Where Do We Go From Here? – The long wait for marriage equality

Posted: July 19, 2013 in Local Politics, Politics, World News and Events

It is somewhat ironic that the only thing that stood between gay couples and marriage in Britain a couple of days ago was a Queen.

This week the British parliament passed the changes to their Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry. Now the Queen has given her blessing,  Britain becomes the next nation giving their citizens a fairer go than the nation of the “Fair Go”, Australia.

With their economy in the toilet, the British are looking forward to the significant boost to the economy that will result from this decision. The wedding organisers, the caterers, the hotels, the reception halls, the suit hire places, the limousine suppliers, the cake designers, and the travel industry must be all salivating at the prospect of the much-needed boost to their businesses.

Same-sex marriage, bring it on...

Same-sex marriage, bring it on…

So where does that leave Australia?

Well, a boost to our economy would be great, but not really vital. We were in the fortunate position in Australia of having a government who handled the financial crisis in a way that saw the country avoid the recessions most other Western countries experienced, kept the unemployment levels low, and made us the envy of the world. We were not the lucky country, we were the well-managed country. Despite all the whinging and attempts to block the governments actions from the opposition bench, the Labor government proved their economic credentials and did the country proud.

So that makes me of the opinion that we don’t really need same-sex marriage for economic reasons.

But what about other reasons?

I have always said that to vote in favour of same-sex marriage is not a decision to take the country forward. It is in fact a vote to correct a previous decision to hold the country back.

We are a multi-cultural society with freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedoms that we all take for granted. We are the nation of the “Fair Go” unless it would seem you are a “dyke or a queer”.

It is way beyond time to change this, but it is only our politicians holding us back here. After all the public clearly favour the idea with most polls showing a huge majority in favour of allowing marriage equality.

The arguments against marriage equality all seem relatively daft and seem to be based more on ignorance, bigotry, and religious persecution than any kind of reasonable logic. My personal favourite is the one where those with an IQ lower than the number of wheels on my pushbike claim that having gay people marry somehow affects their own marriage and its sanctity…

To me that is like eating out at a restaurant and claiming that because someone else at another table ordered fish that it is somehow affecting your rack of lamb. Total and utter crap. If your marriage is so fragile that other peoples ability to marry affects it that much, then you have bigger fish to fry I’m sorry to say.

On the political front in Australia we have the Labor Party who have voted overwhelmingly in favour of marriage equality at National Conference, several state conferences, have passed legislation for marraige equalityin the lower house of one state, Tasmania only to have it blocked in the Upper House, and whose leader Kevin Rudd has openly stated his support for same-sex marriage.

Kevin Rudd - It's thumbs up from me

Kevin Rudd – It’s thumbs up from me

On the other hand there is the Liberal Party, who have made absolutely no steps forward in this area at all. Their leader Tony Abbott has claimed he would not let his religion influence any of his political decisions. His religion has poked its head up previously with his decision of the abortion pill RU486, and Abbott has also stuck his neck out in defence of his religion when Catholic priests seem to continually sexually molest children. Now his religion has come into it once again as he has forced his party to back his position of being against equality in marriage.

This stance of Abbotts is despite several members of his party saying they are willing to vote yes to same-sex marriage, and despite the country, including Abbotts own electorate being majorly in favour of allowing it.

Here in my electorate, Liberal member Alex Hawke has been quite vocal in his opposition to same-sex marriage, and how it will destroy the sanctity of marriage. This is coming from a man who has recently ended what was a short marriage in which his wife spent most of their married life living overseas. Many have questioned whether the marriage was one of convenience to achieve a political agenda, and many others in the area who know Alex well question whether it was done to disguise Alex’s own sexuality and keep it in the closet. I can’t say either way, but I do know that given his own experience the sanctity of marriage is not something I would consider high on the list of things Alex Hawke can preach about.

Alex Hawke and his ex-wife. At least it lasted longer than a Kardashian marraige... just

Alex Hawke and his ex-wife. Their marriage lasted nowhere near long enough for Hawke to get all preachy about sanctity…

It is interesting also to note that the British parliament that voted for marriage equality has a conservative majority, as it did in our closest neighbour New Zealand’s parliament.

I wonder if Tony Abbotts stance will change now marriage equality has the blessing of Her Majesty. After all Abbott is a huge fan of the royal family, and if same-sex marriage is good enough for them, and the conservative government, surely it should be good enough for Abbott. It is also interesting to note that the Queen is also the head of the Church Of England.

When we do finally manage to get around to treating all who seek to wed equally, we will certainly not be leading the charge, there are many other nations who have done the right thing first. These include 13 States in the USA, Britain, France, The Netherlands, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, Uruguay, Belgium, and of course New Zealand.

Tony Abbott has told the press that there may be a change of Liberal policy on the issue after the September election once the post-election caucus meet to form a position.

There is no reason why the Coalition cannot form a policy on this matter now pre-election, they certainly don’t mind stating their positions on climate change, their mates mining profits, and asylum seekers.

Transparency is a word that appears to be foreign to the Coalition under its current leadership.

