The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Marriage is just words > Comments

Marriage is just words : Comments

By Graham Young, published 1/6/2015

The solution to the dilemma is not to legislate for gay marriage, but to take marriage out of the legislation and for government to stop registering marriages of any sort.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Graham, that's a very pragmatic idea, but it does tend to beg the main question, which goes to the way we view the relationships of homosexual people. I'm not a great advocate for "rights" on the whole, preferring the idea of implicit obligations, and it seems to me that in denying gay people the opportunity to marry, we are in fact implying that they have a reduced capacity for undertaking such an obligation.

From where I sit, marriage is a contractual arrangement first and foremost, which is how there can be a de facto ('implied') marriage at all. I don't really see what all the fuss is about.
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 1 June 2015 9:55:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article, and hear hear.

"when we confessed to being in a de facto relationship at the beginning of our marriage instruction.

According to him the ceremony was merely a post facto recognition of the intention to enter into a lifelong commitment. We were, in effect, already married."

Only if you had exchanged vows. Merely living together and having sex constitutes a de facto marriage, not a common law marriage.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 1 June 2015 9:56:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Salutations, I 100% agree!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 1 June 2015 10:01:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good piece, Graham, which resonates with my own this morning (http://donaitkin.com/on-marriage-equality/). One practical problem is that I would guess that a lot of other legislation hangs off the Marriage Act.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Monday, 1 June 2015 11:26:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By the look of this pic from Andrew Meares, as Shorten intros the Bill - the govt is nowhere to be seen.

http://twitter.com/mearesy/status/605184346518003712

Surprise, surprise....
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 1 June 2015 11:37:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article with thoughtful responses. My view is that for 'the Christian church' of which I am a member to start bleating about the 'injustices' of this is just another example of how far it has removed itself from any meaningful input by ALL church leaders to actually encourage their congregations by their example, to also write, email, etc to their elected representatives about any issues. The risk of being removed from office is, after all, usually the greatest motivator for politicians to take action. The homosexual lobby has done a brilliant job of doing this while the church sleeps on.
Leaders must lead - the homosexual leaders have lead - the church's leaders have not - simple as that.
Perhaps there could be a new legislated definition of 'religious marriage' to classify those who have or want a religiously endorsed 'heterosexual marriage'?
Posted by ZhanPintu, Monday, 1 June 2015 11:51:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry Graham but I tend to disagree!

When people are married they become family, with common property rights, the right to visit a family member in hospital, unite as family (husband/wife) under the family reunion act and a right to contest a will etc.

Some got around this by embarking on gender reorientation; and presenting at the altar as male and female?

And you (anybody) wouldn't know if you were't told!

As for leadership, we invariably follow other places, as dig your heels in as diehard ridged resisters, when it comes to equal rights; or just a bill of rights!

Everybody else is first! We just don't lead; just react, with often spectacular 180"s!

A bill of rights would enshrine equal rights before the law in all things, including the right to be born different/speak your mind.

Currently there are differences and different treatment; i.e., men and woman can live in defacto relationships, that are recognized for all practical purposes, as marriages!

Not so same sex couples!

On the other hand same sex couples can receive full single benefits/pensions each, even while cohabiting in the same domicile!

Not so defacto or married couples?

I can agree however, all we are using here is a form of words. Which could just as easily be represented by weddings and or the wedlock act! The contract and legality just as binding!?

With until death do us part, holy wedlock possibly replacing marriage in a church ceremony, and marriage the commonplace/universal name for same sex couplings or defacto relationships.

And possibly the best way out; given marriages can be and are performed in registry offices/before civil celebrants as common law civil unions; that are nonetheless registered as marriages!

At the end of the day, people who are unfortunate enough to be born different, have as much right to pursue their perceived happiness as anyone else!

We who are not so afflicted have absolutely no right to actively prevent or obstruct that!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 1 June 2015 12:55:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Don, a great deal of the welfare budget, & bureaucratic pensions, hang on whether people are officially married.

