The editor OLO

Would it not be a refreshing change from OLO if maybe just once in a while an anti-gay marriage article was presented in its pages to uphold the time honoured ethic of balanced debate. Obviously the majority of respectable citizenry have abandoned its pages, on this subject anyway. What a shame!

In opposing gay marriage the Labor Party is characterised as standing to the right of Dick Cheney. In so doing expansion of freedom is equated with the left. I don't see why. The leftist dictators such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc. were no more dedicated to freedom than Hitler, Mussolini etc. This opposition to human rights by the left was no accident.

From "Crimes against Humanity" by Geoffrey Robertson referring to Marx's attitude toward human rights. "The 'political emancipation' produced by the [French] Revolution was the reduction of man to an egocentric and independent individual: true emancipation would rather enlarge him as a citizen, 'a moral person' a theme Marx was to take up a few years later in "The Communist Manifesto"."

To have a decent society we must have both individual rights and social jusice.

Freedom and human rights is not a right/left issue. I am for same sex marriage as I regard it as an expansion of the freedom to choose and express our choices.

"The United Nations
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Article 23

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equally of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children."
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html

Reading that, the Australian Marriage Act complies fully with Article 23. It says good things about the family too and it makes no attempt to challenge or disturb the normal reading of that term.

However the recent changes to regulations relating to de facto relationships contravenes the Article because individuals can be ruled to be in de facto relationships without their intent to do so and against their will. It is a concern that the State can decide that a de facto relationship or common law marriage exists without the knowledge and consent of all of the affected parties. That is in total conflict with the intent and letter of the Covenant.

contd..

contd..

The author of the subject (OLO) article gives the impression that Article 26 was changed:

"The UN Human Rights Committee found in 2003 that the prohibition against discrimination under article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights “comprises discrimination based on sexual orientation”."

Maybe the author might like to be specific and advise what was the outcome of this?

Because if no change was made and that would seem to be the case, the Australian government would already be in full compliance, would it not? Excepting as I have already noted in respect of the recent changes relating to de factos where both heterosexuals and homosexuals (that just about covers everyone except those already covered by the Marriage Act) have been cheated and bludgeoned into accepting a loss of their rights and freedoms.

Returning to the Marriage Act, there seems to be no doubt whatsoever that it complies fully with the letter of the UN Covenant.

Article 23 does not specify that men and women can't marry who ever they like, regardless of gender, just that both genders have the right to marry and found a family. Article 26 then follows this up by noting a prohibition against discrimination based on sex, and this is clarified in 2003 to include sexual orientation.

It seems a pretty straight forward assertion then that the Marriage Act contravenes these two articles.

Why do some people care so much about stopping people who love each other getting married?

There is a paucity of understanding (and therefore compassion) of who is excluded from recognition of their relationships by marriage. Boreham's article only mentions same-sex marriage for gays and lesbians. What is really needed is marriage equality and that is what is practical by law. Are we so far removed from the principles of equality that we can not mention transgender and intersex people nor the acronym GLBTI?

Cornflower exemplifies this problem by commenting "in respect of the recent changes relating to de factos where both heterosexuals and homosexuals (that just about covers everyone except those already covered by the Marriage Act)"
as if there are no bisexuals, no transgender and no intersex people.

We talk as if relationships make one's sexuality and gender when it is the other way around. That's no foundation for equality or understanding.

Yes, Eric G, there is a paucity of understanding about the continuum of human sexuality, and its expression physically and psychologically.

Besides the physical as male, female, intersex (of which there are many variations) and transgender, there are those who do not feel what they physically are.

Non-human mammalian physical variations are evident, too.

diver dan, there have been several articles on OLO expressing antagonism towards same sex marriage in the last week or so. They were all written by Christians, with the exception of the man who argued for "natural" marriage. I don't know if he is a Christian or not, but his point was, couples should only get married if one's got male and the other's got female genitals.

A miserably reductive and hydraulic view of marriage, is what I say.

And Mickey K is right - the Articles nowhere say that men and women must marry each other, and the Australian Marriage Act amendment of 2004 does not comply with the UN covenants in making marriage only "a union between a man and a woman."

As we are signatories to these covenants, we are obliged to bring our laws into line with the conventions, this is one of the undertakings we make when we sign them.

The 2004 amendment was brought in by Howard, that great disrespector of many UN conventions to which Australia is signatory, not least of which is the Refugee Convention.

Gillard and the ALP will do nothing to repeal this amendment because they are terrified of losing the religious vote.

Mickey K, "It seems a pretty straight forward assertion then that the Marriage Act contravenes these two articles."

No, a normal reading of the Articles does not give that interpretation at all and that is why the OLO author was keen to give the impression in the paragraph I quoted that Articles 26 had a revised wording or interpretation which it plainly hasn't or else both he and you would have been quick to refer to it.

Eric G & McReal,

What a niggly little diversion, claiming that GLT(I) is the inclusive term that should be used in lieu instead of simply gay de facto or gay marriage. That is the new push by Gay activists and the Greens is it? However if it is necessary as you pedantically assert, why reserve your criticism for now and why didn't you both slam others who have used more general inclusive terms for convenience as is usual in writing and common speech? However, Intersex persons are resistant to that inclusion anyhow, which if you were frank at all, you might have noted.

Now what about that question I asked about specifically what change, if any, has been made to The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and when was it signed?

This is a straightforward question to bring out the facts. After all, it was the key criticism the OLO author made against the Australian government and the Marriage Act.

Briar Rose, "Mickey K is right.."

