If we allow gay marriage what comes next?

The Debate on Same Sex Marriage

In 2004 the Howard government changed the marriage act to include a definition of 'marriage' which excluded same sex couples.

The opposition...

1. "[The amendment] inserted a definition in the Marriage Act which gives formal expression to what most people regard to be the case - and that is marriage, as we understand it in Australia, is between a man and woman...This is not directed at gay people. It's directed at reaffirming a bedrock understanding of our society."
Mr Howard said the existing law did not contain the formal definition that marriage was between a man and a woman.
"I just believe it. There are certain institutions that we understand to have a certain meaning and why not say so?" he said.
-John Howard quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald April 27 2004

"I certainly don’t think you should give the same status to homosexual liaisons as you give to marriage"-John Howard in a triple J interview in August 2001 (Not only does he disapprove of same sex marriage but refused to even give relationship status to gay and lesbian couples, preferring the tawdry term ‘liaisons’)

2."When it comes to the Marriage Act, that is the responsibility of the Federal Parliament," Mr Rudd said. "And the Marriage Act relates to a union between a man and a woman, and that remains Labor policy as it has been into the past and as it will remain into the future." - PM Kevin Rudd quoted in The Age October 24 2007

3."The Interests of children must always come first, and it is in the child's best interest to be raised, where possible, by a mother and a father, who have made a lifelong commitment to each other through marriage...Marriages bloom between a bride and a groom...marriages can produce children...If we allow gay marriage, what comes next? will we have laws banning the words "Mum" and "Dad" from school textbooks? Will the words "mother" and "father" be banished from our TV screens and movies?...sadly this is already happening. Just recently we learned that Victorian schools are being advised to dump the words "mother" and "father" in a campaign to promote same-sex parents. The new teachers' manual also says pupils as young as five should act out plays where they have two mothers...there is no doubt marriage is under attack"
-Steve Fielding leading Family First Senator speech on the ACT's Civil Unions Act 2006

4. "Isn't marriage a religious thing? The government cant do anything, it's in the hands of religious authorities" -a common misconception

5.I want to know how queer activism got so boring. Have we given up on liberation and settled for assimilation? The old chants of "Fuck off breeder scum" have been replaced with "We're just like you!" as we beg for a place at the table of heteronormativity. Instead of critiquing a system and an institution that structurally oppresses us as queers we are lining up to be good heterogays and disappearing into the suburbs with our superannuation, mortgages and tax cuts. Thing is, not everyone can or wants to do heteronorm, and this marriage thing has the potential to marginalise those who don't fit into the new mould of acceptable queerness...It is ironic that the campaign for marriage be called 'equal love.' Marriage is an institution necessarily based on inequality between its participants and has traditionally had little to do with love. It is more to do with the exploitation of wom*n and the extraction of their unpaid labour...It seems contradictory to fight FOR marriage when the relationships I have are precisely about breaking down the harm institutions such as marriage have done to us...It [the same sex marriage campaign] sends a clear message to people who may be bisexual, queer, trans, intersex, single or non-monogamous queers, that they do not belong...Queers that are 'too queer' are told to shut up and sit tight, that once we can get married we can destroy the institution of marriage and fight for more inclusive relationship recognition. This logic seems similar to trying to argue that having queers in the military would stop war. I am yet to be convinced that having access to an institution which is an integral part of the structural oppression of queers and wom*n is fighting homophobia, or that it has any potential for reform... We do not need access to marriage to [obtain our liberation and freedom]: historically it is those outside of privilege who enact social change. Let's not stop at making our own lives comfortable and get back to our radical fighting roots and change the world" -From an article "There Should Be Nothing Civil About Our Union in Farraco, 2006 Curtis Redd, former MU queer officer

I would just like to point out the flaws in the oppositions arguments....

1. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but: John Howard is full of shit! NOT a deliberate attack on the queer community? MY ASS! If indeed everyone already believed that marriage was between a man and a woman why codify it in law? Did we see him codify conventions of our parliament which ensure our government remains accountable? no indeed we did not! In fact quite the opposite we saw him undermining many of these conventions!

2. Mr Rudd, Mr KEVIN07 the glimmer of hope to naive voters so desperate for change after the evil 11 year Howard regime! Rudd is unable to provide any solid rationale (because there is none, other than discrimination) for his party's position beyond "tradition." TRADITIONALLY Interracial marriages were illegal, TRADITIONALLY women were the shackle of men that does not make it right!

3.The reason it is stated that children need both a mother and a father is presumably so that they may have male and female role models. Why is it necessary to have a role model of each gender? To enforce gender roles of course!
OMG!!! 5 year olds are pretending to be lesbians, alert ASIO this is a disastor!!! This reminds me of the play school 'mums' That ridicules idea that children should learn about same sex relationships should be hidden from children until they're i don't know old enough? to understand same sex relationships? It's totally illogical! Having same sex relationships as something separate, hidden and taboo adds to queerphobia in our society and is the reason for the confusion, ignorance and lack of understanding.

4. Marriage is a legal term as well as religious one, the government most certainly does have the power to remove legislation preventing same sex marriage just as it CREATED the legislation preventing same sex marriage.

5. Curtis Reed makes several valid arguments concerning the institution of marriage and it's significant role in the oppression of wom*n and queers (to be explored in a latter post). However to force the government to recognise our relationships would drive home a strong message to the community. When the issue of same sex marriage comes up (as it frequently does) in my legal and politics class regardless of any arguments made by myself, queers, queer allies and advocates of equal rights the disgusting homophobes in those classes remain may content in the fact that regardless of their inability to string together coherent sentences or valid arguments they sort of win the argument because the government supports their position.
I understand that the ability to get married is not the desire of all queer, however you cant reject something which is not optional. We can not consciously make a true stance against marriage until we're actually told we actually CAN get married.
The 'equal love' campaign is also something which has been successfully in obtaining the attention of non-political queers and non-queers. The campaign has given us space to introduce 'others' to a variety of queer identities and issues.

So what does everyone else think....?