Marriage by another name is not marriage

Queensland Deputy Premier Andrew Fraser says he intends to introduce a Bill allowing Civil Unions in Queensland.  While not committing his party either way (mostly because he is politically impotent as Campbell Newman makes all the decisions) Shadow Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie said:

“It's basically marriage by another name,”

“It's always been our belief, our philosophical belief and policy position, that the current marriage act as it stands … goes to the heart of the institution of marriage and we see no need to change it.”

“My initial reaction is this is just a distraction from the real issues to get him [Mr Fraser] and his people talking about issues other than what's important to Queenslanders at the moment,”

(via Brisbane Times)

Why is it that whenever someone raises the issue of Marriage Equality it is done for reasons such as ‘causing a distraction’?  Why is it not a real issue?  Because white, heterosexual males don't believe it is a real issue?

Don’t get me wrong the ALP is a long way behind in this debate as well.  Fraser comes to the game late in his career as a political heavy in Government.  Where was he with this proposal over the past five years? And where is the Federal Labor Government?

But I think the real issue is not for the State Government.  The real issue is that Marriage equality is not found in allowing civil unions.  Civil unions are a different, almost lesser standard.  Equality and a society without discrimination is what this Country should be striving for.  But it seems to me that many of our elected politicians believe it perfectly acceptable to discriminate in the area of Marriage.  

Civil unions are a way of creating a patch over social injustice so people wont notice or care about the discrimination some people face. But a civil union is ALL the Queensland Parliament can do in this debate.  It is up to the Federal Parliament to end this discrimination and injustice and enact marriage equality laws.  Because “Marriage by another name” is not marriage.

Toeing the party line on same sex marriage

If anyone doubted that Senator Penny Wong was a consummate politician who would never depart from the party line, an article from the Sydney Morning Herald smashes that doubt.

Senator Wong, the first openly gay cabinet minister, said of same sex marriage:

‘‘I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect,’’ she told Network Ten today.

‘‘The party’s position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman.’’

Senator Wong said she respected Labor’s view of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

‘‘I am part of a party and I support the party’s policies.’’

Senator Wong did point out that the Rudd Government did make a number of advancements of the cause of same sex couples.

Senator Wong … said she was proud of what the party had achieved in recognising the value and importance of same-sex relationships.

Various reforms had been made during Labor’s first term of government, including the changing of 80 pieces of legislation to remove commonwealth discrimination.

It is amazing how politicians can hold back their personal views on issues that directly affect them, just to hold the party line. 

This story made me think of an episode of The West Wing (incidentally my favourite TV show) where a gay congressman produced a bill banning marriage.  Deputy Chief of Staff Joshua Lyman wrongly thought he was trying to ban gay marriage.  Senator Boniot clarified:

“My bill bans all marriage. If the government can't make it available to everyone, I want us out of the business entirely.  Leave it to churches and synagogues, and, of course, casinos and department stores.”

Makes for an interesting point.  If Government’s have all sorts of discrimination legislation then why is this one area of discrimination so hard to deal with.  If Governments want to be in the business of sanctioning (non-religious) marriage then why can it not be afforded to same sex couples?  It is certainly not that it wouldn't get through Parliament.  The Gillard Government would have the support of the Greens.  Recent polling also suggests that it is favoured by a majority of Australians. 

I am not naive and I know that this is an emotive issue and would create a massive wedge between the ALP and the Coalition.  Perhaps the politics is the main reason why we will not see same sex marriage on the agenda for many years to come. 

Because as Penny Wong has shown this week, politics is number one in the land of politicians.