Train track media narratives

When a political event unfolds, you would expect that each media outlet,…

Day to Day Politics: I was right when…

Monday 11 December 2017On December 7 I wrote a piece titled “Bill…

A double agent in the house? It's the…

Loud hosannas resound in Canberra. Hallelujah. Could it be the joyous news…

Watch this space in 2017 - Redux

Normally around this time of the year over at The Political Sword…

Protection of, or Protection from Religion

By Terence MillsThe Prime Minister has called for a review of religious…

Murdoch Won't Benefit From Company Tax Cuts And…

People need to start thinking before they speak. For example, I heard…

Playing Chess With Pigeons

By Loz LawreyI've been hearing terms such as “postmodernism”, “neo-marxism” and “the…

What the hell is this juvenile fool doing…

It is appropriate that David Leyonhjelm got into parliament on the donkey…

«
»
Facebook

The Flawed Institution: Australian Marriage and the Same-Sex Debate

It’s a pretty curious thing to see: marriage being defended at all. Like slavery, and not necessarily inconsistent with it, marriage is an institution. It embraces codes. It imparts obligations, duties, and rights. And it creeps up on you.

In Australia, flawed campaigns are being waged in its name. This has been occasioned by an absence of parliamentary will. Abdicating a responsibility that was clearly given to them by the High Court of Australia in the 2013 case between the Commonwealth and the Australian Capital Territory, parliamentarians will be waiting for the results of a postal plebiscite that should not be taken for granted by anybody. The farce will then continue on what form of bill will be voted upon, if, indeed, there will be a bill put forth at all.

Taking this survey into account (the wording by the Turnbull government on this is intentional) is, however, hard to take seriously. Lacking the austere gravitas and purpose of a referendum, it only promises to take the temperature of the Australian populace, a reading of that confused patient known as the public.

Then there is the nagging question of whether the plebiscite will even go ahead. A sword of Damocles hangs over its very legality, and the holder of that weapon – the High Court of Australia – may yet find against it. Advocates against it have argued that such a measure cannot bypass parliamentary will.

As for the arguments for marriage, these have been variant and even idiosyncratic. Conservatives groups for gay marriage argue that you strengthen it by virtue of expanding it. The more, it seems, the merrier. The stance is outlined by Nick Greiner, former New South Wakes premier.

Those in favour of not enlarging the tent – such as Senator Matt Canavan – embrace the erroneous notion that an ancient institution should not be changed in terms of gender. What has been done for millennia must be right. (He forgets that the same arguments could be used in apologias for genocide, slavery and domestic violence).

The good senator is somewhat confused in insisting that the institution needs more than love. It would be far more accurate to say that property and securing it against challengers has been the traditional role of marriage. Love tended to be found outside it.

The issue of marrying for love is a charmingly recent phenomenon. It was very much the understanding in European aristocratic circles that marriage would only ever be to keep the line of succession safe. If you so happened to be a Hapsburg operating the levers of power five hundred years ago, you would also see marriage as a means of acquiring other properties (states, possessions, colonies).

The issue of children raises other fascinating points. For Canavan, the bond between males and females called for “a special word and a special institution” because of its link to breeding. A strict reading of marriage as a breeding machine puts those heterosexual couples who don’t wish to add to their global carbon footprint at odds with the religiously minded. Marriage entails issue, and blessed are the breeders, despite adding to population bomb. Even on that score, same-sex couples can have children, even if a heterosexual element is still required to supply the, to put it indelicately, raw matter.

As for the issue of miracles, nothing could be less so. Offspring tend to be an automatic affair that only promises to disappear when the process of reproduction becomes sexless, a dry, mess free laboratory matter sketched in such dystopian delights as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

The campaign has also given a foretaste of the nastiness to come. The pro-marriage conservatives insist that children who are raised in any environment that is not hetero-normative are bound to have a few screws loose.

Again, we have a problem of false attribution of value: since the conventional marriage produces children, it follows that it is good. This is hardly a good argument when stacked up against those dysfunctional children who come from that euphemised context of a “broken home”. Broken homes also produce broken children, and heterosexual couples can be damn good at it.

Advocates for the status quo have also brought the issue of freedom of religion into play. But this is a deceptive and disingenuous way of introducing discrimination via the backdoor. Traditional anti-discrimination statutes would thereby be circumvented by the bigoted notion that you could refuse to hold a service or bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The novelty of this debate is seeing how advocates from the Left perspective have marched in favour of same-sex marriage when marriage itself has lost its appeal to many progressives. The only argument left, then, is the equality of choice: same-sex couples should be perfectly entitled to enter into a flawed, anachronistic institution should they wish to. We should all be entitled to make our own mistakes.

 

Dr Binoy Kampmark is a senior lecturer in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University. He was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, University of Cambridge. He is a contributing editor to CounterPunch and can be followed on Twitter at @bkampmark.

 


6 comments

  1. Michael Taylor

    Very interesting article, Binoy. A delightful read.

  2. Michael Fairweather

    The children of a same sex couple would not suffer any more than any other child from opposite sex partners, in fact would be more cared for as they would be wanted and not just there for the money they would bring in.. Please let the same sex people alone as they will continue to live together regardless as to the vote.

  3. Jennifer Meyer-Smith

    If marriage is a wonderful thing, it should be accessible to any loving couple who wants it. That provides good grounding for children and is a far better proposal than traditional marriage where there has been power imbalance and too often much tension and fear.

  4. helvityni

    Many young people today, live together, have children, but do not do not marry. They have experienced enough misery, when their parents went through bitter divorces.

    But as the straight people CAN marry if they so wish, then the same right ought to be given to LGBT people as well; although many of their marriages might end unhappily as well….

    Fair’s fair; equal rights to all, in misery and in happiness.

    I’m no spring chicken, but already when my kids went to the local Primary school, we were just about the last Mohicans in the area representing long lasting marriages… 🙂

  5. Deanna Jones

    Thank you, Binoy. Love your work. This pretty much sums up my thoughts too.

    Michael Fairweather, off topic, but I’m curious. How exactly do children bring in money? My experience is that it is the opposite.

  6. wam

    spot on jm-s it is a simple case of expressing and sharing love between two human beings.

    It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could object and want to prevent some loving couples from marrying.

Leave a Reply

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: