human rights?
Governments around Australia have made great progress in improving the rights and protections of the LGBT community, to the point where we could say we are almost equal. But “almost equal” is by definition NOT equal. Clinton said to the UN that “progress comes from changes in laws… Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination”.
Backed by your own party’s platform, you have a golden opportunity (some would say an obligation) to lead Australia into a new era of equality. Clinton said “those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honours them”.
My final question is: on which side of history will you stand?
Brett Jobling
Geelong
Last weekend I attended my partner’s brother’s wedding. In another country I might be able to say that I attended my brother-in-law’s wedding.
And then on Monday I took my daughter to Canberra for a National Gymnastics competition. I swam in the AIS pool. I entered Parliament House through the same doors as everyone else. No problem there.
But I’m gay, so Australian Law says I can’t marry my partner. A silly analogy? Ok, so gays don’t suffer segregation in Australia, but every time we go to a wedding and have to listen to that compulsory Section 46 claptrap “marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman” we are reminded of our sub-class status.
Sure, we can have a civil union (in some states) or register our relationships… Screw that. Rosa Parkes refused to sit at the back of the bus and neither should gays be treated as second class citizens.
Marriage already takes so many different forms in Australia – Christian, Muslim, non-denominational, arranged, marriages of convenience for immigration – surely we are mature and tolerant enough to afford the same basic human rights to same sex couples.
And what the fuck is the downside? Will society as we know it really collapse? Every opponent of gay marriage I’ve heard sounds like a Henny Penny alarmist. Every argument is as idiotic as climate change denial.
If Julia Gillard had been ‘at work’ this week I would have liked to ask her if she truly believes that same sex relationships are less worthy than straight ones, or is her position merely one of political safety? I don’t think I would bother asking Tony Abbott the same question: I expect his prejudices are genuinely heart-felt.
And so gay Australians and their friends and families who care about ending discrimination are left with a demoralizing choice between the politically gutless on one side and right wing bigotry on the other.
It’s all going to change eventually. Just like women’s voting rights and White Australia and laws that prevented inter-racial marriage. And one day we’ll look back on all of these things with a similar sense of shame and incredulity. Even though I know marriage law will change, it frankly sickens me that we should have to beg, argue, lobby, protest and campaign for what should be an inalienable human right.
So Prime Minister, you can go down as one of the vision impaired politicians who opposed the inevitable (or put less charitably, ‘supported human rights violations’) or you can lead this country into a new era of equality. It’s a no-brainer really. You back-flipped on carbon tax so why not same sex marriage?
Julia, you can’t legislate love and you’re an idiot if you think you can. It’s time, if I may borrow a forgotten Labor motto. Fix this thing, move on, then get on with the business of running the country.
Brett's Equal Rights Blog 