9 April, 2008...10:00 pm
He loves them, he loves them not
By Mr Lefty
Andy’s written a fairly glowing column in today’s Hun about Peter Hitchener’s recent quiet revelation regarding his private sexuality. It’s one that Andy feels deserves commendation - because of the way Hitchener’s done it:
Yet I’m glad he feels able to announce it at last, briefly and unemotionally, in this no-fuss way. As I said: it’s actually a gift…
Hitchener, after all, is a decent man. What’s more, like Jones, he is not out to proselytise for gay sex, mount mardi gras floats or wear leather pants.
He is not demanding support as the gay newsreader, but as a newsreader who you might have incidentally heard is gay, and I doubt you’ll hear him discuss his sexuality again, just as I don’t mine as a straight.
Andy doesn’t mind if you’re gay, so long as you don’t rock the boat. If Peter Hitchener had come out and advocated for equal rights for gays - such as the state recognising their marriages in the same way as it recognises those of the rest of us - then he would, apparently, no longer be so “decent”. He’d be “proselytising for gay sex”. (I presume that’s what Andy means by the term; I’ve never heard an advocate for gay rights actually trying to convert heterosexuals to personally engaging in the specifics! “Hey, have you considered the sensation of… seriously, I’ll bet you a million dollars you’ll love it…”)
Because of course Andy is on record as opposing the push for equal rights for gays, going so far as to run the silly argument that:
- legalising gay marriage is like legalising polygamy
- polygamy is bad in a way that gay marriage isn’t (otherwise I could just raise the bad point directly about gay marriage without even having to mention polygamy)
- If we legalise gay marriage, we’ll have to legalise polygamy because there’s no difference between them, even though in point 2 I said there was.
In other words, in deeds if not words, Andy does think gay people are second-class citizens worthy of lesser rights than the rest of us. He’ll talk about how it shouldn’t matter, but when it comes to discrimination by government against gay people, he is either silent or a spoiler. He does not see the fact that the government will let us get married but not gay people as discrimination: or, at least, he sees it as justifiable discrimination.
You can’t have it both ways, Andrew. Either gays are equal citizens to the rest of us, in which case they deserve equal rights - or you don’t think they do, in which case you don’t really think they are.
46 Comments
9 April, 2008 at 10:07 pm
By the way, if I might anticipate any idiot conservatives who feel like responding to the “equal rights” point with the facile “hey, I can’t marry someone of the same sex either”, this is how it’s not “equal rights”:
I can marry a woman, because I’m a man.
My sister cannot marry a woman, because she’s a woman.
And guess what we call it when someone is prohibited by the state from doing something solely because of their gender? Hint: it’s not “equal rights”.
9 April, 2008 at 10:08 pm
You see, there are nice, respectable gays like Hitchener, and there are dirty, drug taking bummers like those you see in nightclubs. Totally different.
9 April, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Of course, even nice, respectable gays don’t deserve equal rights. I didn’t say that directly to Peter’s face, obviously - they can be a bit touchy, those guys.
9 April, 2008 at 10:14 pm
The reason Bolt hates leather pants wearers is because Bolt can’t wear leather pants. Because there’s not a pair of leather pants in the world stretchy enough to compensate for his uber wide stance on Insiders, which apparently one Bolt fan claimed “frightened” David Marr.
9 April, 2008 at 10:24 pm
ahhhh, yes. gay rights bolt style. the kind of rights where if you’re an unobtrusive newsreading 50-something, singleton who stays at home every night of the week, that’s ok. but if you’re a mardi gras going, blow everything in sight, out-there gay rights activist, that’s not. witness the hypocrite’s on-the-record disapproval of gay marriage, as you point out. but hitchener is admittedly single. therefore he’s a beacon of right-wing hand-wringing sop-giving rights-sentiment.
Bolt’s a hypocrite.
10 April, 2008 at 12:25 am
Even though i consider myself as a lefty, i think that marriage should be a church thing. Civil Unions however should be accessable to all couples, and backed to the hilt by the government. Of course in a perfect world, where gays arent blamed for hurricanes destroying cities and the general degredation of civilisation, churches would support gay marriage.
10 April, 2008 at 3:44 am
I think the confusion stems from the subjective nature of the “equality” of the relationships in question here.
Conservatives view society as a homogenous “self perpetuating” entity. Given that Heterosexual relationships produce children, (the fundamental building block of this self replicating entity), society has seen fit to grant concessions in the form of tax breaks and the like to help continue and smooth this process.
