In response to my latest article about marriage privatization, there were plenty of responses along the lines of 'why don't you start a movement for marriage privatization'?
I mean, I do support marriage privatization, and it addresses problems that marriage equality cannot. For example, nobody will need to beg a rogue government to recognise their relationships anymore, the new civil unions system can not only provide for married couples all the needs they have now but can also be extended to for example two widows living together, etc.
But as I mentioned in the last post, the current legal infrastructure makes it impractical to achieve right now. Plus creating any further distraction from the last civil rights movement in history, marriage equality, is not morally sound, in my opinion. Especially to highlight a cause that just cannot be achieved in the next 20 years anyway.
Instead, I will be focusing on bringing the benefits of marriage privatization to society, whilst keeping the issue alive for those who are interested. For example, my Make Your Marriage Count movement aims to do just that, in an apolitical-person-friendly format.
Doing sociology and philosophy in real time by looking at developments in contemporary Western politics and culture. My mission is to stop the authoritarian 'populist' right and the cultural-systemist left from destroying the West.
Labels
Marriage Privatization: The Realities, and How We Can Overcome Them
I first advocated for marriage privatization back in 2004. (Just google it if you don't know what it means) It is the idea that the government just doesn't legislate for 'marriage' at all - it will be a cultural and religious thing not mentioned by law. There are two forms of this movement - one is to transfer all current marriages to civil union status, and transfer all laws associated with marriage to civil unions. I support this form of marriage privatization, since it is much simpler and not socially radical - there is no change to the everyday functioning of society. The other form is doing away with a one-size-fits-all status altogether, and everyone instead negotiates their own martial contracts which are lodged with the government. Somehow I think that's a radical change people won't appreciate.
But the point is academic anyway. The current structure of the law means that there is no convenient way of mutual recognition of anything not called a marriage between different countries, and between different state and federal governments within one country. So we just don't have the legal infrastructure for that yet. Maybe one day we will, but until then, we cannot proceed with marriage privatization in law.
Anyway, that's unfortunate, because I happen to be a staunch believer in marriage privatization. So what can we do? There are several things we can do to slowly kick-start the process.
1) Cultivate a cultural view of marriage that is distinct and separate from the legal status of marriage. One word can have multiple meanings - like a bill can be a bill of parliament or a cutting instrument. Of course, the cultural marriage should be cherished above and beyond how we view the legal status of marriage.
2) Governments can offer parallel civil union or registered partnership systems, open to all couples, with the full set of rights and responsibilities found in legal marriages.
3) Encourage respect for marriage as a cultural institution, rather than as a legal contract.
4) Demand respect for all relationships and marriages, no matter how they are registered with the government, or not.
5) Respect that there are different views of marriage, and celebrate them all. For example, a church may believe marriage really means those married under its laws, whilst gay and lesbian citizens may believe in gay and lesbian marriage even if their church or government does not. Both these views can exist, and co-exist peacefully, we believe.
But the point is academic anyway. The current structure of the law means that there is no convenient way of mutual recognition of anything not called a marriage between different countries, and between different state and federal governments within one country. So we just don't have the legal infrastructure for that yet. Maybe one day we will, but until then, we cannot proceed with marriage privatization in law.
Anyway, that's unfortunate, because I happen to be a staunch believer in marriage privatization. So what can we do? There are several things we can do to slowly kick-start the process.
1) Cultivate a cultural view of marriage that is distinct and separate from the legal status of marriage. One word can have multiple meanings - like a bill can be a bill of parliament or a cutting instrument. Of course, the cultural marriage should be cherished above and beyond how we view the legal status of marriage.
2) Governments can offer parallel civil union or registered partnership systems, open to all couples, with the full set of rights and responsibilities found in legal marriages.
3) Encourage respect for marriage as a cultural institution, rather than as a legal contract.
4) Demand respect for all relationships and marriages, no matter how they are registered with the government, or not.
5) Respect that there are different views of marriage, and celebrate them all. For example, a church may believe marriage really means those married under its laws, whilst gay and lesbian citizens may believe in gay and lesbian marriage even if their church or government does not. Both these views can exist, and co-exist peacefully, we believe.
Rudd and Albo, Three More Years!
