It’s time. It’s progress. And it’s going to be awkward for the US when Canada, the UK, Australia, and South Africa—a majority of nations that make up the Anglosphere—have achieved marriage equality while gay people in the “land of the free” aren’t free to marry because social conservatives in the “home of the brave” are still crapping themselves in terror at the prospect of “liberty and justice for all.”

37 replies on “Movement in Australia on Marriage Equality”

  2. I look forward to Australia becoming a more just society. The US seems to have a greater concentration of empowered individuals actively seeking to make it a theocracy. Maybe I’ve seen too many Christian voters guides and met too many people who’s first question is “But is he/she a Christian”, in this narrative Christian is synonymous with good. All vetting seems to end, agreement on all subjects is presumed, and the past is glossed over. That is how Mr. Gingrich will get Evangelical endorsement. To me it is interesting to see a louder “Christian Left” and read religious polling that 67% of Millenials are pro-equality as a whole, and 45% of self-described Evangelical Millenials are pro-equality, all of this makes me hopeful that the US will arrive. I’m guessing we’ll do it state by state and when we finally cross the finish line we’ll crow about how great we are. Waiting does suck. Keep up the good work.

  3. Every gay person is free to marry someone of the opposite-sex, just like every straight person is free to marry someone of the opposite sex, so everyone is equal under the law. It’s kinda like how a black person was once free to marry someone of the same race, just like white people were, so no one was being discriminated against by bans on interracial marriage because they applied equally to all.

    See how that works?

  4. If my memory of history is correct, the rest of the Anglosphere eliminated chattel slavery long before the US, and the rest of the Anglosphere granted female sufferage long before the US. Gay sex was decriminalized in England in the early 70’s, about thirty years before SCOTUS decriminalized it here. And let’s not even talk about universal access to healthcare! The Founding Fathers had a good idea about freedom and representative elective government, but the US has had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into every social advance ever since.

  5. Unfortunately, this does not mean that Australia is about to legalize marriage equality. The country is still far away from that it appears. It’s still progress, but don’t get your hopes up for any change in the law anytime soon.

    What is happening is that the party platform of the largest Australian political party (Labour) is going to be amended to support marriage equality with the caveat that it’s members are NOT forced to vote that way when it comes up for a vote in parliament.

    There are still not enough votes in parliament to change the law of the land. Labour only has an advantage of a few seats over the conservative Coalition parties, who are against marriage equality. Plus not all Labour MPs are for changing the law. Neither is the Labour Prime Minister.

    And this in a country where countless opinion polls show that more than 60% of the public is for marriage equality.

    The weird thing about the PM is that she is a leftist woman who is an avowed atheist who STILL does not believe in marriage equality. I don’t get it.

  6. @3 Oh, c’mon, Ken. Kim is right, as the old guard evangelical gay-hating bigots die off, the various christian cults in this country will continue their general trend towards acceptance of gay rights, just like they eventually had to give up witch-burning. If it was only so easy that just the extremist christian cults that are rabidly homophobic survived, it would be that much easier to marginalize their power. But nope, assuming some disaster doesn’t obliterate a good chunk of the national infrastructure that could pave the way for a “The Handmaid’s Tale”-like theocracy, we’re gonna be stuck with the socially retarding force of moderate christians for the foreseeable future.

  7. There is movement and it seems that the ALP Left has the votes to make a change but let’s not count our chickens before they hatch, Joe de Bruyn and the ALP Right aren’t laying down yet. The thing that Australian Labour Party delegates will be voting on changing is the National Platform and Constitution and will be debated this morning Sydney time. Here’s the 2009 version of the section where the change needs to be made (Note: It sounds pretty great until you get to the end of the section):

    “Removing discrimination against same-sex couples:

    137 Labor supports the enactment of legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation or gender status, and the removal of such discrimination from Commonwealth legislation

    138 Labor believes that people are entitled to respect, equality, dignity and the opportunity to participate in society free of hatred or harassment and receive the protection of the law regardless of their sexuality or gender identity. Consistent with this belief, in 2007 Labor audited Commonwealth laws to identify discrimination against same sex couples. In 2008, laws were passed to remove discrimination from 84 pieces of Commonwealth legislation.

    139 Labor will ensure that all couples whether married or de facto do not suffer discrimination.

    140 Labor will take action to ensure the development of a nationally consistent framework that provides:
    • The opportunity for all couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life to have their relationship officially recognized.
    • Equal rights for all couples in federal and state laws.

    141 Labor will review relationship recognition arrangements to ensure national consistency.

    142 These reforms are to be implemented consistently with Labor’s commitment to maintaining the definition of marriage as currently set out in the Marriage Act.”

  8. 4

    If the law is changed to let people marry whom they love will you be proposing to Rick?

  9. That is kind of my point, “Real America” is a bed time narrative. It’s a comforting tale for the frightened and easily duped out of their savings. The actual nation is arching towards justice. The narrative that all those who call themselves Christian share the same beliefs is hollow, and the conservative are realizing that their entire base isn’t on board, is crumbling and church attendance does not keep up with population growth. Evolve or fade stands before “Real America”, I’d guess that most will choose to evolve and will do so while dragging their feet.

    And another thing I find fascinating is the the unfolding of the Anglican/Episcopalian church. It fascinates me that within the US that Episcopalians side with equality, and in nations with equality the Anglican church is not exactly know for siding with equality.

    Enough musing for now.

    @Ken, I’m not sure of your point.

  10. @1 “A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews” -Antonin Scalia in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic

    Claiming equal rights when the rights clearly favor one group over another doesn’t fly (Christians would also pay the tax on yarmulkes, so it’s “equal”!)

  11. Yeah.

    Awkward.

    But do you know what is REALLY awkward?
    That so many nations recognize the marriage rights of polyamorous individuals.
    Way more than have legal homosexual marriage.
    And yet America lags embarrassingly behind.
    (did you know people in this country actually go to jail for marrying the people they love? barbaric… Has anyone ever gone to jail for homosexual marriage?)
    Dan has courageously campaigned for wider pubic acceptance of poly love.

    Can anyone think of ANY justification for denying marriage equality to polyamorous folk?

    Man, we sure can’t…..

  12. 11

    wow you’ve lost us.

    How does current law favor anyone?

    Are you aware of ANY state, city or county
    that grants the right to marry whom you “love”
    the way Danny is always whining about?

  13. A majority of countries that make up the Anglosphere already have either marriage equality or same-sex civil unions. Not only that, but citizens of countries like South Africa and Argentina (which have same-sex marriage), Colombia and Nepal (which are on their way to having it), and Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Uruguay (which have civil partnerships) already have more rights than Americans (along with a whole host of other countries America probably cares more about), so why isn’t America already embarrassed?

  14. There are a lot of us progressive Christians who are working hard to bring marriage equality to the US. If the only people who were supportive of GLBT rights were GLBT people and athiests, there would never be enough support to get equal rights to pass. We are adding our voices to yours, and we are all working together to bring change. It does get a bit tiring to keep getting lumped in with the narrow minded haters who call themselves conserviative Christians, but the only way to reclaim that name is to keep being progressive and to keep calling myself a Christian too.

  15. @10: Kim, curious comment regarding the Anglicans? Don’t know about other countries, but South African Anglicans have been pretty vocal on being anti-apartheid, anti-homophobia and fighting AIDS denialism. “The Arch” (archbishop Tutu) is a beloved figure.

    But otherwise i enjoyed your point about “Christians” not falling within same body of beliefs. i think Dan should keep up with the NALT theme. We need their voices heard!

  16. Here is the Big Difference
    between Real Americans and Liberals.

    Real Americans recognize that the ideals we strive for make us better than all other nations,
    that we have a special place and role in the world
    and that role/place is not to lead (or follow) the parade to Gommorah.

    Liberals denigrate all that makes America better
    and are constantly apologizing to the world for America
    and embarrassed about America.

    No wonder fewer that a fifth of Americans call themselves “Liberal”……

  17. @ ravished,
    I was thinking about the overarching leadership body of the Anglican church, maybe I’m uneducated but many of the US’s Episcopalian and South Africa’s Anglican seem to be at odds with the Anglican church worldwide. I didn’t mean to sound dismissive of Desmond Tutu or any individual Anglican/Episcopalian group that is striving towards equality, but to suggest those actions do not to appear to be coming from the top. Hence the schism going on, refering particularily to the US, as they list ordination of women and LGBT individuals as reasons to split. I hope I’m mistaken.