You too are reading what you want into it, but it doesn't work that way. However if that really was the interpretation understood by the signatories why would Kevin Boreham go to pains to point out that The UN Human Rights Committee sought in hindsight and after the passage of years to dispute and change the wording, a move that was unsuccessful.

The facts are that the Marriage Act fully complies, but the de facto changes do not.

next they will be wanting the gay/lesbian activist to be teaching kids in the schools. No wonder private schools are busting at the seams. I wonder if anyone is ever going to produce figures on the disease rate spread by sodomy. If people has got no moral conscience they should at least be concerned about health.

Cornflower,
Terms of convenience are generalisations and less inclusive not the other way around.

If a transgender woman is in a relationship with a man you want to call them gay and say they are in same-sex relationship when their sexuality is heterosexual or bisexual. What an insult to them. Lesbians used to being in the shade might tolerate being called Gay but gay is not inclusive of bisexuals, transgender, intersex or any other sex or gender diverse people. Why not use 'marriage equality' over 'same-sex marriage' when the former is more inclusive?

Despite your uninformed assertion to the contrary, I, Eric Glare, have advocated strongly on inclusive language.

As to intersex people being resistant to inclusion: Gina Wilson from intersex group OII Australia has said they want to be included: "Unless the argument is for Marriage equality and equality at law rather than 'same sex' then those of us that do not fit sex and gender binaries will continue to be marginalised." letter at: http://mcv.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/features/beyond-the-aisle-007007.html

Against the hurt of marginalisaton and excess rates of suicide and poor mental health in our GLBTI communities, your language of 'niggly little diversion' and 'pedantically assert' seems rather uncaring.

OK here are the two conventions:

Article 23

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

Article 26

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

:::
::The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized::

It seems to me Cornflower that it is you who are 'reading what you want to into it'

I apologise Eric G if transgender and intersex people feel excluded by this language, but I think and hope the argument here is about marriage to whoever you love, not one that is limited by any notions of gender, sexuality or sexual identification

Runner is concerned that if Gays and lesbians are given the right to marriage, they will practice sodomy and 'spread disease.

Apart from the fact that most lesbians do not practice sodomy, but some heterosexual couples do, there is also the fact that heterosexual sex (married or not) has it's own problems with sexually transmitted diseases.

Should we thus outlaw ALL marriages in the interests of public health Runner?

I think you need to come up with a better argument than that of homosexual couples 'spreading diseases'.

Mickey K,

If you think you have scored a rhetorical point by pretending that the drafters and signatories of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights meant anything other than heterosexual marriage then fine, that is completely up to you but you are only fooling yourself. Proof of that if any was required is the objection of gays to it.

"The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized" was and is taken by signatories to be the marriage of one man and one woman that they are familiar with and is traditional.

Likewise, you might fool yourself into believing that the family referred to in the Covenant means every possible combination and permutation of sexual preference and number of participants, but that is not what the drafters intended. They have access to dictionaries.

It is foolish of gay activists to quote the UN Conventions and not expect that the general public will first, rely on their own good sense and secondly, Google to read the Conventions themselves.

Returning to the de facto provisions in Australia, there is no doubt whatsoever of gross conflict with the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is an unconscionable abuse of its power that the State has taken such powers for itself and has trampled over the freedom and rights of its citizens.

Many thanks for all these comments, particularly the critical ones: this issue needs to be debated, not closed off.

Comments on Article 26 of the ICCPR: in its 2003 decision in Young v Australia the Human Rights Committee interpreted Art 26 to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and decided that therefore Australia had violated Art 26 by denying a pension to Mr Young, who was the surviving same sex spouse of a veteran. The Covenant does not have to be changed: the Committee's interpretation is authoritative.

Cornflower -

You call upon the common sense of the general public to interpret the Articles to refer to heterosexual marriages only.

That same general public good sense was represented in a Galaxy poll in which 60% of good, sensible Australians wanted same sex marriage to be legal in this country, and wanted the Marriage Act amendment of 2004, (yes, that's 2004, a very recent amendment, prior to that the Marriage Act did not state it was a union between men and women only) these 60% good, sensible Australians wanted the Marriage Act to be amended to remove the heterosexual definition of marriage.

maybe you are a little out of touch with the mainstream.

runner-
your allegations of homosexuals causing disease through the practice of sodomy are plain silly, and very last century.

Apart from anything else, gays and lesbians who want to marry are intending to be monogamous, just like heterosexuals who choose marriage. Not everybody will manage this, regardless of their sexuality, but monogamy is part of the marriage commitment.

Do you imagine that there aren't any gay and lesbian teachers in private schools? And if so, why would you imagine that?

This article is interesting, because it is not an argument FOR gay marriage. Rather, it reads more like a call to the Labor party to change their policy.

I'd like to encourage people from OLO to provide the best possible arguments in support of legalising gay marriage and thus abandoning the traditional concept of marriage.

The arguments I've seen are as follows:

1. I (gays and lesbians) should be able to marry whoever I want/I should have the same rights as straight people. The marriage act is too exclusive.

2. Traditional marriage is discriminatory. We should remove discrimination and allow gay marriage.

3. We need equality. Gay marriage will provide equality.

I have some observations regarding these arguments, but firstly I'd like to hear whether there are any other views out there. Almost every piece of pro gay marriage propaganda or opinion seems to hold to close variations of the above, but if I've missed any pro gay marriage arguments, please post them.

Dear Trav,

Another argument for gay marriage is that of public health. Promiscuity spreads disease. Encouragement of stable monogamous sexual relations promotes public health. Married people are generally healthier in both mind and body than unmarried adults and therefore more resistant to disease in general.