Given that Homosexual relationships do not help in societies advancement through time, there is no need for society itself to recognise in any way shape or form these relationships.
Rational people understand that Love is not defined by a piece of paper, and rational people can see that the homosexual push for state sanctioned marriage is nothing more than the naked greed of desiring the tax breaks and monetary concessions.
Discussion on this topic needs to take into account that the “equality” of these relationships is in the eye of the beholder, and that the clear majority of this self perpetuating entity do not see state recognised homosexual unions as either “equal” or neccessary.
Sorry. Democracy trumps minority opinions of “equality” in this case.
10 April, 2008 at 8:10 am
I have a theory about this. Have you noticed that whenever Andy talks about teh gayz he then posts a couple of youtube videos of opera arias or magnificent pianists? Could it be that he’s thinking about what could have been if he’d been brave enough to tell the world about the real Andy, the one who lurks inside the balls-out-crazy conservative columnist, the Andy who is good with colours and likes lavish musical theatre? Why does he hate David Marr, maybe more than anyone else? Is it because David is not afraid anymore?
Food for thought anyway.
10 April, 2008 at 9:48 am
PJ, if we follow that argument to it’s logical conclusion, (And we all know how Andy et al loves a nice “Slippery Slope”) then you’ll have to ban infertile couples, or those who don’t intend to have children from getting married as well.
Because it’s all about having children, isn’t it? I mean, why should we prop up members of society who aren’t “helping societies advancement through time”?
10 April, 2008 at 10:33 am
You can’t have it both ways, Andrew. Either gays are equal citizens to the rest of us, in which case they deserve equal rights - or you don’t think they do, in which case you don’t really think they are.
Since when has the institution of marriage been the determining factor of who is a first & second class citizen? Using your argument, marriage must be given to determine your worthiness to be a first class citizen.
Would you say heterosexuals that choose to not marry are second class citizens?
10 April, 2008 at 12:07 pm
This is tripe. What does “societies advancement” (sic.) mean anyway? Economic, cultural and social “advancements” can be furthered by individuals who don’t pop out sprogs.
Kinda like yoghurt, or blue-green algae.
10 April, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Would you say heterosexuals that choose to not marry are second class citizens?
The argument is about rights Marc, not choices. Heterosexuals who choose not to marry nonetheless have the right to do so if they want.
Homosexuals do not have that right - ergo the Australian State accords them less rights than heterosexuals. Ergo they are treated as ‘lesser’ citizens.
10 April, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“The argument is about rights Marc, not choices. Heterosexuals who choose not to marry nonetheless have the right to do so if they want.
Homosexuals do not have that right - ergo the Australian State accords them less rights than heterosexuals. Ergo they are treated as ‘lesser’ citizens
”
Why must the institution of marriage be held up as the be all & end all of a relationship. I fully support same-sex couples having all the same legal rights that heterosexual couples have within their relationships. But why must it be delivered via the institution of marriage?
Marriage is no longer the ultimate choice for couples in the 21st Century. It is an outdated custom that has heavy links to religion. It also no longer has the power that it had back in the 1950’s when sex or even living together outside of marriage was the ultimate taboo.
Let religion have their outdated concept of relationships & let us move onto a more modern institution that represents the bonding of two individuals into a loving relationship.
10 April, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Marc: “Marriage is no longer the ultimate choice for couples in the 21st Century. It is an outdated custom that has heavy links to religion.”
Yes but hetrosexuals can choose to be ‘married’ while same sex couples cannot. Simple. The choice has been removed.
A commitment register would be a good comprimise as it will formally acknowledge a couple.
10 April, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“A commitment register would be a good comprimise as it will formally acknowledge a couple.”
But that would only eliminate discrimination against gays in that aspect of life if marriage was unavailable to both straights and gays, yeah?
Which may not necessarily be a bad thing…
10 April, 2008 at 2:36 pm
But that would only eliminate discrimination against gays in that aspect of life if marriage was unavailable to both straights and gays, yeah?
It comes back to people putting too much emphasise on Marriage which is more about religion & outdated ceremony than anything else. Marriage just doesn’t have the social clout that it use to have. As time goes on marriage will become more & more irrelevant within society.
What’s more important is the legal recognition of same-sex relationships & the equal legal rights that go with that. If this can be done via a commitment register then that is a good thing.
I always find it funny when religious zealots put the blame of the downfall of marriage on same-sex relationships. The truth is that same-sex couples have nothing to do with the downfall of marriage. It’s 100% heterosexuals & society in general that are to blame. This is why the argument that legalising same-sex marriage will lead to the downfall of marriage is false. It’s already on a path to irreverence.