  18. Jeez, 20 comments in and nobody has said a word about the video.

    That video is awesome. One of the most effective I’ve ever seen. I’ve watched a bunch of times now, and it gets me every time at the end.

  20. @18 I wouldn’t call ignoring the parts of your holy book that are bigoted, “sophisticated”. Maintaining cognitive dissonance about just how evil your holy book is, because you don’t want to cut ties with your cult is cowardly, not sophisticated.

  23. @22 there are many different ways one can go about applying the teachings found in an anchient text when that book is made up of literal, figurative, historical, And cultural (and more) segments. While I’m not sure “sophistication” is what is necessary, ignoring a culturally outdated set of guidelines would not seem to be cowardly at all. In fact, it us rather difficult for some from within certain communities. That said, some choose to ignore the book altogether, while others recognize there is value in parts, value at least in an approach to the human condition, and choose a viewing lens that considers more than just the text itself.

  24. @17: Here is the difference between Real Americans and Jingoists.
    Real Americans realize that we are a nation founded on exceptional values, and as such hold their country to higher standards of justice, freedom, and equality. They understand that if we are to lead, we must lead by example, and strive to set an example worth following.
    Jingoists assume that because of the values on which we were founded, America can do no wrong, and dogmatically ascribe the mantle of Liberty to every action taken by the USA, whether wrong or right.
    What with the proportion of Jingoists in this country, no wonder much of the world thinks we’re a right load of poncy tossers.

  26. As a jingoistic Kiwi, let me just point out that while Queensland just legalised civil unions, NZ did it on a national level in 2005. (Coupled with a bill to equalise the tax, immigration, and social benefits treatment of marriages, civil unions, and de facto partnerships.) Of course, we’re still behind South Africa when it comes to marriage…

  27. I’m a bit confused about governments providing special benefits to people who are coupled with another person – currently only opposite sexed couplings according to the federal government, and in most parts of the US.

    Wouldn’t it be more equal, and remove all this fuss, if we push for the government to recognize no marriages at all? Why do coupled people get all those special breaks?

  29. The ALP just voted to change the National Platform removing the current text of 142 and adding the following:

    ‘‘Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life’’.

    However, at the same same time a motion was passed for a conscience vote to be allowed for MPs on the issue of Marriage Equality. Under PM Gillard, the government is unlikely to move a bill to change the Marriage Act, although a private members bill could be brought to the floor. If that were to happen, MPs can now vote their conscience on the issue rather than follow the ALP platform so the change to the platform is effectively non-binding.

  31. @29: You’re not confused, you just haven’t thought it through.

    Why do governments recognize and give preferential treatment to couples? Because our species is social; most of us live in familial groups of two or more. Marriage and adoption are the ways that our society sanctions relationships and creates legal KINSHIP (family) between people who are not genetically related. Kinship establishes bonds of financial and material rights and responsibilities, and it is kinship that is legally recognized when it comes to issues of access and authority (think medical decisions, child custody and visitation, immigration, etc.). Governments give special benefits to families because, for the most part, both children and adults live better in cohesive familial groups than they do all on their own or in institutionalized settings.

    I agree that coupled people shouldn’t get special financial treatment by governments, but that’s really a separate issue entirely, because people who want to end marriage discrimination aren’t doing it so that same-sex couples can enjoy tax breaks.

  32. 26

    Embracing, legitimizing and subsidizing deviancy and perversion is not an example worth following; and are not the ideals that make America great.

  33. I listening to your podcast about how straight couples (Kardashin) use and abuse marriage rights and no one has a problem with that. well any way you know what you said, I’m a straight female and I just wan to say I loved what you said! I’m going to use your argument in future convos I hope you don’t mind 🙂

  36. 35
    Danny is, as usual, full of shit.
    Lots of people have a huge problem with it.
    Danny argues with the straw men in his head,
    he really needs to get out of his faggobubble more often.

Comments are closed.