The same goes for inheritance & some taxation areas.

I am quite sure these facts are of more interest to many of the aspirants than anything emotional.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 1 June 2015 1:05:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's just a matter of time before marriage is privatised, it's inevitable. But after privatisation, Churches will no longer be able to rely on the government to support their congregations marriages, they will have to play a much bigger role in the Christian community because Christians will be looking for Church leaders guidance in all family matters rather than the wider culture. If Churches do this well, divorce rates among Christians should plummet.
Posted by progressive pat, Monday, 1 June 2015 1:47:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't see how increasing the number of people getting married under the Marriage Act can do anything but strengthen it. And while I agree in principle that the government should butt out of our personal lives and take no interest or position on sexual relationships between consenting adults, realistically that's not going to happen any time in the next few decades. So given that heterosexuals who wish to bring their relationships to the notice of the government are permitted to do so, it seems to me to be unfair that homosexuals are not allowed to do the same.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 1 June 2015 2:02:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Abbott has more than the "Christian right-wing vote" to worry about. I am an agnostic right-wing voter, and he has lost my vote because of his constant backflipping. He will backflip on this one too.

Graham makes a good point with de facto relationships. If they are good enough for normal couples, they are good enough for gay couples. Few people these days connect their unions with religion.

It keeps the politicians out; stops Australia being formally tossed into a moral cesspool as Ireland and other countries have been. The rest of us could go back to ignoring their shenanigans, and not have to own them in Australia's name.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 1 June 2015 2:16:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My late partner of 22 years and I managed to have a generally harmonious and loving defacto relationship without any interference from the church and minimal input from the state. My partner's religious sister always referred to her as my "wife", even though she was unhappy with our arrangements. The law treated us the same as married couples, the doctors hospitals and Centrelink observed my status as next of kin without any restriction.
If Rhosty's information is correct, the only difference between us and a homosexual couple appears to be that our pensions were reduced because we were a heterosexual couple whilst a homosexual couple's pensions are not. Why then do they wish to get married?

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 1 June 2015 3:25:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For a long time now, I've wondered why anyone should still require the state to approve or register - or 'sanctify' - their marriage. Co-habitation between consenting adults should be worked out along their own lines and will, of course, be subject to other laws that offer protections in relationships. The Marriage Act is best rescinded. It's strange how the only groupings who seem strongly in favour of marriage as an institution are some conservative Christians and some 'militant' gay people. Minus the Marriage Act, gay people, and everyone else, would work it out for themselves. The religious would, of course, still marry in church, if that is their desire.
Posted by byork, Monday, 1 June 2015 3:54:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As far as I am concerned the word marriage means a union between a man and a woman. If homosexuals want a word or words to describe a union of two homosexuals they can find their own words. I am sure wordsmiths could offer plenty of suggestions.

They have pinched the word gay and now want to take the word marriage.

I do not care about what they do sexually or if it is legal, or if their union is legal, but the word marriage is already taken and has a definite meaning now.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 1 June 2015 4:44:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very good article, pragmatic and clear. Politically, at least Plibersek and Abbot have been consistent over the years, Bill Shorten is merely jumping on a bandwagon and thoroughly politicising the whole thing. We're I Abbot I would support the independent Lyonhelm bill, if for no other reason than when the world comes to an end because of the legislation there will be an individual to point to, not a 'party' as such.
Craig Minns makes complete sense here and I fall into his degree of 'care factor' I think. Just get it off the agenda, such a boor.
It will be tricky for the drafters of the legislation considering, as Don Aitken observes above and elsewhere, there is a 'thicket' of legislation hanging off the Marriag Act.
Posted by Prompete, Monday, 1 June 2015 4:56:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suggesting major changes to the Marriage Act or even its repeal is certainly highly problematic and likely to take years.

Such a suggestion provides a multi-year means of delay to the gay marriage push - which benefits Abbott's position. He being as answerable to one Church as he is to the voting public.
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 1 June 2015 5:39:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Planatgenet,

Care to explain what the "problems" are and why fixing them should take years?