10 April, 2008 at 2:42 pm
That should say;
irrelevance not irreverence
10 April, 2008 at 2:52 pm
A brief history of marriage:
http://dir.salon.com/story/comics/tomo/2004/03/01/tomo/
10 April, 2008 at 2:53 pm
“I have a theory about this. Have you noticed that whenever Andy talks about teh gayz he then posts a couple of youtube videos of opera arias or magnificent pianists? ”
yes i have noticed that. this week it’s been violinists. and you are spot on about his colour awareness.
fancy bolt - in the closet.
10 April, 2008 at 3:11 pm
“Even though i consider myself as a lefty, i think that marriage should be a church thing.”
Uh, why? Only religious people get married?
Where do people GET this drivel?
As for Marc’s strawman - “Why must the institution of marriage be held up as the be all & end all of a relationship” - who’s saying it is? We’re just saying that if the government is going to recognise marriage, it can’t be discriminatory about it.
Recognising heterosexual marriages but not gay marriages is discrimination, pure and simple. And discriminating against gay people is treating them as second class citizens. By definition.
“A commitment register would be a good compromise as it will formally acknowledge a couple.”
No, DB - it would enshrine the discrimination. There is no “compromise” on equal rights. If the government is going to recognise marriage for straight people, which it does, then anything less than the same for gay people is placing them as second-class citizens.
10 April, 2008 at 3:41 pm
ok well then lets not call them marriage certificates. By the current legal definition (in terms of super, childcare, dole and just about everything else) you can be de facto as long as you are man and woman, right?
Being de facto implies that there is a level of ‘commitment’ in the eyes of the government, right?
Let’s call marrige a bond created in the eye of god and a commitment a bond in the eyes of the government.
You sign a commitment register or commitment license with anyone you want. If you want to get ‘married’ as part of it off you go to church.. How does that sound?
10 April, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Wot Jeremy said.
I can’t help but think that not granting equal marriage ‘rights’ to gays and offering a commitment register instead is a way of weasling out of ensuring equality for gay people in this sphere of life.
After all, why are gay rights activists demanding the right to marriage, particularly in the US?
10 April, 2008 at 3:50 pm
DB - no dice. The only appropriate outcome is to remove the (predominantly recently-added) sections of the Marriage Act that discriminate against gay people.
A gay marriage is a marriage; it’s a binding commitment made by two consenting adults to spend the rest of their lives together. It is not a de facto co-habitation arrangement. Insofar as it’s a “commitment ceremony”, it is entirely the same as a “marriage”. If it looks like a marriage, if it walks talks and acts like a marriage, then it’s a freaking
duckmarriage.Religious nutters don’t own the word.
Anything less than precise equality is discrimination, treating them like second-class citizens.
10 April, 2008 at 4:05 pm
“Anything less than precise equality is discrimination, treating them like second-class citizens.”
Well then there are a lot of other pieces of legislation that need to be overhauled. Not just the Marrige Act.
Personally if two people want to do it then go for it. If they are committed to each other and want to spend thie lives together then good for them. I just don’t see the issue with the name of the register?
There are so many other ways that legislation has been written against gays while de facto’s get the benefits. For example if you are in a de facto relationship and split up there is the potential for compensation to be paid or support given as per a marriage, yet there is not with same sex arrangements. The same applies to wills, etc etc.
Changing the marriage Act won’t help same sex couples who live in a de facto arrangement will it?
10 April, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Yes, any legislation that discriminates against gay people should be amended. A marriage between two people of the same gender should be treated by law as identical to one between two people of different genders.
Legislation regarding de factos should also be amended wherever it discriminates between gay and heterosexual people.
I believe the Greens and Democrats have repeatedly put such a bill before the parliament, only to be thwarted by Labor and the Coalition.
As for the issue with the name - let’s be clear. The only reason to object to gays calling their life-long commitment by the same word we use is if you think their life-long commitment is lesser than ours.
And anyone who thinks that is a bigot.
And anyone who thinks that government should enact and enforce their personal bigotry is contemptible.
10 April, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Property rights upon separation are vastly different for married people and defacto couples. Marriage confers a greater range of “relevant considerations” in determining a partner’s entitlements. Married couples may also seek “spousal maintenance”.
The Property Law Act in Victoria (as well as most other States to the best of my knowledge) has been amended for many years to ensure that gay “domestic partners” are not discriminated against (ie. they have the same rights as defacto couples).
