By Kevin Glancy
I’m yet to be convinced that gay marriage is a priority issue when there are so many other major issues that warrant attention even though media commentary and supporters of gay marriage in general would suggest that it’s at times a matter of life and death.
Proponents of gay marriage suggest that the majority of Australians are in favour when there is no hard evidence to support that notion. Tony Windsor’s call for a referendum on the issue, his first sensible suggestion in years, would at least provide an opportunity for democracy to prevail and it is extraordinary the criticism that his suggestion has drawn. Of course those particularly on the left side of the political spectrum avoid any mention of that word ‘democracy’ in their arguments.
Whether the issue is worth the $80 million expense is another matter but how much is democracy worth?
According to the Daily Telegraph, Australian Marriage Equality national convener Rodney Croome – not much. He said a referendum was unnecessary and potentially divisive. So the democratic process is divisive now?
‘We fear cashed-up opponents of marriage equality would exploit a referendum to polarise the electorate and demonise gay and lesbian people in a way that will impact badly, particularly on young gay people,’ he said in a statement. So for the sake of the ‘young gay people’ Mr Croome believes we should put an end to democracy right now.
Hang on! I thought as far as these pro-gay marriage people are concerned, the majority of us are in favour so what’s the problem? Mr Croome can’t have it both ways.
A referendum would prove either he is right or wrong. If the majority of Australians want gay marriage and a referendum determines that outcome – it happens – it’s that simple and those who claim that it’s what we all want will be vindicated and importantly it would be achieved as a result of true democracy in action. Perhaps Mr Croome truthfully thinks that a ‘No’ would result.
Mr Croome and his supporters obviously don’t think that we adults can or should be trusted to make a decision. He has obviously forgotten the republican referendum when the public defied the media’s emotive headlines suggesting that a vote ‘No’ would be un-Australian. The majority of Australians to their great credit recognised that it was a bad republican model and ignored the biased pro-republican media propaganda which was generated over a number of weeks across the country.
Labor frontbencher Craig Emerson in typical non-democratic Labor fashion said the federal government was not considering a referendum on gay marriage.
‘We’re OK with the idea of a conscience vote on these matters to be determined by the parliament,’ Dr Emerson said.
No politician has a mandate to muck with the marriage act and nor does a conscience vote tick the democracy card. Unless a political party or a Member of Parliament has gone to his or her electorate at an election with that specific policy to seek such a mandate then a conscience vote on the electorate’s behalf is simply about what that individual politician thinks. It is certainly not democracy in action.
Other gay marriage supporters talk about the embarrassment Australia is suffering because countries such as France and New Zealand have now complied. What utter nonsense!
It was predictable after the recent French election when a Left-wing government was elected that social engineering policies would prevail. Yet it was only a few months ago when it was estimated that around one million people marched through the streets of France protesting against gay marriage and those marching against gay marriage included many gay people.
“The rights of children trump the right to children,” was the catchphrase of protesters like Jean Marc, a French mayor who is also homosexual.
Xavier Bongibault, an atheist homosexual, is a prominent spokesman against the bill. “In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families,” he said in an interview. The most serious study done so far . . . demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents.”
New Zealand politicians ignored democracy completely and it could be argued, probably successfully that the majority of New Zealand folk are actually against it. So why should Australia feel any embarrassment by testing the issue in a truly democratic way.
Should we also be embarrassed about the fact that we are not following the social trend set by many countries that require women to be covered from head to toe and who are treated like second class citizens? Now there’s a very serious issue about equality. Unlike the inappropriate use by gay marriage proponents that theirs is an issue about marriage ‘equality’.
Regardless of ‘orientation’ all people should be treated equally but there is absolutely no basis to use the phrase ‘marriage equality’. If two people of the same gender wish to celebrate their union then the marriage act is not for them – they do not fit the bill just like I wouldn’t if I demanded to be let into a women only gym on the basis of equality. It might sound trivial to make such a comparison but that is where it sits.
Gay couples already have the right to ‘buy’ children and whether by arrangement or otherwise, same sex couples are denying the children of their natural biological parents and the balance provided by a mother and father. That is not to say that gay people cannot make good parents that is just the reality faced by ‘purchased’ children.
In any event if a referendum were held and the majority of the population were in favour of gay marriage I would abide by that result without complaint because it would be a democratic result. Certainly not like most of the things that are decided in this country due to minorities making loud social engineering noises supported by the predominant left-wing media.
Along with Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott has said that he’s not interested in holding such a referendum during the September election as it would be a huge distraction.
I do wonder about whether our politicians are the slightest bit interested in democracy or being held rightfully to account for policies they enact without a mandate however, on this occasion I do agree with Mr Abbott. Australia is in serious trouble and a major priority is to get rid of Labor’s incompetent government so the last thing that is needed in the run-up to the election is the heaving of emotions by those who see gay marriage as some kind of priority. It certainly would be a distraction.
Having said that Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard should have both said that they would hold a referendum on the issue at a later date. It is the only truly democratic way of resolving this issue unless one of the parties takes gay marriage to the election as a policy and if they win so be it. A conscience vote by parliamentarians does not represent a majority view which is what should prevail in any so-called democracy.