Tuesday, 14 November 2017

The majority of people in Australia have said YES!

It's a big day here in Oz! Finally, thirteen years after John Howard's coalition government voted to change the Marriage Act to define marriage as something between 'a man and a woman,' the people of Australia have shown that they support same sex marriage. My Facebook feed has been a happy place - so many photos, rainbows, hearts, happy faces. 

However, there is work yet to do. While the result - 61% saying YES - is excellent, it isn't binding. This should never have been conducted via this non-binding public 'survey. The campaign unleashed three months of deliberate scaremongering and misinformation from the 'No' side. Those on the 'Yes' side were accused of trying to force the issue too, at times. My gut says to me that those occasions were more likely born of years of frustration, watching other Western countries around the world creating legislature that made marriage between ANY adults possible, while Australia dragged its heels, the religious right factions within several generations of governments blocking any useful discourse that could have enabled the government itself to vote on changing the law - as should have been the case. But real harm has been done to members of the LGBTQIA community and their families as a result of the viciousness of the 'No' campaign. That is reprehensible.

In the wake of the announcement this morning of the 'yes' vote coming through in the majority both the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the leader of the opposition, Bill Shorten, have committed to get legislation through 'before Christmas' that will resolve this once and for all. Turnbull, of course, has a vested interest in getting the job done - his government is currently in the minority, due to the dual citizenship issues among his members, the polls show a continued swing in Labor's favour against him, and if he doesn't push the legislation through, it will almost certainly contribute significantly to a loss in the next election - particularly as Bill Shorten has already used promises to enact a change in the legislation at the last election, and will certainly use it again if we go to the polls without the law being changed. 

And so, regular readers might be curious now, as to why I'm writing this post. It's not about RA, it's not about parenting, it's not a recipe...so why has the Dragon Mother suddenly decided to dip her toe into politics, you may be asking. What, if anything, has this event got to do with her?

Personally, for myself and Dragon Dad, it has absolutely nothing to do with us. We're not married. That may change in the future. And there's nothing in the laws of the land that would prevent that happening. When - WHEN - this legislation goes through, that will still be the case. It won't change a thing for us. 

No.1 son is in a long term relationship, also not married. But, should he and his girlfriend make a decision to get married, they too - like us - would have no legal barriers. The Stepson has recently ended a long term relationship, and is footloose and fancy free, for now. But again, should he meet a girl and decide he wants to marry her, that will be easily achievable. 

No.2 son though, is gay. He came out to me nine years ago, when he was seventeen. He was combative about his announcement - fairly typical of him, when feeling vulnerable. He introduced me to an early boyfriend on one of my visits back to his hometown - again, in a combative style, which rattled the boyfriend at the time... I don't know if he's currently in a relationship or not, as he is still not communicating with me - for some background to that situation, read this post. If past experience plays out, that will eventually change and hopefully we'll be back in contact. 

However, as the law currently stands, should he be with someone and wanting to marry, he can't. And that isn't right. Why should one of my sons be able to marry and the other one not? There's no good reason for that - none at all. 

So, today, I rejoice, along with those in the LGBTQIA community. I rejoice with them and for them. Sooner or later now, these laws will be changed, and people's gender preferences and sexuality will no longer be a barrier to marriage, for those who wish to be married. Among them is my son, who will have the same freedoms as his brother, and his parents. 
One of the more beautiful rainbows I've seen over my backyard lately

4 comments:

  1. If it were up to the population of the US we we would not have marriage equality. your campaign woudl be a small thing compared to the millions poured into such a vote. Thankfully our courts made marriage equality the law of the land I am thankful. I have known for years that any one else's marriage does nothing to impact mine. Not a single one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's been atrocious, what's been happening here. The religious right are STILL saying this is wrong... The legislation WILL happen here now, and bills are going in for debate as of this morning - it's just to be hoped that those right wing religious extremists in our parliament get drowned out. At essence, ALL that needs to happen is to change the wording of the existing legislation so that it's non-gendered. The chat from them this morning has been that businesses, churches and civil celebrants who say no to officiating or supplying goods to gay couples need to be protected by special laws attached to the marriage bill...FFS.... 'scuse me - but it just makes me angry.

      Delete
  2. The recognition of same sex marriage goes beyond just being able to marry for love. Certain laws around end-of-life arrangements and deceased estates etc. and other personal and financial arrangements still refer to 'marriage' so if same sex marriages are not recognised for the purposes of Australian law, the people in those same sex marriages do not receive equal treatment or status under the laws as heterosexual couples whose marriages do have recognised legal status. So it is a lot more than "love is love is love."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I know...and that's something that the naysayers refused to acknowledge. The civil relationships and things in place for those just don't go far enough in terms of those protections. The 'love is love' slogan irritated me a bit, I must admit - it oversimplified the issue to the campaign's detriment - nothwithstanding the win.

      Delete