At this stage, any form of ultra-marriage relationship is treated differently at law when it comes to property and maintenance after separation.
This should be remedied for all.
That said, at least de facto couples have the choice.
10 April, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I want to be clear on this - I do not consider myself a bigot in anyway. A life long commitment between two people should be valued the same way no matter who it is (well i will have to think about the couple in SA in the news at the moment).
If setting up something like a commitment register helps move things along then super. I am all for it. As you stated yourself Jeremy the bulk of the legislation has been knocked back time and again. Do you want to resctrict same sex couples from commiting to each other formally (hence restriction their opportunity to at least undertake the commitment) because you want to hold out until every i is dotted and t is crossed?
Isn’t that restricting people’s choice to commit as well?
10 April, 2008 at 4:36 pm
did you read the rest of my post or did you pull a bolt jeremy?
10 April, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I did, AAW, and I didn’t take issue with it except the first sentence. Likewise, DB, I wasn’t calling you a bigot.
(If I agree with you, I’m unlikely to comment - I’m more likely to think quietly to myself “good point” and then move on.)
I see what you’re saying, DB, that a commitment register is better than nothing. But it’s still not equality, and I don’t see why gay people should wait even LONGER for that. It’s still basically saying we don’t think you’re equal to us, and we’ll keep our special separate “MARRIAGE” all to ourselves. And don’t you dare get airs and graces and call your identical commitment “marriage”: that’s for us, and us only. You must use some other, clumsier, nastier word that just goes to confirm that you’re lesser human beings.
I get the tactical argument you’re making; I just don’t think it’s enough progress in 2008. Why is equality so much to ask?
BTW The reason I get so worked up over this issue is that it’s such an obvious violation of human rights that some otherwise sensible people still seem to think is okay. But their position simply does not stand up to even close examination. It is profoundly illogical, and unjust. It’s like we were in the sixties and arguing for the vote for aborigines, or early last century arguing for the vote for women. It’s an obvious historical travesty that will be fixed over time, and it just irritates me that a present generation of conservatives, who know ultimately they’re going to lose, is just making sure the present generation of gay people suffers as much as possible in the meantime.
10 April, 2008 at 4:47 pm
The point is, at a State level, gay relationships are recognised as equal to hetero defacto relationships.
However, as the term defacto implies, these relationships are viewed as something less than marriage and the laws dealing with such relationships are different in many aspects, often to the detriment of at least one of the parties.
Unless and until the Commonwealth government allows gays to be married, gay people can only enter into a lesser relationship and are therefore discriminated against.
This is really the last i to dot and the last t to cross on this issue.
10 April, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I dunno whats up with me this week, i keep saying such ridiculous shit.
Disregard My previous posts. Of course marriage should apply and be available to any consenting couple, be they; woman woman, woman man or man man, man. And all unions should be recognised by the government and all given the same benefits, cept gay men who should receive free prostate exams, its only fair, it gets poked quite a fair bit over the years.
10 April, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Exactly, Rob.
AAW - what? You’re not trying to run Andy’s famous polygamy argument, are you?
10 April, 2008 at 4:49 pm
ok. we are settled i think (brain starting to hurt).
I agree that the commitment between two adults should be considered equal, be it de facto or marriage.
The commitment register is a step in the right direction but I fully agree that until things are considered equal in a number of legislation, same sex couples will be discrimiated against.
10 April, 2008 at 4:50 pm
…i was being funny.
10 April, 2008 at 7:15 pm
it just irritates me that a present generation of conservatives, who know ultimately they’re going to lose, is just making sure the present generation of gay people suffers as much as possible in the meantime.
LOL.
I mean, not so funny for the gays obviously . . .
11 April, 2008 at 9:17 am
I note Bolta has now managed to include gay sex and gay marriage in his most recent story on the incestuous ones.
Bolt: “He and his team have picked up from our cultural vibe the new defence that’s offered for much that was once - rightly or often not - called sinful.
It’s the defence often given for everything from gay sex, gay marriage and euthanasia to abortion and prostitution and even drug taking and self-mutilation.”
Rightly, or often not monkeys.
We report, You decide.
11 April, 2008 at 10:24 am
The homo marriage/civil union/register debate is becoming quite the kerfuffel, to quote one Lou Todd. ‘Roaming registers’ are now being floated in the ACT as a means of circumventing the lack of official ceremony in the registry model - that is, rather than a couple registering their relationship in the Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages - perhaps not the most romantic place in the world - a registrar would come to the couple’s location of choice in which to oversee their commitment ceremony, witness and register the relationship, deal with the paperwork as required etc.
It’s just crazy it’s come to this level of convolution, all because Rudd and his government are apparently terrified of same-sex couples having a supposedly ‘marriage-like’ public ceremony - even though the same government is about to finally reform all the discriminatory federal laws against such couples. Like you say Jeremy, it’s a real quack-like-a-duck situation - unnecessarily complex, complicated means to essentially the same end.
11 April, 2008 at 10:31 am
Please, someone write about the pathetic article this morning, comparing outfits worn by Rudd’s minder for vists with various dignities.
Tie = respect
No tie = no respect.
Brilliant.
I nearly broke my “don’t comment in that place” rule. It is such a laughably lame post.
11 April, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Is George Bush really worthy of respect..?
12 April, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Jeremy,
Can you tell whether you agree or not with legalising polygamy? Your arguments above can apply equally to polygamy - it is discriminating against three-person groups who want to marry if only couples can get married.
Or is some forms of discrimination warranted, but not others?
To answer the question myself, I’d repeal the Marriage Act entirely and leave it up to consenting individuals how they want to order their lives. That would necessitate removing any taxation and welfare benefits for married/defacto couples and replacing them with relationship neutral benefits.
12 April, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I also recall Bolt being incredibly proud of himself for his brilliant argument against gay marriage, which ran thus;
If gays are allowed to marry, many heterosexual men will lose all respect for marriage and leave their wives and children. The children will then grow up to be delinquents, who will indulge in homophobic violence against gay people. Accordingly, gay people should realise that it is not in their own interests to allow them to get married.
I am not joking, he really did make this argument.
13 April, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“Can you tell whether you agree or not with legalising polygamy? Your arguments above can apply equally to polygamy - it is discriminating against three-person groups who want to marry if only couples can get married.”
Haven’t really considered it. No-one’s seriously putting the case for or against, so it’s not something I’ve looked into.
I certainly support gay marriage, since no-one has put a single argument against it that has the slightest sense.
As for polygamy - well, if there isn’t any strong argument against it, then presumably it should be also be legalised. If there’s a strong argument against it, then it shouldn’t. What’s your view? If you’re opposed, why? Basically, if it’s a bad thing, then presumably if and when a debate about it occurs, polygamy’s opponents will come out with a decent argument. Maybe they will. Who knows.
We can decide that issue on its merits if and when it’s seriously debated, which obviously it would be before anyone considered legalising it. Bringing it up now is clearly a second-rate debating tactic, where if you can’t find an argument against one thing, you bring in a second thing which is assumed to be bad and then try to argue the first thing is like it, even though if there were a strong argument against both then there’d be no need to mention the second thing at all.
In the meantime, gay marriage has been already been seriously debated, and any objective observer would have to say that the equality side has clearly won. The law should be amended to treat gay marriages identically to straight marriages immediately.
13 April, 2008 at 11:50 pm
POLYGAMIST!
Tomorrow on ;;;;Watch -
“Jeremy the barrister who use to be anonmous wants to wed his rather sanguine moggy
aghast comrades :)
“
14 April, 2008 at 4:13 am
You’re right Jermany, Gay marriage has been debated by the Australian people via their elected representatives in the Senate;
see here; http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Chamber/Hansardr/Linked/3402-2.PDF
Marriage was declared to be, and defined, as a union between a man and a women by a vote of 38 to 6.
Does this not seem like an overwhelming majority?
You do understand what a democracy is I assume?
14 April, 2008 at 6:48 am
That’ll change, P.J.
There has never been a referendum on the subject. There has never been an election where that has been the major issue.
The Australian people have never been formally asked what they think on the subject; the nation’s MPs have just had a guess on what’s politically advantageous for them so they don’t get “wedged”.
Just because the Senate has previously decided something doesn’t mean it was right; the Senate has previously discriminated against other minorities, and it has been seen as the travesty it was as time passes.
What you’ve presented is not an argument on the issue; it’s just an explanation for why the status quo hasn’t been fixed yet.
14 April, 2008 at 9:35 am
Jeremy,
Polygamy might be in the too hard basket. On one hand, consenting adults should be free to do what they like without State interference. On the other, polygamy where it is one man, leaves some men unable to ever find a wife. Whether that creates a pool of disatisfied young men hell bent on trouble or not, I don’t know. But it should be looked at.
Personally, I’d abolish the State’s ability to decide these things - leave it up to individuals and society to work things out. You’d end up with most people in heterosexual couples and society would be pretty much the same.
Leave a Reply