In the event that Julia Gillard lasts as PM until December, she’ll presumably be faced with a resolution making equal marriage rights part of Labor policy. Gillard’s handling of this issue is emblematic of her disastrous leadership in general – simultaneously unprincipled, unconvincing and politically unsuccessful.
Unlike our PM, I’m just old enough to remember when the phrase “living in sin” could be used with a straight face to describe living arrangements like hers. So, I find it hard to believe that her stated opposition to equal marriage rights is sincere (unlike with Kevin Rudd). Rather it’s the result of the kind of political calculation standard on the right wing of the Labor Party (see also Kristina Kenneally), in which the ‘real’ Labor voter is typecast as an aspirational bogan[1] whose views on social issues are unchanged since the 1950s. The key text here is Michael Thompson’s Labor without Class. There’s no evidence for this – views on social issues in Australia are largely uncorrelated with social class.
Allowing that some Labor voters are socially conservative, Gillard’s strategy is still politically stupid. Given the desperate state of the polls, she can’t hope to win by caution on an issue like this. It’s probably too late now, but a strong stand in favor of equal marriage rights might have done something to stop the drift of Labor voters off to the Greens, independents or the kind of apathy that makes it easy to shift to the Liberals, given an attractive promise or two.
fn1. To be boringly clear, I don’t use or endorse the term “bogan” to describe anybody. But the stereotypical image of a bogan coincides perfectly with the Labor Right view of Labor voters.
John Quiggin 
The bulk of the ALP membership is far more socially conservative than that.
Besides, if the Greens internal polling showed that 2/3 of their membership are not in favour of gay marriage, then one could be forgiven for concluding that the ALP membership is far less likely to embrace it.
If the ALP wishes to retain government, they’d be better advised to drop issues like gay marriage (which comes in at about 1001 on a scale of the the 1000 most important issues facing Australia) & find something that is going to improve the lives of Australians.
@Steve at the Pub
I’m pretty sure the conditional clause in your second sentence is false.
Pr Q said:
Leave Julia alone!
Her leadership has been quite the opposite of “disastrous” in policy terms, although the politics leaves much to be desired. She actually gets things done that should be done (carbon tax, mining tax, effective border protection, hundreds of pieces of worthy-but-dull legislation passed). And does not do things that should not be done (“Big Australia”). That makes a pleasant change from Kevin “all process, no progress” Rudd, whose main policy achievement (crisis managing the GFC) was done largely on the back of Costello’s fiscal stewardship, the RBA’s interest rate cuts and Treasury’s sound advice.
As regards the merits of the gay marriage issue, I suppose there is no harm in it. FWIW I luke-warmedly support it on conservative grounds. If gays are married, mortgaged and “maternal” then they will be more likely to be god-fearing, tax-paying, hard-working members of society. Less likely to get up to self-harming mischief which can happen when single men kick over the traces.
The gay marriage issue itself is vastly over-rated in importance by the liberal media-academia complex. As Birrell observes, the number of persons living in a same-relationship is “tiny” Only 0.47 per cent of the adult population currently satisfy the ABS’s expansive definition of such arrangements. ie less than one in 200. And it is reasonable to expect that not much more than half of this number would be willing to take up the offer of marriage, if the government would give them the option. Not many people care about it one way or another.
But gay marriage is of overwhelming importance to cultural elites who must have some issue on which they can self-righteously grand-stand to their hearts content. With bonus brownie points for castigating bastions of reactionary sentiment such as the Catholic Church or outer-suburban red-necks.
No doubt Gillard has more pressing policy concerns, such as saving the planet from global warming, without using up scarce political capital on such a marginal issue. She also has the political problem of avoiding the appearance of being beholden to the GREENs somewhat flaky social agenda. She already has enough of a legitimacy problem without raising the spectre of Bob Brown pulling the strings of cultural policy.
My biggest worry is what post-modern liberal activists will get up to after gay marriage goes through the inevitable formality of being given legislative imprimatur. What will be the Next Big Thing in sub-cultural civil rights? Transexual marriage? Polygamy? [Fill in the blank]?
Of course we all know that the history of post-modern liberal social reform is one of un-interrupted progress with no adverse side effects whatsoever. After all with cultural theorists calling the ideological shots, what could possibly go wrong?
“My biggest worry is what post-modern liberal activists will get up to after gay marriage goes through the inevitable formality of being given legislative imprimatur. What will be the Next Big Thing in sub-cultural civil rights? Transexual marriage? Polygamy? [Fill in the blank]?”
And what exactly would be wrong with that?
I hadn’t checked until now, but for the record, Labor voters overwhelmingly support marriage equality, conservatives are marginally (49-43) opposed
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/12/06/public-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/
@Jack Strocchi
“My biggest worry is what post-modern liberal activists will get up to after gay marriage goes through the inevitable formality of being given legislative imprimatur”
Well, let’s pass it and find out. You know what I’d like? I’d like to hear one actual reasoned argument against gay marriage from someone who opposes it. I don’t mean “gay marriage is personally unimportant to me so therefore it doesn’t matter,” I don’t mean “I was brought up to be against that sort of thing.” What I’d like to hear from just one person is a single actual sensible reason not to allow it.
Until then, I’ll just believe anyone who’s against it is a homophobic bigot.
@Sam
“I’d like to hear one actual reasoned argument against gay marriage”
Playing the Devil’s Advocate, I think the slippery slope argument has a degree of validity here.
I strongly support gay marriage on socially liberal grounds, but I would feel uncomfortable applying this principle to, say, polygamous marriage. As my position is not absolute I am effectively legitimizing a compromise, which makes it hard(er) for me to criticize the compromise positions of others.
@NickR
The slippery slope is a slippery argument indeed to link to this reform.
Playing Devil’s Advocate, why would gay marriage lead to, say, polygamous marriage? I have heard of heterosexual polygamous marriages. Indeed, they have a long history, have been endorsed by some religions, and are still legal in many parts of the world. Homosexual polygamous marriages I haven’t heard of. That might suggest that heterosexual marriage should be your concern, if you are concerned about polygamy. I don’t know that I am. I haven’t given any though to it.
Like Sam I have never heard a reasoned argument against gay marriage. I can imagine what it might be.
Freelander @ #8 said:
To paraphrase Trotsky, you may not think about polygamy, but polygamy is thinking about you.
You are missing the ideological point. Gay marriage might lead to polygamous marriage through the “marriage equality” route. Why make an inequitable exception to the fellow who wants multiple wives?
The issue is not with the “sexual valency” of the union, it is with the notion of conferring legitimacy on an institution by appeal to abstract right, generalisable to all forms of that relationship. Thus the issue with polygamy would be “marriage equality”, not whether the marriage was hetero- or homosexual.
Lets for once and all drop this bleating about marriage “equality” as if all political action can only be justified by appeal to abstract egalitarian or libertarian “right”. This kind of rationalism in politics is nonsense on stilts, long ago refuted by Bentham and latterly Michael Oakshott. Political theorists tend to jump off and on to ethical bandwagons when it suits their political program. Liberals are particularly prone to this vice, never able to make up their minds whether they are utilitarian (when making the scholarly case) or contractarian (when going for the polemical jugular).
If one is a consistent utilitarian then gay marriage is justifiable on grounds of social utility or not at all. Once activists start blathering about “equality”, particularly when making a major adjustment to an ancient and venerable institution, it greases the slippery slope making it easier for polygamists and the like to slide into place.
Like Sam I have never heard a reasoned argument against gay marriage. Still can’t imagine what it might be.
“To paraphrase Trotsky, you may not think about polygamy, but polygamy is thinking about you.”
If polygamy is thinking about me, I’m flattered.
dear anyone
i’m past this “marriage equality” stuff. really. i don’t see why anyone wants to “get married” at all. and where some see an ancient & venerable institution, i see a superficially barely reconstructed feudal institution, originally evolved/designed to keep women subordinate, and surrounded, nowadays, by commercially hyped-up air-headed sentimentality & buck chasing hucksters. its repellent. don’t half of marriages end up in divorce anyway? people should just co-habit & get on with it. if people want church or civil weddings, then let them find, or found & fund, a church, or suitable civil celebrant, that will marry them to their satisfaction. that’s it, as far as i’m concerned. i most emphatically dispute, further, that there is any justifiable need for the state to be registering or sanctioning interpersonal relationships in the first place. if it comes to “divorce” & there is property involved, then let them come to an amiable & equitable division, or fight it out in court – sign a contract (its done already) & keep receipts. caveat emptor. if there are children, there’s family court anyway. i’d just like it if me, and my state, could otherwise be left out of other people’s interpersonal relationships.
yours sincerely
alfred venison
John I think you exaggerate Gillard’s faults. Whatever the background deal she does have a carbon charge up, the gambling precommitment legislation, some kind of mining tax reform and the plain packaging laws on cigarettes among other things. I don’t think Kevvie will be an improvement although I agree we are likely to find out. He seemed to be a hyperactive, overly controlling twit whose words typically ran ahead of him.
I think Australians would see gay marriage as a second-order issue. People these days cohabit as they like and noone worries – partners have full legal rights etc. The word marriage is used to describe heterosexual unions which provide children and the foundation stone for society.
All the meaty arguments of alfred lord venison may be true, but there is no obvious reason why the law should permit participation in this ‘feudal’ evil to heterosexuals and deny it to homosexuals. There is no self-evident validity to a legislative approach that consists only in discrimination. For the record marriage long predates feudalism, just as the one man, one woman rule long postdates marriage.
@Jack Strocchi
Jack S. says, “She (Gillard) actually gets things done that should be done (carbon tax, mining tax, effective border protection,”
I am having a hard time deciding whether Jack S. is being ironic or not. Has Julia “done” any of these things? Actually, the carbon tax is still not a done deal yet but hmmmm maybe that’s what Jack means. The Mining Tax was not done by Julia, in fact it was undone by Julia but maybe that’s what Jack means too. Border protection is not being done but rather overdone but maybe that’s what Jack means three! Then comes Jack’s out-of-left-field furphy about polygamy! Ah, Jack you trolling genius, you are having all of us on! LOL, ROFL and all those other acronymic contractions of hilarity.
After the honeymoon period ends, most men (and probably most women too) are trying to figure out how to get out of the one marriage they have contracted. I think very few would be angling to contract more partners. And if they did, who cares? I say legalise/decriminalise gay marriage and polygamy.
The typical extreme conservative (be this conservative a pillar of society or a bogan) basically says be like me or I’ll bash you (using state sanctioned violence or personal violence as the case may be).
We already have transsexual marriage. Or do you mean allowing people to transition without first divorcing? I suspect that will come with same-sex marriage, as the reason for the insistence is primarily to avoid creating those marriages.
We also have limited recognition of polyamory, in that you can immigrate as a member of a multiple marriage. It would require a certain amount of legislative tweaking, but fortunately Labor have already made a list of the affected legislation and have modified most of it once. So it wouldn’t be too hard.
A marriage between two people of whatever sex/sexual orientation stands a chance of being a decently equal power relationship. A polygamous marriage does not. Easy.
Whew! Slippery slope avoided.
Labor should just legalise already and stop creeping around scared of Western Sydney electorates that stopped voting for them in the 90s. The present state of play is, frankly, embarrassing.
(ps. Off-topic but I note Victorian Labor have rejected the policy of off-shore processing.)
When Wran decriminalised sodomy in NSW the usual suspects all moaned that Labor would never win another election in the state. They moaned again when the NSW age of consent was equalised for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Gillard no doubt imagines that her ridiculous opposition to marriage equality is smart politics, but really she is just moaning as stupidly and as inaccurately as those voices from 1989.
Meanwhile, David Cameron in the UK has declared that he supports gay marriage because he is a conservative.
