Indignation or derision?

Last week I had an opinion piece in the Dom Post, in which I argued that if the state was going to be involved in the marriage game, then it ought to make marriage available to all its citizens – gay, lesbian, straight, trans*, threesomes, foursomes, whatever.

Gay, straight, bi – marriage should be for all

The state has no business in the marriage game. It does have a legitimate interest in noting who is in a committed relationship. As a society, we want to be able to tell which people happen to be sharing accommodation as mere flatmates, and which have amalgamated their interests for the foreseeable future.

We allocate rights and responsibilities on the basis of those amalgamations, such as welfare entitlements and tax credits, and obligations to support other people. But why should the state care about whether those committed relationship households are based on male/female couples, or same-sex couples, or trios, or whatever?

It is unfair the state gives a certain status (marriage) to some households but not others. Either the recognition ought to apply to all, or none. Anything else represents the state picking and choosing among citizens, saying some are more worthy than others. That ought to be anathema in an egalitarian society.

This week, Bob McCoskrie has an opinion piece in the Dom Post, in response to mine, arguing saying something along the lines that marriage is between a man and a woman and allowing anyone else to get married would lead to children getting married to goldfish. Or bestial unions.

Gay community cannot redefine marriage

I don’t know whether to splutter in indignation, or roll around the floor laughing in derision.


6 comments on “Indignation or derision?

  1. Mindy says:

    Well, maybe he has a point. Is he married? If so his wife married a dinosaur…

  2. Mindy says:

    Shock horror, a survey run by Family First – assuming they are much the same as in Aust – doesn’t find support for gay marriage. So what if people aren’t flocking to get married, het people aren’t flocking to get married anymore either. The choice should be there for those who want it.

    The only reason that they insist marriage is between a man and a woman is because they find the alternative squicky. They need to get their minds out of other people’s bedrooms.

  3. Carol says:

    I ROFLed when I read Bob McCroskie’s response in this morning’s paper.
    I agree with Mindy. Family First have a very non-inclusive view of what constitutes ‘marriage’ (or ‘family’ either for that matter). I don’t know why they find it so hard to grasp that it’s a straightforward issue of equality and human rights.

  4. Tamara says:

    My favourite bit was where he said that you can’t take away rights someone’s never had. Well, gosh darn it, I’m completely convinced!

  5. Chally says:

    I lol’d several times. There’s a lot to get annoyed about, but I must point out for anyone who missed it the inaccuracy of ‘every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage’. Because, no.

  6. David Winter says:

    Derision, I think.

    (well done on your piece, which I hadn’t read ’till this morning)

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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