The Australian election is coming up. My friends, in life there aren't many easy choices, but here is one. I believe we have the clearest choice in the country's history this time. In my opinion, anybody not voting for the return of the Rudd government is a fool - there's no nice way of putting this.
Here are my reasons:
1) The Rudd government has been a good custodian of our country. Its economy has weathered the global financial crisis well, and I trust that under the Rudd government we will weather any future challenges, including the end of the mining boom, very well.
2) Kevin Rudd and Anthony Albanese support marriage equality. In contrast, Tony Abbott has called it a 'fashion', and even prevented his colleagues from voting for it! Tony Abbott is every bit a right wing extremist who will take away freedom, equality and opportunity when it fits the right wing agenda.
3) Tony Abbott's sister is in a committed lesbian relationship, and hopes to get married. If Abbott does not even care about his sister, will he care about the rest of the country?
4) Tony Abbott's economic policies hurt families. Workchoices and 15% GST are possibilities, and to see their impact one only needs to look at the original GST and Workchoices as implemented by the Howard government. Going even further, Tony Abbott has talked about changing the already meagre Newstart allowance so that potentially people will have to move miles away from their families to work in mines and farms when they are not even trained to do so! An Abbott government will be toxic for families. For this reason alone it is scary.
5) The 'direct action' environmental policy is not only inferior to the Rudd government's Emissions Trading Scheme, it is also very costly and will lead to either unnecessary new taxes or cuts in spending - ultimately, it is families who get hurt. All this so that the Coalition can have a 'different' policy!
6) Team Abbott have been playing dirty, in my opinion. They have released policies which do not add up in a hope to get over the line. The Murdoch-led media has also been very biased, hellbent on getting Abbott into office. One widely suspected reason is because Murdoch fears the government's National Broadband Network will affect the business of Foxtel. All this cannot be rewarded. We need to show them that this is a democracy, and WE are in charge.
7) Tony Abbott has also repeatedly singled out the Greens as an 'extremist party', probably because they wouldn't support him to be PM in the 2010 hung parliament negotiations. There are some things the Greens do that I will not agree to, but I believe the Liberals under Abbott are much more extreme than the Greens. Even under Howard they had Workchoices, something more extreme than any Green policy will ever be. And Abbott looks more of a right wing extremist than even Howard. The pot calling the kettle black is just not on.
Therefore, isn't it a clear cut choice?
Here are my reasons:
1) The Rudd government has been a good custodian of our country. Its economy has weathered the global financial crisis well, and I trust that under the Rudd government we will weather any future challenges, including the end of the mining boom, very well.
2) Kevin Rudd and Anthony Albanese support marriage equality. In contrast, Tony Abbott has called it a 'fashion', and even prevented his colleagues from voting for it! Tony Abbott is every bit a right wing extremist who will take away freedom, equality and opportunity when it fits the right wing agenda.
3) Tony Abbott's sister is in a committed lesbian relationship, and hopes to get married. If Abbott does not even care about his sister, will he care about the rest of the country?
4) Tony Abbott's economic policies hurt families. Workchoices and 15% GST are possibilities, and to see their impact one only needs to look at the original GST and Workchoices as implemented by the Howard government. Going even further, Tony Abbott has talked about changing the already meagre Newstart allowance so that potentially people will have to move miles away from their families to work in mines and farms when they are not even trained to do so! An Abbott government will be toxic for families. For this reason alone it is scary.
5) The 'direct action' environmental policy is not only inferior to the Rudd government's Emissions Trading Scheme, it is also very costly and will lead to either unnecessary new taxes or cuts in spending - ultimately, it is families who get hurt. All this so that the Coalition can have a 'different' policy!
6) Team Abbott have been playing dirty, in my opinion. They have released policies which do not add up in a hope to get over the line. The Murdoch-led media has also been very biased, hellbent on getting Abbott into office. One widely suspected reason is because Murdoch fears the government's National Broadband Network will affect the business of Foxtel. All this cannot be rewarded. We need to show them that this is a democracy, and WE are in charge.
7) Tony Abbott has also repeatedly singled out the Greens as an 'extremist party', probably because they wouldn't support him to be PM in the 2010 hung parliament negotiations. There are some things the Greens do that I will not agree to, but I believe the Liberals under Abbott are much more extreme than the Greens. Even under Howard they had Workchoices, something more extreme than any Green policy will ever be. And Abbott looks more of a right wing extremist than even Howard. The pot calling the kettle black is just not on.
Therefore, isn't it a clear cut choice?
Opinion: Ethnic Enclaves Good for Socities
People have long been saying that ethnic enclaves are a bad thing for society. As someone who likes controversy and debate, let me put my own alternative viewpoint into play: ethnic enclaves are good for society, and are just what society needs in this day and age.
In a global society, we need to encourage the free flow of people and resources to keep up economically. This applies to all countries. Protectionist measures are no good for the future of any country, and will be increasingly despised in this global world. A country's talent will need to be maintained and enhanced by immigration, or their industries will perish. A country also would benefit from having culturally diverse people as part of its workforce, and countries without this will not be able to keep up in the global race.
However, there is considerable fear from both natives and immigrants in every country, that their culture is going to be eroded. Nobody actually wants the world to be 'one culture'. For immigrants, life in the ethnic enclave is a way to participate in their new society, whilst not losing their cultural heritage. For natives, the fact that historically foreign cultures are kept in enclaves mean that the mainstream culture can continue its existence, whilst there are increased opportunities to make contact with different cultures, something which would have been the preserve of the rich just decades ago. It really is the best of both worlds.
A melting pot is a difficult situation for many people, as nobody wants their own culture to be melted down. However, we can all happily co-exist in a salad bowl, where nobody is melted down. Enough said.
In a global society, we need to encourage the free flow of people and resources to keep up economically. This applies to all countries. Protectionist measures are no good for the future of any country, and will be increasingly despised in this global world. A country's talent will need to be maintained and enhanced by immigration, or their industries will perish. A country also would benefit from having culturally diverse people as part of its workforce, and countries without this will not be able to keep up in the global race.
However, there is considerable fear from both natives and immigrants in every country, that their culture is going to be eroded. Nobody actually wants the world to be 'one culture'. For immigrants, life in the ethnic enclave is a way to participate in their new society, whilst not losing their cultural heritage. For natives, the fact that historically foreign cultures are kept in enclaves mean that the mainstream culture can continue its existence, whilst there are increased opportunities to make contact with different cultures, something which would have been the preserve of the rich just decades ago. It really is the best of both worlds.
A melting pot is a difficult situation for many people, as nobody wants their own culture to be melted down. However, we can all happily co-exist in a salad bowl, where nobody is melted down. Enough said.
Who Deserves to be Hanged
Who deserves to be hanged by our judicial system? This is an emotive question. And honestly, it's one that I have had trouble answering sometimes. At various times, I have thought that terrorists, people who kill others in hate crimes, and people who kill their parents should be eligible for hanging. After all, limiting hangings to these crimes would make it sufficiently rare, and a fitting punishment for extraordinarily evil acts.
However, there's a catch. Hanging is irreversible, and the judicial system is not perfect. I have done my research, and have found several cases of people found guilty of the above crimes but had their convictions overturned on appeal. If those people were hanged, that would have been a grave injustice.
Hence my conclusion: I can never support the state sponsored execution of criminals, whatever the crime. I firmly believe that there is a special place in hell for terrorists, people who kill others in hate crimes, and people who kill their parents, but it's not the place of our justice system to condemn others to death if it is imperfect.
However, there's a catch. Hanging is irreversible, and the judicial system is not perfect. I have done my research, and have found several cases of people found guilty of the above crimes but had their convictions overturned on appeal. If those people were hanged, that would have been a grave injustice.
Hence my conclusion: I can never support the state sponsored execution of criminals, whatever the crime. I firmly believe that there is a special place in hell for terrorists, people who kill others in hate crimes, and people who kill their parents, but it's not the place of our justice system to condemn others to death if it is imperfect.
Marriage Boycott: Not for Me, but Still Noble
Marriage boycott is the idea that you will not get married - or have a wedding ceremony but not legally sign papers for the government (as David Pocock did for example) - until everyone can. In previous years, in the face of widespread apathy over the issue, I supported the cause for a few years, and then deemed that it was unnecessary to support it anymore because the required public awareness has been raised. Many people are still continuing their boycott however. So having backed away from it for quite some time now, what do I think of it?
Marriage has a cultural and heritage significance for many people, me included. Maybe it's because I am partially conservative at least. That's why I wouldn't be part of a marriage boycott unless I believed it was the only way we could raise awareness for equality - that was what I believed 5 years ago, for example. Now that we have more effective strategies, I will use those strategies to contribute towards the goal of equality instead. However, some couples still want to use the marriage boycott as part of what they contribute to the equality movement. Good on them, I say. Everyone should be contributing what they feel comfortable about, even if we may end up making different contributions.
Marriage has a cultural and heritage significance for many people, me included. Maybe it's because I am partially conservative at least. That's why I wouldn't be part of a marriage boycott unless I believed it was the only way we could raise awareness for equality - that was what I believed 5 years ago, for example. Now that we have more effective strategies, I will use those strategies to contribute towards the goal of equality instead. However, some couples still want to use the marriage boycott as part of what they contribute to the equality movement. Good on them, I say. Everyone should be contributing what they feel comfortable about, even if we may end up making different contributions.
Literally Stupid?
Maroon 5 singer Adam Levine recently said "I hate this country" during a live episode of The Voice, after two of his contestants were eliminated. Nothing special here, I guess. The reaction was surprising though. There have since been calls for NBC to fire him.
Obviously we know that Adam doesn't really hate America. But apparently, some people must take everything literally. How crazy!
No wonder some people in America are now saying that everything should be taken literally. Or wait - did that come first? The dumbing down of culture has really hit hard!
Obviously we know that Adam doesn't really hate America. But apparently, some people must take everything literally. How crazy!
No wonder some people in America are now saying that everything should be taken literally. Or wait - did that come first? The dumbing down of culture has really hit hard!
The Lohans Reconcile for the Sake of Their Children
Well known couple Michael and Dina Lohan, divorced a few years ago, have reportedly decided to reconcile for the sake of their children. They recently met for dinner in Hollywood.
Isn't it great news?
I am a staunch fan of the traditional commitment for life model, and I am no fan of any divorce, as readers of my column would well know. But what happens when things don't work out? Some traditionalists would refuse to even discuss the matter - but that doesn't help. I rather prefer the philosophy of harm reduction.
Harm reduction is a philosophy we use in our healthcare system, and I think it's a philosophy we can apply in family life too, in a way. It's basically saying that, even when there is undesirable behaviour or outcomes, we can and should still do our best to reduce the harm to all parties. In the case of relationships that break down, I think the best harm reduction strategy is an agreement to try to reconcile for the many years ahead, for example agreeing to meet each other regularly in the years ahead, and to continue to have family outings. I think we should support and encourage ex-couples to do that more.
Isn't it great news?
I am a staunch fan of the traditional commitment for life model, and I am no fan of any divorce, as readers of my column would well know. But what happens when things don't work out? Some traditionalists would refuse to even discuss the matter - but that doesn't help. I rather prefer the philosophy of harm reduction.
Harm reduction is a philosophy we use in our healthcare system, and I think it's a philosophy we can apply in family life too, in a way. It's basically saying that, even when there is undesirable behaviour or outcomes, we can and should still do our best to reduce the harm to all parties. In the case of relationships that break down, I think the best harm reduction strategy is an agreement to try to reconcile for the many years ahead, for example agreeing to meet each other regularly in the years ahead, and to continue to have family outings. I think we should support and encourage ex-couples to do that more.
Marriage Will Never be Obsolete. Here's the Future.
You all know that I am in the business of fighting for marriage equality, and I am serious about it. Recently, somebody asked me: marriage will be obsolete anyway, why fight for it?
The truth is that, marriage will NEVER be obsolete, and I really don't want to see it become obsolete either. I believe almost all those fighting for marriage equality will see it the same way. This is why it is a meaningful fight for us.
But nowadays couples are not choosing marriage in increasing numbers right? 25% of children are already not born in marriages, right?
Marriage is but one way of permanent commitment, truth to be told. It is especially appealing to those in some religious faiths, and maybe less appealing to others. But it is here to stay. Other forms of permanent commitment include civil unions and domestic partnerships, other religious covenants, and cohabitation backed up by declaration of permanent commitment to friends and family, for example. Even within marriage, some people choose a 'biblical' marriage, others opt for a civil ceremony. More choice that lead to the same objectives is always better. That objective is permanent commitment, and one that we would like to see encouraged. That means encouraging marriage, for now and forever.
In the future, marriage won't be the only choice for permanent commitment, but an equally valid choice amongst others to achieve the same objective. Therefore, it will always be encouraged, and will always be relevant. Therefore, we need to fight for marriage equality, and ignore those who want instead the 'abolition of marriage'.
The truth is that, marriage will NEVER be obsolete, and I really don't want to see it become obsolete either. I believe almost all those fighting for marriage equality will see it the same way. This is why it is a meaningful fight for us.
But nowadays couples are not choosing marriage in increasing numbers right? 25% of children are already not born in marriages, right?
Marriage is but one way of permanent commitment, truth to be told. It is especially appealing to those in some religious faiths, and maybe less appealing to others. But it is here to stay. Other forms of permanent commitment include civil unions and domestic partnerships, other religious covenants, and cohabitation backed up by declaration of permanent commitment to friends and family, for example. Even within marriage, some people choose a 'biblical' marriage, others opt for a civil ceremony. More choice that lead to the same objectives is always better. That objective is permanent commitment, and one that we would like to see encouraged. That means encouraging marriage, for now and forever.
In the future, marriage won't be the only choice for permanent commitment, but an equally valid choice amongst others to achieve the same objective. Therefore, it will always be encouraged, and will always be relevant. Therefore, we need to fight for marriage equality, and ignore those who want instead the 'abolition of marriage'.
Catherine Zeta-Jones Gets Treatment for Bipolar
Catherine Zeta-Jones has reportedly checked into a treatment centre for treatment of bipolar disorder. She had previously revealed her condition back in 2011.
Mental health and illness is an often ignored topic in society. I hope high profile cases like these can raise awareness. We need to talk about and acknowledge this problem big time.
Mental health and illness is an often ignored topic in society. I hope high profile cases like these can raise awareness. We need to talk about and acknowledge this problem big time.
I Will NEVER be Supporting Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs
Since my last post on The Sex Ed Wars, I have received comments that I should sign on to the Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage bandwagon if I was for family values. Let me make this clear - I will NEVER be supporting Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage programs, and this is an article of faith for me.
My position on Sex Ed in schools have been well described in the last article. Outside of that context, I am all for freedom of choice for all adults, as I have said, but I am all for abstinence outside of firm, permanent commitment, and I will support its promotion as a cultural thing amongst adults. I will not stand for making any position, including mine, to be taught as orthodoxy for adult behaviour in schools, and be part of the crowd who is being accused of indoctrinating people, as it would hurt our cultural cause.
What I will also not support in any context is any Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage programs, and that is for absolutely any context. The emphasis on Marriage is simply not compatible with my beliefs, and it would hurt my conscience to say otherwise. It is ironic that it is my long term support for marriage equality that taught me that no moral program should be tied to a government and church sanctioned institution, and that is what marriage is. My standard is for abstinence until permanent commitment, which includes, but is not limited to marriage, and I believe that practically speaking it is as strong a standard as Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage. And to me, that is a major difference, something I will never be able to gloss over.
My position on Sex Ed in schools have been well described in the last article. Outside of that context, I am all for freedom of choice for all adults, as I have said, but I am all for abstinence outside of firm, permanent commitment, and I will support its promotion as a cultural thing amongst adults. I will not stand for making any position, including mine, to be taught as orthodoxy for adult behaviour in schools, and be part of the crowd who is being accused of indoctrinating people, as it would hurt our cultural cause.
What I will also not support in any context is any Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage programs, and that is for absolutely any context. The emphasis on Marriage is simply not compatible with my beliefs, and it would hurt my conscience to say otherwise. It is ironic that it is my long term support for marriage equality that taught me that no moral program should be tied to a government and church sanctioned institution, and that is what marriage is. My standard is for abstinence until permanent commitment, which includes, but is not limited to marriage, and I believe that practically speaking it is as strong a standard as Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage. And to me, that is a major difference, something I will never be able to gloss over.
The 90s Model
The 90s model, a model of cultural stances based on the superb arrangement of things in the 1990s, is something that I am proud to support. After all, it's the model of success. I have objective proof of this.
Let's look at how the other models stack up against the 1990s model:
1) The 1950s model. There was a great deal of family values, but the atmosphere was repressive and not conducive to real progress on issues. It was a bad time to be a minority of any kind.
2) The 1960s model. There was real progress on many issues, but this decade was a double edged sword. It proved to be the beginning of tolerance in the West, but also the beginning of decadence in the West.
3) The 1970s model. There were lots of arguments, and society was nearly paralysed in more ways than one. Family values also fell away quickly, for multiple reasons, which is not surprising when everything else good also fell away.
4) The 1980s model. There was too much greed, and not enough awareness paid to emerging problems like HIV/AIDS. One big mistake we should never repeat.
5) The 2000s model. Lots of polarisation, lots of hate everywhere. Popular culture and music became repulsive in many ways. Dangerous drug use soared, and the sexualisation of the media proceeded without brakes. A total disaster.
In fact, these models all serve as warnings for us not to repeat certain mistakes. For example:
1) The 1950s taught us that there should be a bottomline of freedom for individuals, and repressive institutions repressing minorities should not be endorsed for the sake of stability.
2) The 1960s and 70s taught us that some values should be held dear, or they will fall away irreversibly.
3) The 1980s taught us that greed is not good, and emerging problems even when they only affect minorities should be dealt with with care.
4) The 2000s taught us that hate and divisiveness can tear a society apart.
So what is the 90s model? It is a model of tolerance and acceptance for all. But whilst doing that we remain proud of our culture, our family values. In fact, we are not afraid to show it. Allowing freedom for everyone doesn't mean that we need to shut up about our most treasured values, it merely requires that we do not judge people who do not live our lifestyle.
Let's look at how the other models stack up against the 1990s model:
1) The 1950s model. There was a great deal of family values, but the atmosphere was repressive and not conducive to real progress on issues. It was a bad time to be a minority of any kind.
2) The 1960s model. There was real progress on many issues, but this decade was a double edged sword. It proved to be the beginning of tolerance in the West, but also the beginning of decadence in the West.
3) The 1970s model. There were lots of arguments, and society was nearly paralysed in more ways than one. Family values also fell away quickly, for multiple reasons, which is not surprising when everything else good also fell away.
4) The 1980s model. There was too much greed, and not enough awareness paid to emerging problems like HIV/AIDS. One big mistake we should never repeat.
5) The 2000s model. Lots of polarisation, lots of hate everywhere. Popular culture and music became repulsive in many ways. Dangerous drug use soared, and the sexualisation of the media proceeded without brakes. A total disaster.
In fact, these models all serve as warnings for us not to repeat certain mistakes. For example:
1) The 1950s taught us that there should be a bottomline of freedom for individuals, and repressive institutions repressing minorities should not be endorsed for the sake of stability.
2) The 1960s and 70s taught us that some values should be held dear, or they will fall away irreversibly.
3) The 1980s taught us that greed is not good, and emerging problems even when they only affect minorities should be dealt with with care.
4) The 2000s taught us that hate and divisiveness can tear a society apart.
So what is the 90s model? It is a model of tolerance and acceptance for all. But whilst doing that we remain proud of our culture, our family values. In fact, we are not afraid to show it. Allowing freedom for everyone doesn't mean that we need to shut up about our most treasured values, it merely requires that we do not judge people who do not live our lifestyle.
Behind Spring Breakers
Films like the recent Spring Breakers may appeal to those who like sexy scenes, and I won't judge because that's not what I do, but everyone should know what people have to endure in their production. Now it has been reported that Selena Gomez had a mini breakdown when filming Spring Breakers. "I got overwhelmed doing some of the things we were doing and having such an active audience at all times, even though I knew at heart we were super-safe," she said.
Obviously, I won't be watching Spring Breakers. It doesn't fit with my morals.
Obviously, I won't be watching Spring Breakers. It doesn't fit with my morals.
Lady Gaga Stands by Principles
Lady Gaga has reportedly rejected a $1 million offer to perform at the Republican National Convention last year.
It appears that, like her or not, this woman has principles, which is more than can be said of many Hollywood people nowadays. If you really believe in something, you have to put your money where your mouth is. If you believe in marriage equality, you don't do anything to support a party that has such a strong position against it. I think we can all learn from this.
It appears that, like her or not, this woman has principles, which is more than can be said of many Hollywood people nowadays. If you really believe in something, you have to put your money where your mouth is. If you believe in marriage equality, you don't do anything to support a party that has such a strong position against it. I think we can all learn from this.
Maintaining the Integrity of Civil Unions
In some Western countries where civil unions are available, they have become a popular 'lower tier commitment' alternative to marriage. France is a good example where this has occurred. And it is something that I staunchly oppose.
Firstly, civil unions are derived from marriage. It is supposed to serve a similar function, but without the religious baggage. Just as I do not accept the idea of 'open marriages' or '12 month mini marriages', I cannot accept the idea of a marriage-lite institution. Civil unions are a marriage alternative that should be equally as serious and solemn, not a marriage-lite easy way out.
The second, and perhaps even more important reason, is that civil unions serve to be a way gay couples can have equal rights where marriage equality is not yet available. This type of equality does not negate the need for marriage equality, but still is very useful. For places where marriage equality can be readily achieved, and I believe this now includes much of Europe, and US and Australia, we should push for marriage equality. However, this is completely out of the question, and will still be out of the question in 30 years' time, in most of the world. Some of those countries, however, may be ready to adopt civil unions. There is even a movement for civil unions in Japan already, for example! The cheapening of civil unions will not do this cause very well. Moreover, the cheapening of civil unions by heterosexuals in the West can only serve to reinforce the second class status of gay couples in civil unions in other parts of the world, and is something true equality believers should not do.
Civil unions have also been bad mouthed by some marriage equality advocates, and I believe this is unfortunate. From the start civil unions were about equal rights and dignity. The need for equality in the institution of marriage is a separate issue and a separate type of equality issue altogether, and the lack of marriage equality should not be a reason to bad mouth civil unions.
A good guide regarding civil unions is that they must be treated like marriages, seriously and solemnly, and in the spirit of family values. Good examples are those couples who regard marriage as too religious or 'bourgeois' and choose civil unions (or cohabitation) instead, but still uphold the value of commitment.
Firstly, civil unions are derived from marriage. It is supposed to serve a similar function, but without the religious baggage. Just as I do not accept the idea of 'open marriages' or '12 month mini marriages', I cannot accept the idea of a marriage-lite institution. Civil unions are a marriage alternative that should be equally as serious and solemn, not a marriage-lite easy way out.
The second, and perhaps even more important reason, is that civil unions serve to be a way gay couples can have equal rights where marriage equality is not yet available. This type of equality does not negate the need for marriage equality, but still is very useful. For places where marriage equality can be readily achieved, and I believe this now includes much of Europe, and US and Australia, we should push for marriage equality. However, this is completely out of the question, and will still be out of the question in 30 years' time, in most of the world. Some of those countries, however, may be ready to adopt civil unions. There is even a movement for civil unions in Japan already, for example! The cheapening of civil unions will not do this cause very well. Moreover, the cheapening of civil unions by heterosexuals in the West can only serve to reinforce the second class status of gay couples in civil unions in other parts of the world, and is something true equality believers should not do.
Civil unions have also been bad mouthed by some marriage equality advocates, and I believe this is unfortunate. From the start civil unions were about equal rights and dignity. The need for equality in the institution of marriage is a separate issue and a separate type of equality issue altogether, and the lack of marriage equality should not be a reason to bad mouth civil unions.
A good guide regarding civil unions is that they must be treated like marriages, seriously and solemnly, and in the spirit of family values. Good examples are those couples who regard marriage as too religious or 'bourgeois' and choose civil unions (or cohabitation) instead, but still uphold the value of commitment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
There's no denying it: the left is in an absolutely doomer phase. Gone is the optimism for 'revolutionary change' that pervaded ...
-
The principle of equality of moral agency is central to moral libertarianism, because the need to allow every single individual their equal ...
