# Political musical chairs & gay marriage...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

A whimsical title, but something I've been reflecting on for a while.

Today, President Obama announced he supports gay marriage. A reversal apparently, of his previous position on this topic. In the USA, there are also the Log Cabin Republicans, a faction of the Republican Party, who are for things like gay marriage.

The UK's Prime Minister Cameron supports it in principle but I think he retracted that, or watered down his policy in relation to it. But his party is for other reforms, eg. civil unions between same sex couples.

In Australia, irony is we have a Labor Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who is totally against gay marriage and not a fan of civil unions either, I think. But polls show Australian public is supportive of reforming law in this area (eg. for changing the status quo, but I don't know the exact detail of whether they want marriage or civil unions or either, etc.). Another irony is that Ms. Gillard has been living in a defacto relationship (hetero) for maybe 20 years, so her bias is she thinks marriage is unnecessary (& she is also an atheist).

Looks like these musical chairs have little to do with the old dividing lines of leftist or rightist politics, or even maybe secularism versus religion, but other things like (my guesses) -

- Public opinion polls - showing both parties to be out of touch with the public on these issues
- Party politics - maybe competing to attract the ever enticing _gay vote_
- Maybe pressure or lobby groups having some impact, eg. the gay lobby, or even celebrities (Lady Gaga came here last year and really ripped into Gillard for all this, and it was reported widely in the news).
- Maybe pragmatism - better to reform this area of law, better for business, again the enticing _pink dollar_

So it looks like it has nothing much to do with moral or ethical issues, just more about _realpolitik_. I'm not commenting on that other than I think the pollies should just out and say this, not give other reasons which seem to be irrelevant today in 2012.

A local article here - http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...for-gay-marriage/story-e6freoox-1226351565380

*Just seeking some good discussion on this.*


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

My thoughts on how to straighten this all out with the least amount of flap:

Marriage as a religious rite should be entirely within the realms of religion, and carry no legal significance / consequence -- a pure rite, spiritual, performed in front of community.

Legal marriage should be a state only business affair - allowed anyone, including the same legal rights of partnership, rights of estate when one predeceases the other, and to qualify for the tax benefits of being married. etc.

That takes the religious argument completely off the table: religious institutions can then freely continue whatever stance they have in saying whom, and whom not, they will marry.

The state should be impartial and equitable.

Holland has something like this, a relationship could be an elderly grandmother and a youngster, who are merely familial vs. 'intimate' as a couple. If they choose to become a family, why not? It is two people wanting and willing to take care of each other -- does not include specifics of the exact intimate or sexual nature of that relationship, which is something I like to think and hope any society would see fit to accommodate, not only on a humane and ethical plank, but a pragmatic one as far as the society goes.

Simples.

The whole issue somewhat parallels the Dread Scott case, i.e. that one infamous legal battle to determine if people of color were 'human.' Put in that light -- and I wish it were -- the fact it is an issue for anyone at all is flat-out appalling.


----------



## Mesa (Mar 2, 2012)




----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Gay marriage as a vote winner? hmmm...Certainly a Legal procedure is vital for a to people in a lifelong committed relationship to receive the same rights under the law as Heterosexual couples. 
The typical example is of two People who live together as a couple for 40 years till one dies. Under the law, the remaining partner would not be acknowledged next of kin as a marital spouse would be. No right of inheritance even if their own property was involved unless they could prove it. No right to even bury their loved one.

People have lost everything in the past with their deceases partners home and possessions being assumed by the blood kin who may have socially disowned them otherwise. Its a massive legal and moral quagmire as far as politicians are concerned and they solve this by keep changing their stance to align with what seems to be the current consensus. Taking a strong stance could be seen as a vote looser.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Re what you say, I'm not even sure if same sex couples have the same rights as defactos who are hetero. But re the issue of political expediency versus what's just and a policy with real vision, Bill Hayden (former Australian politician of Labor Party & also former Governor General of Australia in 1980's) had these things to say, which I think are fair, and he pulls no punches in criticising his party as it is now for lack of vision (Mr. Hayden, like our current Prime Minister, is not religious) -

_*We have now had more than a couple of decades' experience of living with legally sanctioned homosexual practices.* The sky has not splintered apart, and our community has not degenerated into a Sodom and Gomorrah, as had been gloomily predicted earlier by fervid opponents of homosexual rights.

