Bought the eBook yet?

You know you want to.
Home My Blog Gayness

"Complete with time-lines, charts, photographs and other illustrations, “Being Gay Is Disgusting” is Edward Falzon’s hilarious and eye-opening chapter-by-chapter retelling of the first five books of the Bible" -- Gay Chicago Magazine

Australian MPs to ASK whether gay marriage is okay??

Qld MP Teresa Gambaro said she'll be consulting with the public on gay marriageA recent article on Star Observer reported that several Australian MPs will be seeking opinion from their constituents regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. Members from both houses will be speaking to residents, conducting surveys and so on, to discover the 'will of the people.'

Excuse me, but why is a survey necessary to see if a particular minority demographic should be equal in rights to the majority? I think it's fair to state that one of Parliament's core duties is to ensure equality for all Australians. The injustice of restricting from gay couples the mutual and public expression of love that marriage represents is surpassed only by the injustice involved in Parliament thinking that it needs to 'check' with the public to see if it's okay to repeal it.

Edmund Barton, Australia's illustrious first Prime Minister, said once, "The doctrine of equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman." How much further have we come since Federation?

Not far, it seems. Australian parliamentarians refusing to accept equality of a demographic moved from women in the late-19th Century to the 'Chinaman' in 1901, to the Japanese in 1919, and then onwards to 'native savages.' All of these, of course, are today considered equal, as are the left-handed students from the 50's who were caned by nuns for being possessed by Satan.

But no, let's all move on to gays, now. Let's take all that bigotry that we're no longer allowed to direct at people because of skin-colour, handedness or gender, and channel it with gusto at the poofs.

Let's break this down for a second, to the fundamental act of marriage. Say you're bisexual, and you're dating twins (with their consent, of course). They grew up in the same places, went to the same schools, studied the same subjects at the same university and got the same grades. They also share political and religious views. You're in love with them both, and they with you, but you now want to settle down and get married, so you have to choose one.

But they're brother-and-sister. In this case if you're a guy, the brother is not permitted to marry you, but the sister can. If you're a girl, vice versa.

The only variable between them is their gender. Both want to do exactly the same thing (marry you), but the gender of one of them -- and only their gender -- legally prevents them from doing it. This seems to be already covered in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984:

  • Section 22(1)(a) states (inter alia): "It is unlawful for a person who provides goods or services to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex by refusing to provide the other person with those goods or services." Would this not include marriage celebrants?
  • Section 26(1) states (inter alia): "It is unlawful for a person who performs any function under a Commonwealth law, or has any responsibility for the conduct of a Commonwealth program, to discriminate against another person, on the ground of the other person’s sex, in the performance of that function or the fulfilment of that responsibility." Would this not include the various state-departments of births, deaths and marriages?

This may sound odd, but this actually isn't about homosexuality. How could it be? A gay man and gay woman can marry each other quite legally. It's merely the unsavoury combination of male-male or female-female coupling that's disallowed. But hang on, it's perfectly legal to have a same-sex relationship, too; you just can't get the certificate.

Section 5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 defines 'marriage': "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." In 2003, a family court decision known as Re: Kevin ruled that a post-op transgender is deemed to be of the reassigned gender for the purposes of the Marriage Act. Okay, so that means if two men want to marry, one of them has to say bye-bye to their pee-pee. Same idea, but in reverse, for women. (The case was actually about a guy who was once a woman.)

So it's not a biological prohibition, by which I mean that with the transgender ruling, a man does not need an Adam's Apple, testicles or even a Y-chromosome to marry a woman and a woman doesn't need ovaries, a womb or a double-X chromosome to marry a man. And it's not a sexuality prohibition, meaning an LGBT person is still legally permitted to marry (someone legally identified as being of the opposite sex). And it's not a moral prohibition, because same-sex couples (sans marriage certificate) are already legal, acknowledged, accepted and embraced (for the most part) across the country.

So the practical effect of the legislation and resultant case law, therefore, is that the only barrier to a same-sex couple marrying is the presence of exactly one penis. Zero isn't enough, two is too many.  What kind of law is that?

One could extrapolate further and conclude that an LGBT couple can't marry because they're just not gay enough.  Only gays gay enough to go under the knife are allowed to be happy.

Here's a fun post-script: Section 23(2) of the Marriage Act prohibits only parent-child marriages and brother-sister marriages. This means that the Marriage Act prohibits same-sex marriage, but permits marriage between first-cousins or, say, an aunt and her nephew. Interesting priorities, no?


-1 # max 2011-12-31 16:10
Well you're showing your ignorance as most marriages today are between first cousins if you take the whole world view.
Another interesting fact step brothers and step sisters can't marry either.
Again you show your ingnorance in your interpetation of the law says. It says BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Why should we redifine marriage? Why should I pander to political correctness trying to take the moral ground when the people you are talking about are amoral? Whether you like it or not many people relgious or not do find gay behaviour unnatural and repulsive. They have a right to their opinion whether you agree with it or not, that is democracy though you and other like you seek to deprive the people of their voice.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
0 # mike 2013-02-02 08:36
@max: No one is trying to deny you of your opinion max, but by continuing the definition of the marriage act as it is what you are doing is discriminating against a minority group. So if given the choice of your opinion being hurt or some having a real an tangible right taken away from them, I choose hurting your opinion. No one has the RIGHT to not be offend. There is a right for everyone to express their opinion (with some conditions) however there is no requirement for those opinions to be respected. So while you don't have to respect mine of Mr Falzon's opinion, you are required to not discriminate against someone else based on race, colour, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. There's the rub max, you are entitled to your opinion mate but not for others to respect it, but LGBT's are also entitled to their rights, whether or not you agree with it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

Add comment

At this time, I am NOT moderating or filtering comments. Try to behave, hmm?
Be aware that posting anything hateful or ignorant on this site will virtually guarantee that I will republish your hateful, ignorant comments with scorn and derision. No, you won't be getting a royalty for it. :)

Security code

Stalk me

Who is Edward?

Edward Falzon is a critically acclaimed author with almost one Pulitzer Prize. A semi-committed writer, he is adored by more than half of his family.

Edward completed his 20-city book-tour of North America in September 2012. Make contact to complain if he didn't visit you.

He's pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-death-penalty, anti-religion and pro-just-be-nice-to-each-other-for-christ's-sake. Special thanks to the Secular Student Alliance for all their support!

Site map