Strange bedfellows? Obama and Kennett have a change of heart on gay marriage

Clearly, there is something in the international waters, when, within the space of a few months, both the leader of the free world, Barack Obama, and the Chairperson of beyondblue, Jeff Kennett, declare their support of same-sex marriage. Obama, prior to his road to Damascus moment, had argued that…

Dv5kvhwc-1336630706
Kennett and Obama have been swept away by the tide of public opinion. AAP/Joe Catro/EPA/Kevin Dietsch

Clearly, there is something in the international waters, when, within the space of a few months, both the leader of the free world, Barack Obama, and the Chairperson of beyondblue, Jeff Kennett, declare their support of same-sex marriage.

Obama, prior to his road to Damascus moment, had argued that marriage was a prisoner to its own traditions and history, and that the knot that bound woman to man could not easily be undone. Kennett, before his own epiphany, argued that every child deserves the love of a mother and a father, and that same-sex parenting constituted a challenge to the natural order of things.

That both men have reconsidered their positions is testimony to the tide of public opinion which, in the West at least, has turned in support of same-sex marriage and equal love.

One couches this turning in terms of civil rights and equality (Obama), the other in terms of how subtle forms of discrimination affect the mental health of minority and marginal populations (Kennett). However, these differences belie what is common to both: a belief in the way the lack of public, symbolic recognition of same-sex unions continues to devalue same-sex love. With that go not only same-sex couples, but also individual gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender (GLBT) people.

For many GLBT people, marriage equality has come to represent the last frontier in their battle for full legal and social recognition.

It is difficult not to acknowledge the positive impact that such recognition will have on GLBT people as they gain access to, and enter, one of the last legally sanctioned bastions of heterosexual (if not heterosexist) privilege.

But for some in the GLBT community, there is a sense of cooption, of having given up on what is different about same-sex relationships. For them, marriage is an heterosexist institution, an institution that drives inequalities in not only sexuality but also gender.

Obama cites his ending of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military as his penultimate pit stop on the road to queer redemption. But there are those in the GLBT community who would see this, like same sex marriage, as another instance of cooption, where a critique and resistance to war is being sacrificed by GLBT people in their drive for acceptance by, if not normalisation in, the mainstream.

Perhaps what is most important is not simply or only the legalisation of same sex marriage. Perhaps what is most important is the wider effect of two influential, heterosexual, male public figures recanting their past sins, and coming out in support of GLBT people.

For surely the marriage debate is as much about the continued struggle to overcome heterosexist discrimination and abuse in all its forms as it is about marriage.

Such an overcoming depends on more and more Obamas and Kennetts reconsidering and changing their opinions, giving up their heterosexist conceits and embracing sexual diversity within and outside our public institutions and time-honoured rituals.

And finally, for me at least, I do not believe the law should prevent GLBT people from making the same mistakes as heterosexuals.

Sign in to Favourite

Want to follow The Conversation?

Sign up to our free newsletter to get the day's top stories in your inbox each morning, with a special wrap on Saturday.

Spinner
Help us have better conversations — donate

Join the conversation

44 Comments sorted by

  1. Michael Shand

    Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Software Tester

    I have no idea what you mean when you talk about Cooption? None of my friends in the LGBT community have this sense that denying them the right to marrige makes them special. perhaps some do but for those we can make a special case, we can deny them health care and deny them the right to free speech - surely they wouldnt feel coopted then? surely that would bring back that feeling of being special?

    Maybe you mean they will not have a fight to fight and in that sense feel less special but there is still plenty of bigotry out their for them to tackle and in either case shouldnt they be celebrating?

    report
    1. Mike Cowley

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Michael Shand

      I don't think it's so much that part of the LGBT community feel that they are special because they are denied this particular right, more that they reject the institution of marriage altogether.

      report
  2. Colin Lowe

    logged in via Facebook

    As a married member of the gay community I find it very sad that my partner and I had to go to a different country to get married. There are many reasons why gay couples might choose to get married, if I reflect on my reasons it was in part to help our parents understand our relationship, they get marriage and understand what that means i.e. this is my intended life partner. Of course that was not the only reason but for me that played a part in the decision. I think that denying a group in society a right sends a message to the rest of society that the group in question is inferior or less deserving in the eyes of the government and provides subtle permission to treat them as such, after-all if the government says gays cant get married then there must be a good reason.

    report
  3. Tim Paton

    Automotive Engineer

    Conservative groups don't want to share the word "marriage", which they believe refers only to heterosexual couplings.