*In fact, we have generally found gays to be good neighbours and friends, helpful and respected workmates, people whose presence is most frequently welcome as desirable fellow citizens.*
Life heaps enough unavoidable suffering and pain on humans without our social bettors having added to, as in the past, or our political masters, as now, adding to that burden of heartache by imposing cruel and unjustifiable punishments on members of a stigmatized minority; think of poor Alan Turing! 
Some will say, well, thank goodness we live in more enlightened, tolerant times now where gays are concerned; right? Well, partly true but gays do not stand on all fours, equal with the rest of us.

The times are nowhere near as tolerant of and respectful towards those people as would be the case if the community accepted them as fully equal with us, the dominating majority, the heteros. We allow them a sort of provisional, limited citizenship; freedom on a short leash, as it were.

*Yes, homosexual love is now tolerated by the law, but not marriage.* There is a 'relationship certificate' available for them in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT, the short end of the leash, Civil Partnerships.

These offer some protections but do not pass muster as real equality for gays which requires the provision of marriage rights. If an Australian same sex couple go, say, to Canada they can get a marriage certificate which is universally recognised and understood as symbolising the solemn commitment between two people.

*The Labor Party had the chance to do something meaningful on this at its last national conference but squibbed it. Has it lost the belly fire for the big challenges of major progressive reform and the enshrinement of basic liberties for which I have so long admired it?* _

Source "We've come so far on gay rights but it's not enough" in The Punch, 2009 - http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Weve-come-so-far-on-gay-rights-but-its-not-enough/


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

I should clarify that I meant The same rights as married couples.
In the UK Common law does not factor in with respect to marital status. Yet tell that to the Benefits people who will treat co habiting couples as married and adjust benefits to suit. They pay less Benefit. The Tax people say no, not married Single rates apply. government departments apply policy in a way that saves _them_ money If Gay marriage became financially beneficial to the system then we would have it like...yesterday.

The fact is though that no one would in practice question the right of a surviving co habiting partner of a straight, though technically they should seek legal recourse to protect their rights in the event of the unthinkable.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

It seems Obama may have been prompted by Biden's sudden admission that he now supports gay marriage, which he revealed a few days earlier. Interestingly, the (claimed) impetus behind both of their changes in decision was experience with gay people. Biden talked about how he met a genuinely loving gay-parent family, and Obama spoke of his daughters having friends with gay parents. This is a _huge_ part of the issue - people build these prejudices because of what they're taught when they're young, but give them the opportunity to meet gay people and talk to gay people and see that gay people have the same wants and desires as everyone else and they change their minds.

This was true of a prominent anti-gay campaigner who, when he went on the road, met gay people for the first time and had a complete U-turn in opinion. It's also true of many parents who have gay children, who begin with homophobic prejudices, but see when their kids come out that they're no different for it and so realise it's not a bad thing.

Something not often considered, however, are these fine words by Mayor Cory Brooker:



> We should not be putting civil rights issues to a popular vote ... no minority should have their rights subject to the passions and sentiments of the majority ... It's ridiculous and offensive.


_Being outraged over two people of the same sex getting married because you're morally against it is like getting outraged at someone you don't know eating a doughnut because you're on a diet._


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> [...]
> Something not often considered, however, are these fine words by Mayor Cory Brooker:
> 
> _Being outraged over two people of the same sex getting married because you're morally against it is like getting outraged at someone you don't know eating a doughnut because you're on a diet._


I haven't eaten a doughnut since my brother (a habitual doughnut eater) died in 2005. I had to think about it, but I'm against them being banned.

