This morning my phone woke me earlier than usual with a text from one of my sons, who regularly taps into American politics in the middle of the night. “Obama has come out for gay marriage – how about that!”
How about that? Why should he care at 6 o’clock in the morning, or think I would care? Why should anyone care?
Well, I think there is very little doubt that people will care about this. My son cares because he believes in justice and human rights, and because both his parents are in long-term committed gay relationships which are not equal to the one they were in when they were married to each other.
I care about equality too, and whether or not I would choose to marry my long-term partner is not nearly as important as the degree to which I value my right to do so.
The other people who will care about Obama’s stand are the opponents of same-sex marriage whose views are nicely summarised in the Fox News headline, “Obama Flip Flops, declares war on marriage”. These are the people for whom letting gay people marry spells the end of civilisation as we know it, and degrades the sacred union between a man and a woman in a way that escalating divorce rates and highly publicised extra-marital affairs have apparently failed to do.
These are the people who enjoy the accommodation that our own Prime Minister has made by holding a line so out of touch with the rest of her politics and, indeed her party, that it is manifestly absurd. They are not going to like the very public stand taken by the most powerful leader in the western world and are going to want to see him pay for it in the polls. And maybe he will – another reason for me to applaud his courage.
Ultimately, why I care most about this is simply because it will make big news. A lot of closeted same-sex attracted young people all over the world are going to hear about it and know someone really big is in their corner. In research we released last month, nearly 4000 gay, lesbian and bisexual people commented on relationship recognition in a way that clearly indicated it was most valued by young people.
We have also been conducting research for over a decade with same sex attracted young people and seen many of them move from timid and browbeaten victims of homophobia to bold advocates who are going to fight to have it all.
Nevertheless they are still widely exposed to unchallenged homophobic violence and abuse, at school, in public and sometimes even at home. A message from Obama, believe me, is going to bite into some of this appalling societal neglect.
Older gay and lesbian people have made their various accommodations around formalising relationships, but this is not the case for younger people. When they get around to telling their parents they are same-sex attracted, they want to look forward to the same prospects of family recognition and celebration as do their heterosexual siblings.
They want to spend obscene amounts of money on wedding outfits and flowers, buy houses in the suburbs, have children, win seats on the school council, have easy friendship with neighbours, access good counselling services when marriages derail and command respect for their grief if they come apart.
Much of this may seem entirely possible now, and the recent changes that made same-sex relationships equivalent to de facto ones in Australia have certainly helped make it so.
But it is not all quite possible yet. Powerful forces are still saying gay people cannot be quite the same; that we are not entitled to make this one particular choice to marry. But then again, perhaps we are – Obama says so this morning and does so as part of creating the just world he wishes his own children to live in.
Many Australians today are looking to their own Prime Minister for this kind moral leadership. Come on Julia, break out the confetti. What, besides an election, have you got to lose?
Grendelus Malleolus
Senior Nerd
Quite frankly - the election is pretty much already lost for Labor so they really do have nothing to lose. They should come out hard and strong in support of equal marriage rights, put a bill into Parliament and make Abbott be the bad guy to attempt to repeal it if he is elected. With the Greens in the upper house there is no better time.
Hugo Freeman
Student
Umm Julia's already lost the election... moving on, personally I think the day marriage is seen as a legal right of passage rather than a religious one gay marriage will be acceptable in society. I'm pretty young myself so don't have anything to compare this to but the last wedding I went to there was absolutely no mention of God or the bible.
At a gay marriage protest held at uni one of the protesters propositioned that if the government wanted to they could force the church to recognise gay marriage. For me this motivation was clearly missing the point. Why would a same-sex couple want the church to recognise anything they choose to do. Marriage is a legal right not a religious one.
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
I dunno, some people seem to need a crusade in order to bask in their moral self-rectitude.
Parliament, by blocking gay marriage, is simultaneously providing such people with a highly enjoyable raison d'etre and preventing them from moving their attentions onto other causes where they might prove to be seriously damaging.
Down! down! presumptuous human reason!
Gary Myers
logged in via LinkedIn
They'll wait until the next election campaign and make it part of their platform, alleging they need a 'mandate' (pardon the pun). They'll hope that all those interested in this issue will vote for them regardless of any other policies.
Andrew Burry
logged in via Facebook
Anne, this is a lovely and insightful reflection on the comments o f the US President. It doesn't come down to a definition of marriage, which leads to the emotive responses, but more to the symbolic recognition that being part of a successful couple involves a wide range of support from all angles ... Family, society, government and religion if necessary.
The importance of recognition that loving, reciprocal and committed relationships of all colors and persuasions are of equal validity is a simple reality. When our young people can see that respect is not based on gender, they will feel more empowered to be themselves and more comfortable with who they are.
With IDAHO soon upon us, let us hope that May 17th is a chance for reasonable people to question whether the maintenance of homophobic values is important enough to remain as a silent assassin ..
