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.