If this is technically difficult, then to begin with, in the interim, only those clauses pertaining to the formation of new marriages shall be cancelled, replaced by "No further legal marriages shall be conducted in Australia". The rest, pertaining to existing married couples, can then be dealt with in an orderly manner and eliminated in due course.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 1 June 2015 6:56:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My stand stands Y.
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 1 June 2015 7:03:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What does it say about same-sex couples who want to cause so much fuss and so much expense to the taxpayer for so little gain? You could say it is about equality and discrimination but so too was the cake saga in Ireland. Is it really worth it and is that what they are really seeking?

They could be showing leadership by refusing to ask taxpayers to pay for the bureaucracy that sustains government involvement in marriage. Whatever practical disadvantages they have should be pursued according to principles of discrimination and justice but trying to go to all this trouble to change legislation seems to show a lack of integrity. By all means go after your genuine rights but do not create all this unrest for something that gives you nothing. Sure heterosexual people can get government issued marriage certificates but so what? What do they get out of it from the government that they would not get by being defined as a couple?

It is only practical issues that are the responsibility of government and taxpayers. The taxpayer is not liable to help you express your love or commitment to your partner or to support any of the emotional needs that you hope to solve by being married. That is not the purpose of the marriage act or the distribution of certificates to heterosexuals so it is wrong to say you want these things to give you equality.

Having ‘equality’ for its own sake is just childish. If you are not missing out then stop the whining and get on with real life
Posted by phanto, Monday, 1 June 2015 7:22:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//As far as I am concerned the word marriage means a union between a man and a woman. If homosexuals want a word or words to describe a union of two homosexuals they can find their own words. I am sure wordsmiths could offer plenty of suggestions.

They have pinched the word gay and now want to take the word marriage.//

I've offered this solution before, but it always seems to fall on deaf ears. Here is a perfectly good word to describe the union of two homosexuals, which is definitely not marriage:

Wed. It may be a bit old fashioned but I say we dust it off and put it back to use: 'Will you wed me?', 'Alice and Bonnie are wedded', 'You are invited to the wedding of Allan and Bob' all work for me.

Skywriters won't be happy though.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 1 June 2015 9:14:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK, but ...

Section 51(xxi) of the Australian constitution gives the Commonwealth power to legislate regarding "marriage." What government can resist the urge to exercise power delegated to it (although it took the Commonwealth 60 years to do so for marriage)? The outlook -- expect more meddling, Australian governments cannot control themselves.
Posted by JKUU, Monday, 1 June 2015 10:52:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Government registration of marriages serves some useful purposes, among which are the tracing of family trees, relationships etc., and as a consequence the tracing of inheritable health disorders and avoiding them through the information that is available from the Births, Deaths and Marriages Departments, information that s freely* available to all.

*In the sense of 'available' because some regressive States impose a charge.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 8:05:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That may have been an argument 60 years ago when few people just lived together but now its very common to not marry. Also married people are not the only ones who have sex and those unmarried people who do have sex are unlikely to check the genealogy of the person before they do.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 9:42:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phanto,

and the health issues?
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 5:49:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well maybe you can have some kind of database. The marriage act seems to be a sledge hammer to break a walnut. The aim is to eradicate unnecessary government involvement.

Health issues are not going to be passed on by homosexuals so that can't be a reason to change the marriage act.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 6:08:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham, thank you for your very interesting article. As a straight woman, I have no objections to gay marriages. If people would rid their minds of the sexual connotations of a gay (male) marriage they would probably accept gay marriage. Sex and inheritance ... could that be the real underlying reason for so much hostility toward the gay community and marriage?? Inheritance meaning wealth and position in the community. Does it really matter if one is gay or straight? One's sexual orientation does not make them a good or bad person. Marriage is not to do with love either. It is more to do with legalising one's ownership and inheritance. So sad. So very sad.
Posted by mally, Tuesday, 2 June 2015 8:31:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy