The split between pro-marriage equality groups Australian Marriage Equality — which is preparing for a plebiscite — and Rodney Croome’s new offshoot Just.Equal — which is firmly opposed to one — is becoming very interesting, with Just.Equal’s new campaign against the plebiscite drawing on some of the similar tactics employed by AME. In a letter first dropped to Fairfax, but later issued as a press release by Just.Equal today, one of the Yes campaigners in the Ireland referendum on marriage equality has asked MPs to consider dropping the proposed plebiscite on same-sex marriage.
While AME has Tiernan Brady from the Yes Equality group in Ireland on hand to talk all about how a respectful debate can be held, Yes Equality campaign co-director Grainne Healy has told MPs in the letter that while the group was delighted to be able to achieve equality, the referendum campaign in Ireland was “a brutal affair” that was deeply hurtful for LGBTI families, and full of “untruths and ill-informed hate speech” on TV and radio during the campaign.
It was so bad, she says in the letter, that volunteers door-knocking for the Yes campaign were offered counselling afterwards, upset over negative comments made to them during the campaigning.
“It was a gruelling experience, [but] at least we knew that at the end of it, if we won, we would have full constitutional equality for LGBT marriage rights. To hold a non-binding plebiscite seems to be at the least insensitive to the LGBT community who will bear the brunt of the negative campaigning and at best will lead to an experience of divisive, hurtful campaigning, with no guarantee of progressing marriage equality.”
So far, Labor, the Greens, the Nick Xenophon Team and Derryn Hinch remain opposed to the plebiscite, so campaigners against the plebiscite are still somewhat hopeful the matter can be resolved via a free vote in Parliament rather than a $160 million plebiscite.
I see no reason pro-marriage equality campaigners should meekly accept a plebiscite, when its entire purpose is to allow anti-gay campaigners to spread fear and doubt.
The vast majority of the public supports the change, as does a majority of both houses of parliament. To hold a non-binding plebiscite in such conditions is an absurd waste of public funds, as well as being essentially pointless as the reform would still have to pass through the Parliament.
And $160 million may seem small change for a national government, but there must be better ways to spend it. That could fund a lot of beds for homeless people, or even build some new public housing.
Xoanon: “its entire purpose is to allow anti-gay campaigners to spread fear and doubt.”
No, you are wrong.
Being anti same-sex marriage does not mean one is anti-gay.
One of the problems with same-sex marriage is that it also allows same-sex heterosexual couples to marry, which ridicules the whole institution. Indeed, when two straight men married not so long ago, the homosexual community found it to be an affront, which was quite an ironic touch:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/12/marriage-two-straight-men-radio-competition-angers-gay-rights-group
These things work both ways.
Bedrik, that’s just a straw man. While gay groups did find it an affront to have two straight men marry, because it mocked what they had long fought for, I don’t see it as being a problem with same sex marriage.
There are huge numbers of loveless heterosexual marriages, whether they be shotgun weddings or marriages of convenience, arranged marriages or princes or princesses getting married to cement a political alliance. For the vast majority of its existence in anglo culture marriage has been primarily an economic construct that ensures a level of fidelity, and the legitimacy of children to inherit or to be crowned. It was only after commoners stopped being serfs and had property that marriage became important to them and bastardy was an issue. The prefix Fitz in many surnames means “bastard of”.
Being anti same-sex marriage is being anti-gay. Sorry, whether for religious reasons or other reasons it’s still anti-gay. Just because same-sex marriage can be “abused” in the same way that heterosexual marriage can doesn’t mean there is a problem with same-sex marriage. If there is a problem, then that problem lies with marriage itself. Personally I don’t think that using marriage as an economic or political construct is an abuse, I consider it normal use. Those two straight guys who got married probably do really love each other – there have always been many sexless marriages. Likewise there have always been silly decisions too.
I don’t see the problem. No-one is demanding that churches be legally required to perform gay weddings. I think they should do so if they want to retain community support, but I also think they should be free not to and fade away.
The plebiscite itself is an expression of hate. It demands that people stop their lives and fight with all their resources for something they deserve anyway. If we are to have plebiscite on gay marriage we could equally have one on introducing licences to have children (think of the children), 10 meter exclusion zones for minors around priests and torture centres for refugees.
Oh and let’s have a plebiscite about why single people should pay for other people’s children.
The fact that these other and any number of worthy questions are not put to a plebiscite shows what a singular expression of hate this plebiscite is given there is no constitutional requirement to have a referendum to change the marriage act.
Red herrings abound in discussion and debate around the plebiscite on same sex marriage. We have been caught up in the whole free speech debate which completely ignores the core issue involved in having the plebiscite. That is: it is not binding. So it matters not what the nation says the pollies will vote the way they want. If we are going to spend this enormous amount of money and subject the LCBTI community to such angst, the very least outcome should be a binding decision. Otherwise the pollies should damn well get on with the job and do what they are paid for without needlessly spending our tax money just for show.