I have stated my case re same-sex marriage already in TC. You may be able to find it by searching on "The Wisdom of Hilltroll72". Or maybe not.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Interestingly, this article suggests that of the three major indicators of voters who favour a same-sex marriage ban (right-wing, religious, and lack of education), education is a more significant predictor than religion. There is a slight problem with the interpretation of the data in that education and religiosity are not entirely separable. When you enter the upper echelons of education, the proportion of non-believers vastly increases, and I imagine that those who just make it to a bachelors end up with a trend towards more liberal, agnostic belief than their counterparts who don't attend university. Asking, "do you believe in God?", then, is not the most helpful of questions.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I get the impression that the religion factor was based on membership in a church, or maybe a religious/social community, not that question. Dunno if that distinction matters statistically.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Polednice said:


> It seems Obama may have been prompted by Biden's sudden admission that he now supports gay marriage...


Naah... I don't see it that way.

Remember, it's an election season- and Obama's prepared political moments are formulated with the advice and consent of shrewd Chicago political operators, many of whom I've had an opportunity to view in action, closely, for a matter of decades. [The 'Chi_town' in "Chi_townPhilly" isn't just there for decoration!]

The single biggest factor in all of this is that we have (for a while) moved the discussion away from the execrable economy.

Funny thing is: there's evidence that Obama supported gay marriage back in 1996- though the Obama camp claims that the fateful newspaper questionnaire was filled out by someone else- in spite of it bearing BHO's signature. Of course (as I've mentioned before), when Obama ran for president in 2008, he publicly declared that he supported the "Defense of Marriage Act." His latest position strikes many of us as open articulation of a viewpoint he held privately... but kept under wraps until now. Alternatively, one could say that his shifts were sincere, in which case you'd have to say he was for it- before he was against it- before he was for it...

A "Regis Philbin" moment should then ensue... "is that your _final_ answer?!"


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I would agree that his previous position about his views "evolving" was a load of crap, but I'm not so certain that this is tactical. Surely he's alienating a lot more voters than he's gaining.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

Polednice said:


> I would agree that his previous position about his views "evolving" was a load of crap, but I'm not so certain that this is tactical. Surely he's alienating a lot more voters than he's gaining.


I understand evolving opinions. There was a time, back in the eighties, when I was a religious fundamentalist for a while. I am not sure how that came into being. I grew up in a liberal home. I am a liberal Christian now. That fundamentalism makes me shudder. Others who knew me at the time were quite shocked at how UNfundamentalistic I was. But I knew that it was easier to judge people than to love them. For all sorts of things. Not only homosexuality.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> ...A "Regis Philbin" moment should then ensue... "is that your _final_ answer?!"[/COLOR]





Polednice said:


> I would agree that his previous position about his views "evolving" was a load of crap, but I'm not so certain that this is tactical. Surely he's alienating a lot more voters than he's gaining.


Here we call what you're both saying there, a reversal of a previous position by a politician (& a big one, a huge reversal), as a _backflip_. I'd guess that we're less polarised than the USA, so our politicians do backflips all the time.

Re alienation of voters, I'm not commenting on USA which I don't know much about, but here according to polls and my own anecdotal experience, people are for reform of the existing laws governing these issues. I'm actually pretty much in the middle, but I am for change but I'm not sure what specifically. As for what you say about knowing a variety of people, incl. homosexual people, I am in that boat. I think it is true, when you get to know real people, you realise that their voice has to be heard by our lawmakers, it cannot be a _one size fits all approach_. Or not just going on with the _status quo _when society is changing beneath the politicians' feet. Our lawmakers and parliaments have to reflect the needs and aspirations of the wider society. This is what democracy is about for me.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Re alienation of voters, I'm not commenting on USA which I don't know much about, but here according to polls and my own anecdotal experience, people are for reform of the existing laws governing these issues. I'm actually pretty much in the middle, but I am for change but I'm not sure what specifically. As for what you say about knowing a variety of people, incl. homosexual people, I am in that boat. I think it is true, when you get to know real people, you realise that their voice has to be heard by our lawmakers, it cannot be a _one size fits all approach_. Or not just going on with the _status quo _when society is changing beneath the politicians' feet. Our lawmakers and parliaments have to reflect the needs and aspirations of the wider society. This is what democracy is about for me.


