A timely word from Sherry Sufi on the myth of ‘marriage equality’.
Why Vote No, by Sherry Sufi, September 7, 2017:
Australians will soon make a choice on redefining marriage.
This is a good thing.
It helps us settle one of the most divisive social issues of our time.
We will move forwards as a nation, whatever the outcome.
Making an informed decision requires basic familiarity with both sides of the debate.
Yet it’s nearly impossible to argue against same sex marriage.
Not because the arguments in its favour are invincible, but because nine times out of ten its supporters are unwilling to tolerate a different viewpoint.
They find it easier to defame the character of their critic than to fault the logic of the critic’s argument.
This leaves us with a social media landscape that is dominated by arguments ‘for’ same sex marriage, while the arguments ‘against’ it remain grossly under-represented, if not misrepresented.
What no one from either side of politics seems to be bringing up is that any campaign for social equality should ultimately be about equal treatment, not equal ‘classification’.
We agree, black and white people should be treated the same.
But we don’t classify them as one race because they’re not.
We agree, women and men should be treated the same.
But we don’t classify them as one gender because they’re not.
We agree, Buddhists and Christians should be treated the same.
But we don’t classify them as one religion because they’re not.
We agree, poor and rich should be treated the same.
But we don’t classify them as one demographic because they’re not.
We agree, gay and straight couples should be treated the same.
So why should we classify their relationships as one institution—marriage—when they’re not?
Western civilisation has a proud history of facilitating campaigns for equality that were just and noble.
Those campaigns had no interest in seeking equal classification.
African American slaves never sought to be classified as white Americans.
They sought to be free like white Americans. And the 13th amendment took care of that in 1865. American women never sought to be classified as men.
They sought to have the same democratic rights as men.
And the 19th amendment took care of that in 1920.
Both campaigns came to a graceful end.
If Australia’s so-called marriage ‘equality’ campaign was seeking equal treatment, it would have come to a graceful end almost a decade ago when the Rudd Government passed the Same Sex Relationships Act (2008).
This little known Act extended to gay couples the same legal rights, benefits and facilities as straight couples for taxation, superannuation, immigration, social welfare, medicare, aged care and child support.
Yet prolonged insistence to redefine marriage comes with implications.
Current Australian law says marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
It specifies both the gender and the number of participants.
If we are to redefine marriage at all, why stop at two?
There are cultures where a man can take multiple wives.
Arbitrarily picking and choosing to facilitate one minority view while neglecting another is neither democratic nor pluralistic.
I for one believe we should keep the current definition of marriage as it is and I believe most Australians would too if they considered the points raised here.
More than 90 per cent of Australians voted in favour of Indigenous Australians having the right to vote in the 1967 referendum.
We are a politically mature nation that knows when to vote for the right social change.
If the upcoming vote was about equal treatment, it would be imperative to vote yes. But it isn’t.
I will be voting no and I encourage you to do the same.