    According to this article, some gay groups don't want the word "marriage". I know first hand that others dearly want the word.

    It really is becoming an argument of semantics.

    My proposal is to remove the word "marriage" from the law altogether.

    Marriage is a cultural, religious, and currently, legal institution. We need to re-name the legal institution. "Civil Union…

    Read more
  4. Black Knight

    writer

    How about some serious consideration of the rights of men to have more than one wife? This is something which has been practised in Australia for thousands of years - long before the bourgeois norms arrived in 1788.

    It is not recognised by Anglo-Australian law (“None of that, we are British!”)

    There is far more historical and cultural precedent for this institution than there is for gay marriage, but this aspect of marriage has been completely excluded from consideration.

    The rights for more than one wife is also relevant to our New Guinean neighbours, Muslims, Native Americans and Mormons.

    Has the discussional agenda been hijacked by others?

    Are we not men, my brothers? Speak up, can’t hear you.

    report
    1. Meagan Kae

      Media Production at Meagan Kae Pty Ltd

      In reply to Black Knight

      Oh gosh, I love the yes let's now marry goats response!
      Without wanting to turn this into a "I bet you can't even handle the wife you have, let alone what you would do with two debate", the mormon church moved away from supporting multiple wives decades ago.

      If the majority of Australians support equal rights for same sex couples to marry then why is that not a valid proposition for this country? Let's have that debate, rather than talk about your desire for a MFF threesome.

      report
    2. Tim Paton

      Automotive Engineer

      In reply to Black Knight

      If we follow my suggestion of making marriage a cultural but not legal institution, then you'd be most welcome to marry as many wives (and goats and motorcycles and corporations) as you wish, following whatever ceremonial traditions you like.

      But as these partnerships would fall outside the definition of a legally sanctioned civil union, they would carry no status under law.

      report
    3. Black Knight

      writer

      In reply to Tim Paton

      There are really important reasons why the legal rights of a second wife must be recognised and protected on the same basis as a first wife, and those reasons extend to the children of that relationship.

      It would make a mockery of an institution which has been practiced around the world to reduce it merely a sexual pleasure dimension. As a complex living arrangement there are many pluses and minuses, no doubt.

      It has often struck me, when learning of another marriage breakup resulting in hardship for some of the partners (and kids) if this could be avoided by the incorporation of a second wife into the relationship.

      My problem is with the dominance of the nuclear family norm which is imposed on us by Church and State. Gay marriage will not challenge that norm.

      report
    4. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Black Knight

      I'm sorry, I can't resist but... why are you talking about multiple wives? Surely, the rights of women to have more than one husband makes as much sense in your (slightly irrelevant to the article at hand) posting.

      report
    5. Black Knight

      writer

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      Hi Harrison. I guess there are less ethnographic examples of this being a successful living arrangement. But my mind is open to any argument.

      "The bourgeois move of refusing to name oneself occurs by moving from an ‘anti-physis’ – the refusal of engagement with a real world of praxis – to a ‘pseudo-physis’ – an appearance of a real world which is actually a world of signs. ’Pseudo-physis’ denies to people their ability to remake the world by setting narrow limits on how people are to live so as…

      Read more
    6. Tim Paton

      Automotive Engineer

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      Surely, Harrison, given the subject of this article, Bruce should also be considering the rights of a woman to have more than one wife as well :-D

      report
    7. Black Knight

      writer

      In reply to Tim Paton

      Now we're getting somewhere!

      report
  5. Meagan Kae

    Media Production at Meagan Kae Pty Ltd

    I think we have reached a point with the gay marriage debate where it has finally, and rightly shifted to a discussion on equal rights.
    There will be some people that no matter how logically you debate the issue that will remain so blinkered in their thinking that there is no hope to change their views.
    But now the conversation has changed, what we should be focusing on is the fact that a majority now support amendments to the Australian Constitution to include same sex couples in the definition of marriage.

    If the majority of Australians now support equal rights for same sex couples, why don't they have them?

    What is so badly broken in Australia's political system that a population that supports equal rights for all is not heard, not recognised... ?

    report
    1. In reply to Meagan Kae

      Comment removed by moderator.

    2. Tom Hennessy

      Retired

      In reply to Tom Hennessy

      The assumption of "a majority now support amendments to the Australian Constitution" compared to the ACTUAL thoughts of the MAJORITY , by a wide margin , which is , homosexuality is ENOUGH to warrant a 90% vote in FAVOR of discriminating DIRECTLY against homosexuality in the ability to adopt children.

      "Adoption by gay couples in Scotland was approved by MSPs in 2006 - despite an official consultation process which showed that nearly 90 per cent of people opposed it."

      The majority of people , as evidenced by that vote , believe homosexuality is 'different' , as opposed to what doctors try to convince everyone BY LAW , "normal" , when in fact the whole process has been undermined to release previously segregated mental people into the general population.

      report
    3. Mike Cowley

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Tom Hennessy

      Tom, attitudes on this issue are rapidly changing. What happened in Scotland five years ago is not very relevant to Australia today. If there's not majority support now (despite some evidence to the contrary) it won't take too long (or to put it another way, it won't take too many opponents to change their mind or die out) until there is majority support. So don't worry, you won't have to wait long....

      report
    4. Mike Cowley

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Tom Hennessy

      You did notice the APA is the "American Psychiatric Association"? And that this all happened 40 years ago? Or are you just living in the past?

      report
    5. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Tom Hennessy

      You know what, if you derive your morals and attitudes from the majority (and as if you have a sure fire way to know exactly what the majority thinks) then you're amazingly naive.

      I'd rather examine not whether a certain percentage of people are fine with gay marriage or gay couples adopting but rather, what exactly are the reasons for and against. Anyone who actually puts aside the rhetoric for more than a minute can see that there is no logical reason why a gay couple adopting is harmful to the child. Anyone who puts aside historical prejudice can see there is no factual reasoning which allows one to discriminate based upon sexual orientation in either this or the institution of marriage.

      People were fine with slavery and were fine with racism. That changed when people started looking at the facts rather than baseless opinions.

      report
    6. In reply to Mike Cowley

      Comment removed by moderator.

    7. In reply to Mike Cowley

      Comment removed by moderator.

    8. Mike Cowley

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      Harrison, I was with you until the last sentence, but I think "think carefully about the question" might be the starting place for Tom's problems. But kudos for trying...

      report
  6. Lucien Beauley

    retired engineer

    Obama has also changed his mind on some promises made to get elected in2008. Namely,
    Today's American Dream - News, Views and Resources
    Smith notes how Obama has broken his pre-election promise that every GMO food ... 62.21 for a 32 oz package ... measure to keep Americans safe. What's behind it all is the ...
    http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7jJ9ratPpB8AlkNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2djRpNmEwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTkEY29sbwNhYzIEdnRpZANWSVAwNDhfMjAw/SIG=121dgdvuc/EXP=1336679933/**http%3a//www.todaysamericandream.com/news1.html

    report
  7. Peter Blackwell

    logged in via Facebook

    Firstly, Harrison, thank you for attempting to educate Tom who proposes a baseless arguement from a position of homphobia and ignorance. What you have demonstrated is that sound logic and fact is only important to those of us interested in real debate. If you have a closed mind NOTHING will change that.

    Tom, as a left handed married heterosexual I am amused (read saddened) by the depth of your ignorance and most uncharitable stance.

    The majority of Australians support same sex marriage, the majority WILL prevail. Dinosaurs and buffoons will fall by the way side into the gutters of history where they belong.

    report
    1. Peter Blackwell

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Tom Hennessy

      Tom your baseless proposition is worth only pity, not a reply of substance.

      The good news for me is that your profile says you're Retired - so nature will take care of things in time as it should, sooner rather than later.

      report