And people question my fondness for Canada.
Overnight (Australian time) the (mostly) enlightened men and women of the Canadian parliament voted 158 to 133 in favour of recognising marriage between two people of the same gender as equal to traditional marriage. Goodbye world-as-we-know-it, hello hellfire, brimstone and conjugal relations with hamsters and salad vegetables.
I find it both tragic and mystifying that I should be so excited by such a thing. Why should it be exceptional that a government consider a bill like this? Why is it even an issue? That millions of people around the world watch extreme violence as entertainment yet find a loving relationship between two adults -- a relationship that doesn't affect them personally one jot -- abhorrent is absolutely beyond my comprehension. What am I missing here?
And yet I am excited -- this really is an historic moment in not only queer history but a point at which we will all look back in years to come and laugh disbelievingly that it was ever a question... except in Australia, of course. In that future time this country will have been relegated to the pariah status afforded South Africa in the past, and largely ignored; you may not be aware of it, but it's an aim that has been formally drafted into Labor's operational blueprint. As the rest of the civilised world* moves forward into an enlightened age of actual thought, respect for other human beings and perhaps even the environment at a pinch, Australia will be reaping the rich rewards of the Howard era that saw the end of remotely affordable education and healthcare, cessation of a compassionate welfare safety net and the reintroduction of the White Australia Policy... or at least the White or Anything-Else-So-Long-As-You're-Wealthy Policy. We will have stepped out from under the skirts of British rule at long last... and straight into the ownership of the USA.
As I read about the same-sex marriage bill this morning I tried to picture such a debate in our parliament. Bob Brown would be leading the push, of course, but where would everyone else stand? It would be interesting to see the results of a conscience vote. Kevin Rudd a supporter? Alexander Downer -- where would he stand? Amanda Vanstone? (Hmmm, not sure on that one.) My money would be on Peter Costello being the dark horse, as he sometimes is. He and his brother have more in common than people generally allow.
But that day -- sadly, sadly -- will not come to pass in the foreseeable future, so for the time being we'll need to content ourselves to looking wistfully across the Pacific. Congratulations, Canada -- your coffee sucks but your attention to human rights kind of makes up for it, eh?
*Including, but not limited to: Canada, New Zealand and some European countries (but excluding UK)
30 June 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Why do people care? Why do they feel the need to interfere in other peoples' lives? My take is that it's an admission on their part that they are in fact defined by other people. They themselves have no identity aside from that which others give them. It's the ultimate statement of submission and surrender of personal autonomy. It's anti-human.
Maybe you're right and it is an acknowledgement of being defined by others; I sure as hell think that it's a screeching admission of an insecurity so deep as to be pathological.
I've often wondered this about conservative/Christian groups when they get up in arms about The Last Temptation of Christ or whatever the current outrage du jour happens to be: if you're so damn sure about your convictions, if your faith really is that deep and unshakeable, then... what the hell does it matter what anyone else thinks? Isn't that God's call to make a judgement and meter out punishment accordingly? If sinners are going to roast indefinitely in the Hibatchi of Eternal Misery, then why bother getting all worked up about it? The errant are getting their come-uppance, so why don't the righteous just get along with feeding the hungry or some other loving Christian, heaven-ensuring activity? Besides, did Jesus ever say to kick the living shit out of sinners? I don't think so.
Well, for me the issue was a non-issue until, after listening to the results on the news my niece asked, "So what was this GAY election about anyway?"
AAAAAAAAAAAgh. Took a deep breath and made an attempt at a non-condescending answer. All I can do is try to counteract the messages of intollerance she gets every day.
Hey - I liked "My money would be on Peter Costello being the dark horse, as he sometimes is. He and his brother have more in common than people generally allow." It shows me there could be a glimmer of hope in this New Senate Order. Things are looking so black just now.
I guess the thing with meddling conservative/Christian groups is that they aren't solid with their faith or anything else... it's their inner hollowness that drives them.
The current cabinet have all been around so long that I've actually started to take some notice of them as individuals, rather than merely minions of the purely evil and self-serving Johnno. Peter Costello's quite an interesting guy, and I actually think that the Libs under his Prime Minister-ship would be a very different animal indeed. Not that he's going to redeem their core beliefs, but he seems to actually have a measure of civility.
And in reply to your second comment: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! (even though it's actually true and not that funny.)
Wendy: The asterisk comes in the paragraph beginning And yet I am excited, and comes after the rest of the civilised world.
Incidentally, do you know that typing in all capitals indicates shouting?
See you at QPAC.
oops, sorry for shouting.. i just got so sick of not bieng abot to get things into captials when i needed them that i just decided that once that i'd only use cpaitals.. goodness you just never know who you are offending do you!..
June 30 revisited..I’m sure he did say that .. It’s in the book of bitch
No you Know what is driving me mad .. apart from th every pc issue that you are outlining here .. is the asterisk…
I know someone who is female (well last time I saw them) and they had a female partner … they both went to the fertility clinic to discuss insemination by donor.. and they had to go through rigorous testing because of the sexuality (deviants!!) But then they asked her what she did for work and … you know what she did…SHE WAS A CHILD CARE WORKER.. so it’s ok for her to get paid to look after the children of the people who can deny her the sperm to produce her own offspring, but not to be assisted to produce her own!! Smacks of eugenics!! And they wonder why nannies hurt children (not that it’s just left entirely up to nannies.. plenty of people- God fearing birthed their own babies.. people hurt children) Makes you want to shake their babies till their brains bounce off the sides of their skull.. (whoops that’s a little bit of ufashionable rage, skuewz me)
No offence taken, it's just a useful thing to know. :D
Post a Comment