Michael Webb
Administrator
A definition of marriage based on objective moral and natural law does the very opposite of your claim. It avoids emotions.
It is legal positivism that engages in special pleading to then move from emotions and passions, pleading an alleged compassion; then imposing change.
Abortion, human embryo exploitation, euthanasia laws led to killing of the weak, the vulnerable by the strong. When special pleading to have these law 'reforms' brought about over the past 50 years are out of the way, the tear wells have dryed up by the promoters, what are we left with? Answer: lots of dead babies, elderly who view themselves as a burden signing away their lives away.
Grendelus Malleolus
Senior Nerd
Michael - do you know what special pleading is? And do you not see it is precisely the same blunt instrument you have attempted to apply above by including favorable details to your case and excluding unfavorable ones?
Australia does not have euthanasia laws. And your last sentence is clearly an emotional appeal.
Hugo Freeman
Student
Michael I don't see how any of what you just said is relevant... to try put what you are saying into context though it seems irrelevant to talk about abortion and same-sex couples. No accidental pregnancies happen between gay couples I can guarantee you that.
Greg d'Arville
logged in via Facebook
The difference between Obama's and Gillard's positions can be summed up very easily: compulsory vs preferential voting. Obama aims to "get out the vote" with an issue that will rouse a fair number of people passionate about this issue that would otherwise stay home; those whom this position alienates already despised him and could be expected to show up anyway.
Gillard knows that those who might be inspired by a change in her stance are already committed to either Labor or the Greens, so there's no votes to be gained by a change of policy. And she can't risk losing any more Ruddites with a perceived anti-Christian move. They'll all be at the voting booths, because they have no choice; getting out the vote is not a requirement.
I suspect that deep down Julia's views are identical to Barack's but how would you know? So while I support same sex marriage and quite like Barack Obama I find his calculated cynicism - or that of his advisers - on this occasion to be breathtaking.
Christopher Angus
logged in via email @yahoo.com.au
People appear to have forgotten that Labor has within it a faction that opposes gay marriage. Members of that faction are part of Gillard's already-tenuous government, and any attempt to legislate in favour of gay marriage will simply result in these individuals to withdraw support for the government, or perhaps even outright quit the ALP. Her only option is a conscience vote, which will fail since the Opposition has imposed a blanket ban on the idea. Really, there's nothing she can do but pretend…
Read moreJac Tomlins
logged in via Facebook
Anne, of all the articles I've read since Obama made his announcement, yours made me smile the most. What a lovely piece. Thanks.
wilma western
logged in via email @bigpond.com
Good idea- the PM should trash her firmly stated conviction and follow Obama's example and all will be right with the world? You have to be joking .Just give Catholic Abbott another stick to beat the PM with - '"she declarded a conscience vote and see how much conscience she has!" What about working on the Liberals to muster enough votes to get a private member's bill through - that would have too much credibility for Abbott to revoke in the likely next parliament.
Michael Webb
Administrator
Why mention his Catholic Faith? I am sick of people who like ot think of themselves as even handed yet love to make mention Abbott's religion. Sounds like thinly disguised disdain to me.
Grendelus Malleolus
Senior Nerd
It matters because if Abbott is a future Prime Minister then all citizens need to be able to live without the fear that he will make national policy without allowing his religious views to distort policy in ways that harm individuals or small grops of society. I don't think he would go too far down that path - but he has already given some indications that his personal moral code will shape some decisions. His code is probably not one based on a "objective and universal moral and natural law" that you mention below but one based on a narrow interpretation of biblical scriptures as filtered through 2000 years of the Roman Catholic faith.
Michael Webb
Administrator
Since when should Australians have to take the lead from a foreign leader?
Our laws need to be about maintaining and enhancing and restoring the objective and universal moral and natural law comprehensively throughout Australia. It will be our greatest protection and upholder of justice and equity.
Legal positivism is often based on the emotions and passions and is about speical pleading on important issues such asmarriage. Ultimately if the special pleading gets up you end up with human triumph of the will imposition instead of what is best for our human nature and genuine progress.
Changing laws to suit passions and ideologies based upon false premises is disrespect for the law which is meant to uphold the common good, gender complementarity, roles, identity and the best interests of children. The objective moral and natural law protects the vulnerable and the weak from the legal positivists.
Grendelus Malleolus
Senior Nerd
Michael you have raised a number of issues here. The first - influence of foreign leaders is a tricky one to base an arguement on. On principle it would certainly seem best that our own policies begin and end in this country, but the reality is that some countries, and in particular the United States have had a significant influence on policy in Australia.
"Our laws need to be about maintaining and enhancing and restoring the objective and universal moral and natural law comprehensively throughout…
Read moreChristopher White
PhD candidate
Perhaps, Michael, you would like to define exactly what you mean by “the objective and universal moral and natural law”.