It is interesting to note that the last Liberal MP to state their opinion on marriage equality honestly was the man Tony Abbott personally appointed as his Parliamentary Secretary when he knifed Malcolm Turnbull for the leadership. The man he appointed was Cory Bernardi.

Cory Bernardi compared marriage equality with bestiality, which probably explains more about what Bernardi spends his time pondering than it does about same-sex marriage.

I hope someone has pointed out to Bernardi that despite his perverted prophecies/fantasies, there has been no noticeable increase in bestiality levels in any of the aforementioned countries where marriage equality is now happily accepted. Rumours to the contrary regarding New Zealanders and sheep should be taken in jest and with a sizeable grain of salt.

Bernardi warns Abbott about gay men and bestiality with an amused onlooker

Bernardi warns Abbott about gay men and bestiality with an amused onlooker

For those of you waiting to marry their partners and move forward with their lives together, I hope you don’t have to hold out too much longer. My feeling is that if after September we have a Labor government then it will be quite high on the list of priorities, as Rudd would be looking for it to go through senate while we know it will pass.

Then we will be one huge step closer to being a nation of equality.

Not before time either….

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

Comments
  1. Macys says:

    Wixxy,
    Great article on the hipocrisy of our political leaders.Recent questions of the leaders in your local area got some interesting responses. One response referred to the “scriptures”. I thought the Eighth Commandment was part of the scriptures. Marriages of convenience do not cover up for very long. Have your views, that is your right in Australia, but don’t be a hipocrite and politically expedient. Some of us may call you out on it.

  2. Looking forward to your next update on Jacksonville
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/thomson-may-not-dispute-credit-card-use/story-fndsip4d-1226681895845

    I told you he would cave eventually – I said he should have used a local solicitor who belonged to the liberal party – because he would care more about professional ethics than keeping sweet with the union movement.

    And so we never will find out about those credit card vouchers a list of vouchers supposedly on different dates yet all showing rejected transaction codes – just one of life’s little mysteries that will disappear down the memory hole.

    Sad, but not surprising. Oh – and I also told you not to expect any charges on Kathy Jackson either.

    • wixxy says:

      He has not caved at all from what I can see, he has always said that he did not use the cards for those purposes and continues to do so.

      They are merely trying to save time and court costs by not running a debate on a matter which is totally inconsequential legally.

      If he has authority to use the card, then what he spent it on makes no difference at all. His argument hasn’t changed in the slightest this is just a different spin on the same angle from the MSM

      • “he has always said that he did not use the cards for those purposes”
        Of course he didn’t use the card for those purposes. What kind of mug goes to a brothel 6 times in 4 years and pulls out the same misspelt card each time, watches the transaction fail and then says “Goodness gracious me. I pulled out the dud card again, here let me use the genuine card and charge the exact same amount to the HSU account.”?

        The point is not that he is innocent of using prostitutes, the point is by claiming he was entitled to spend union funds on prostitutes if he wanted to, he is trying to cover up, not his own wrong doing, but corruption in the Union movement, in Fairfax, the police and in the ALP.

        Not only is that immoral, it is just plain stupid – he’ll wind up in the same place all stupid people wind up, in a cell next to the Mosman collar bomber. The magistrate will never accept such a defense and he will find up being found guilty as his union lawyer intended all along.

        What a snake pit is the ALP.

      • wixxy says:

        He is trying to save an extortionate amount in legal costs proving something that does not need proving legally…

        He is not saying it is ok to spend union money on anything you like at all, he just doesn’t want to spend tens of thousands if dollars arguing the point…

        I don’t blame him, to do so would be expensive and make no legal difference

      • “He is trying to save an extortionate amount in legal costs proving something that does not need proving legally…”

        But it DOES need proving legally. Do not be under any illusion that any court in this wide land is going to find he was LEGALLY entitled to spend money on prostitutes. This is a strategy of legal suicide, urged on by traitorous, vicious, two-faced legal advisers. The same brilliant legal advice that said he should drop his libel action against Fairfax when they were flashing patently dodgy credit card vouchers around in court and introducing sly discovery motions to determine if he had actually kept any pesky credit card statements himself.

        Oh well, isn’t the first, won’t be the last.

        Bring on the next victim.

    • wixxy says:

      You may have noticed that The Australian has had to edit that story, removing entire paragraphs.

  3. oldfart says:

    Does chrissy have a pet?

  4. gay dating says:

    According to the Elle website it’s a wool cap by Ralph Lauren (not that knowing it’s designer *helps*).

  5. Adam Smith says:

    Mr Abbott MP is reportedly very close to Roman Catholic Cardinal George Pell. Queen Elizabeth ll is the Constitutional Head of State of The Commonwealth of Australia. The Queen is the Head of the Church of England. Mr Abbott MP is the elected Member of Parliament for Warringah and elected leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. In my opinion, the Queen has credibility.

  6. Peter May says:

    Great article Wixxy. But apart from the obvious benefits of gay marriage there’s also the benefits of divorce. If they ever televise “Gay Divorce Court” I for one, will be watching the hell out of it.
    But seriously, great article and the lack of equity here is immoral, unconstitutional and I’d say, illegal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s