Greens on Gay Marriage

Subject: Greens-Media: Latham flirts with prejudice over gay marriage ban

MEDIA RELEASE
04.02.02

Latham flirts with prejudice over gay marriage ban

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle today expressed concern at comments made by Opposition leader Mark Latham that rule out a future Labor government's
support for gay marriage.

"In trying to out 'Howard' Howard Mr Latham appears to be willing to flirt with prejudice against the gay and lesbian community," Senator Nettle said. "The Greens support those same sex couples who wish to get married to have the same opportunity as anyone else to do so. There should be no discrimination in the financial and legal entitlements that accrue to couples whether they are married or in defacto relationships, or whether they are gay or straight. Mr Latham has spoken of the importance of leadership in building community values, but he has failed in this instance to show leadership in dispelling discriminatory views regarding the lesbian and gay community. The Labor party has consistently ducked this issue, choosing to hide behind a dubious legal claim that same sex marriages could be ruled unconstitutional. Prejudice will continue whilst those in positions of leadership run scared of it's power. Australia should be following the lead of countries like Canada, Holland, France, and Germany in extending the same rights to same sex couples as heterosexual couples, including the right to get married."

The Greens will continue to espouse a progressive stance on this and other issues of discrimination, and speak out against the prejudice in the community.

Contact Jon Edwards - 0428 213 146

Dear Jon and Kerry:

While I would give you top marks for your recent media release, calling for complete transparency with respect to the funding of political parties, I dissent very strongly from your latest post concerning "prejudice over gay marriage ban".

What you are signalling is your commitment to a wholesale redefinition of marriage in the law. This is what you should be arguing about rather than gratuitously alleging that those who do not agree, including Mark Latham, and those who believe marriage should be defined in law as a male-female troth union for life, are either "prejudiced" or "flirting with prejudice". A bit of honesty here about the full extent of your own position, rather than casting aspersions, would be in order.

Let's have your full argument! This "willingness to flirt with prejudice" allegation is a smear.

So what, in your view, is the injustice that is being perpetrated here? Obviously, you view conventional male-female marriage as merely one form of a sexual bondedness between people that can come to expression in various forms. So, are you saying that marriage law, by defining marriage as a male-female troth-bond for life, is somehow supportive of prejudice against the unmarried ie those who are not in such a bond and those who have no desire to be in a male-female bond for life? Could the law be in support of restrictive trade practises perhaps? Is it in denial of civil rights? Is it giving preference to one kind of sexual-bond and refusing to give a fair equal label to other "sex-bond products" on the shelves of the supermarket of life? Casting aspersions about "flirting with prejudice" does not actually get us very far in terms of what you believe here. And we won't know until you give the full picture, including the explanation of the prevailing injustice, as you see it.

Usually the Greens are in the forefront of opposing materialism and consumerism but on this occasion there is no evidence at all of a critical assessment of the ways in which the world-view of materialism and "the sickness of an acquisitive society" has undermined, or stands poised ready to do so, of most human relationships in our society. In fact your way of putting the issue in this Media Release can be read as simply confirming a materialistic calculus; are we to infer that your view is that conventional marriage is simply one "loving bond" among all the others that marriage legislation should help to make "financially viable"?

The many Australians who are unwilling to support the legal redefinition of a gay union to make it a marriage - including many voters who on other grounds may vote Greens - are not in the forefront of prejudice against gays. Pull the other leg! You should ask yourself whether it is your Media Release which is "flirting with prejudice" against those committed to maintaining the institution of the conventional marriage relationship.

As I say, if you believe that the conventional male-female marital relationship is only one form of "loving bond" then argue your case on its merits and in full and try to avoid raising the homophobic red herring. To say that a gay union is not a marriage is not to engage in prejudice against gays.

February 2004 © Christian Radical Reflections, is written by Bruce C Wearne (PhD), 29 Lawrence Rd., Point Lonsdale Vic 3225 AUSTRALIA, 61-3-5258-3913. Each edition may be photocopied or retransmitted in its entirety but not otherwise reprinted or transmitted without permission. This personal project aims to encourage positive Christian citizenship, the development of policies and political attitudes that better express our love for God and our neighbour. Your comments are welcome. Email can be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au . http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bcwearne/index.html