That's why I think the quote I used somewhere earlier from Mayor Brooker was particularly important, as allowing votes on civil rights issues is allowing a tyranny of the majority. It's such a basic flaw that modern democracies should know to avoid, and yet here it is, happening in the 21st century.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I agree, there is no need for a plebiscite for vote on this issue, well not here anyway. The majority of Australian electorate supports reform of these laws. The only question is what type of reform, but that can be found out in the usual ways, the usual democratic processes of consultation with the public. It happens on other issues (whether the pollies listen or not can be another matter, unfortunately, hard to keep _realpolitik_ and number crunching on the floor of parliament at bay, esp. with what we have now, a government ruling with support of a handful of independent MP's, some for reform, others not).

I heard a radio interview about this with a specialist in this area of law & government. He said that basically, both parties in this country, their core philosophy is not incompatible with allowing reform of marriage laws. The quote from former Labor minister Bill Hayden which I put in an earlier post here lays down how he thinks Labor (& the left's) core values are for _progressive reform _and _civil liberties_. But talking of the opposite side, the conservatives, this journalist said that your PM, Cameron, said that core conservative values of the state not interfering with society (eg. what happens between consenting adults) are compatible with law reform of this area too. Eg. they are for minimal meddling in the freedoms of people exercised lawfully in society. This ties in with how homosexuality is not outlawed in Western countries anymore. Cameron might have said this in the past, I don't know. But it appears that both the left and conservatives can come to consensus on this, they are both in the centre of political spectrum despite their differences. Just food for thought from that interview I heard.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> I heard a radio interview about this with a specialist in this area of law & government. He said that basically, both parties in this country, their core philosophy is not incompatible with allowing reform of marriage laws. The quote from former Labor minister Bill Hayden which I put in an earlier post here lays down how he thinks Labor (& the left's) core values are for _progressive reform _and _civil liberties_. *But talking of the opposite side, the conservatives, this journalist said that your PM, Cameron, said that core conservative values of the state not interfering with society (eg. what happens between consenting adults) are compatible with law reform of this area too. Eg. they are for minimal meddling in the freedoms of people exercised lawfully in society.* This ties in with how homosexuality is not outlawed in Western countries anymore. Cameron might have said this in the past, I don't know. But it appears that both the left and conservatives can come to consensus on this, they are both in the centre of political spectrum despite their differences. Just food for thought from that interview I heard.


The part I bolded is a particular frustration of mine, as conservatives are all about minimal government, and yet their incessant moralising is the _most_ interfering form of government imaginable, especially when enshrined in law. That's an international perspective, though. In the UK, Cameron is explicitly in favour of same-sex marriage to some disgruntlement in the back benches, while virtually all of the Labour party is in favour. There is nothing holding it back, then - it's a matter of when the timing is right (for them, naturally...).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ... In the UK, Cameron is explicitly in favour of same-sex marriage to some disgruntlement in the back benches, while virtually all of the Labour party is in favour. There is nothing holding it back, then - it's a matter of when the timing is right (for them, naturally...).


Well my impression is that in the Uk, in your country, the public's view of this issue is a mystery, or maybe against it (from what you say, the push for plebiscite on the issue, but has there been any independent polling on this specifically?). So you have whatever you have in the electorate but a leader who supports change. In Australia by contrast, our PM is totally against it, yet the public is largely for it. I am not up on the detail but this is the big picture. In any case, the current government is on shaky ground in terms of their popularity. However, the alternative is not much of an alternative, just virtually the same thing, both our major parties are very similar (the leader of the conservatives here is totally against reform of marriage laws).


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Well my impression is that in the Uk, in your country, the public's view of this issue is a mystery, or maybe against it (from what you say, the push for plebiscite on the issue, but has there been any independent polling on this specifically?). So you have whatever you have in the electorate but a leader who supports change. In Australia by contrast, our PM is totally against it, yet the public is largely for it. I am not up on the detail but this is the big picture. In any case, the current government is on shaky ground in terms of their popularity. However, the alternative is not much of an alternative, just virtually the same thing, both our major parties are very similar (the leader of the conservatives here is totally against reform of marriage laws).


I think we have a better situation than you, as our leaders are in favour, and I think (not certain) that a majority of the population is too. Our complicating factor is the established Church, which has been _very_ vocal about making sure it doesn't happen.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

A recent online article here by Rodney Croome, about the situation in Australia "Religious right has lost marriage equality fight"

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50903

In the Australian situation, seems in line with my experience, what this author calls the religious right (eg. religious fundamentalists) are being left out in the cold on this issue, not only by those with no interest in mixing this issue with religion, but also with religious people who do not hold their extreme views (_quotes from the article below in italics_). The last line that I put in bold really matches what I'm seeing on the ground here, and hearing/reading in the news. As I said, the ground is shifting beneath our Prime Minister's feet on these issues.

_Historians will look back at this year's two parliamentary inquiries into marriage equality as the beginning of the end of the religious right's disproportionate influence on Australian politics.

On April 13, the Senate marriage equality inquiry announced it had received 75,000 submissions with 44,000 or almost 60% in favour.

...

This is probably why Australian Christian Lobby spokesperson Jim Wallace is so angry. Suddenly, the conservative Christian constituency which federal politicians have kowtowed to at every opportunity and which Wallace purports to speak for has been eclipsed.
...

No wonder a number of religious leaders have distanced themselves from him.

The current marriage equality inquiries have shifted the debate on that issue, confirming its place at the centre of Australian politics and identity.

*Just as importantly, the inquiries have seen a shift in the balance of power in our political system away from the religious right toward the sensible, pragmatic centre.*_


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Polednice said:


> In the UK, Cameron is explicitly in favour of same-sex marriage to some disgruntlement in the back benches, while virtually all of the Labour party is in favour. There is nothing holding it back, then - it's a matter of when the timing is right (for them, naturally...)


The Lib Dems, currently in coalition with the Tories, are also in favour. It will happen, unless the House of Lords blocks it--which I think is unlikely, even given the complement of bishops there--or it simply falls off the legislative agenda, which I think is more likely. Cameron needs to be kept reminded of his pledge at all times, and Barack Obama's statement is certainly going to be very helpful in this regard.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Here's someone from the UK parliament saying that gay marriage is fine, but it's just not a priority right now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/13/gay-marriage-law-philip-hammond

The problem with this is that there's always going to be something more important because the economy and education are always going to be ****** up in some way. With such an emerging consensus, they should just get it out of the way quickly, and show that we're not a backward nation abandoning civil rights because of money.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Polednice said:


> Here's someone from the UK parliament saying that gay marriage is fine, but it's just not a priority right now.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/13/gay-marriage-law-philip-hammond
> 
> The problem with this is that there's always going to be something more important because the economy and education are always going to be ****** up in some way. With such an emerging consensus, they should just get it out of the way quickly, and show that we're not a backward nation abandoning civil rights because of money.


How much would it cost the public purse, anyway? Maybe £20,000,000? While I accept the need for an efficient military, the Ministry of Defence has squandered entire orders of magnitude more public money on useless procurement programs over the years, while giving us everything but an efficient military. Philip Hammond is currently the minister in charge, so, while he's not personally responsible for all the idiocies that preceded him--a subject on which many volumes could be written--that's still what I expect to hear him effing well talk about, not same-sex marriage, which is not his bleeding remit. I hope Cameron fcuking well swats him down good and hard for this. I can't find the words to say how angry I am about it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Some news just in today that's bemusing. An anti-gay doctor's group in Australia has filed a submission to parliament signed by 150 of it's members (doctors) who are against gay marriage on various grounds. Eg. that children need to be bought up by a mother and a father, and also that it would encourage spread of HIV/AIDS virus.

Full article here - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...kids-say-doctors/story-fn7x8me2-1226353845714

One of our leading dieticians, Dr. Kerryn Phelps (a highly respected Australian, and homosexual herself, former head of the Australian Medical Association) rebuts this more eloquently and succinctly than I ever can. Her following quote, in the above article (at the end of it) refers to the doctors who have made this submission -

_But former national AMA president and gay rights activist Kerryn Phelps said the doctors should "hang their heads in shame" ...

"They should immediately disqualify themselves from dealing with matters of sexuality, as they clearly have no idea about its complexities."_


----------