So here, supporting gay marriage puts you out on the far left, and in Britain, you can call yourself a conservative and support it. Hmmm
@Jack strocchi
I’m not sure why this (and polyandry) would be a bad thing, providing there were informed consent. That said, I regard it as implausible, at least on the basis of marriage equality. Equality here refers to the rights of individual members of the group “gay”. All the members of any polygamous or polyandrous marriage already have the same marriage rights as all other folk, pt to the extent that they are gay
Slippery slope is a poor method of argument. While it is easy to point to examples of the slippery slope in action — suffrage of white men in the US eventually led to suffrage of women and even African Americans, and from there the idea of more general civil rights came next — each person iterating a slippery slope argument needs to show that the underlying political context in which each new development arises creates a new positive feedback, underpinning a new change. Typically, this is not done, and ostensibly implausible but allegedly terrigying consequences are asserted as inevitable without foundation.
The underlying right here attaches to individuals capable of giving informed consent, so unless new classes of person denied marriage rights arise, it can’t be the basis of any new rights in marriage.
{except} to the extent …
@Jack Strocchi
ugh … trite phrase … what is scarce is not capital but goodwill, and one of the reasons that it is scarce is that the regime has not given a sufficient number of its core supporters a reason to support it and distinguish it from the other tribe …
dear alan
i agree that marriage in some form is older than homer but the form of the present circus is decidedly feudal.
now let me be perfectly clear, whilst i hold the “institution” of marriage in utmost contempt as a circus of tasteless vulgarity serving no good purpose, i nevertheless believe that anyone, even homosexuals, should be free to make themselves miserable by association with it if that’s their inclination.
this being so, i remain totally unpersuaded that such interpersonal arrangements, whatever the sexuality of the participants, should be any business of the state to register or authorise..
so, my position is that, ideally, as far as i’m concerned, all the gays & heteros of the realm, should be free to marry away to their heart’s content in any church or civil registry that’ll have ’em. as early & as often as they want. just leave me & my state out of it. that’s all. ideally.
yours sincerely
alfred venison
dear lord benison
To say that marriage is feudal is frankly absurd. Parliaments evolved from feudal arrangements, but that does not mean we all bend the knee and tug our forelocks when an MP clanks by in shining armour. Or is it your argument that Julia the Unready is tilting at the equality windmill because she is desperate to ensure no base-born homosexual stains the marriage bed with their lust?
Marriage: Making public what is a purely private intention.
Yes, like NickR I’m uncomfortable with polygamous marriage. Like Dan though, I think the problem there is the unequal power relationships they seem to be associated with. If any given triplet, quadruplet, or whatever could show that no one was being exploited, I’d be perfectly happy in principle to let them get married. It would be difficult to assess this on a case by case basis though, so in practice I’m against it. Thus the two scenarios are qualitatively different and the slippery slope is avoided.
Transexual marriage on the other hand is of course completely fine. In fact, I just assume that any marriage *equality* law will tacitly allow it. The fact that Jack Strocchi even thought of using this as a reductio ad absurdum is itself absurd.
As to charges of inconsistency among liberals about which political ideology to propound, my approach is as follows. If there are simply no utilitarian arguments against, and a strong libertarian argument for, we should always be for. Does anyone disagree with me here?
Finally I’ve heard the objection that this civil right doesn’t affect most suburbanites and therefore isn’t something we should care about. Most people will never be arrested, why should we care about habeas corpus? The fact is, many rights will never be exercised by most people, they’re important nonetheless.
As to “keeping the state out of it,” what do competitive marriage institutions really mean? You could already get some non-government group to bless or otherwise authorise your non-marriage union. It’s just that most people, given the free choice, seem to choose the state-administered contract. Do libertarians really want to take this choice away from them?
On this, as on other issues, libertarians have an habit of propounding rightwing claptrap dressed up to meet their peculiar ideology.
Whether marriage is to be private or public is not a live issue in our politics, and in any case marriage is about more than the two adult parties. A privatised system of marriage would need to guard the welfare of children and its hard to imagine how that could be done by private contract, unless you went back to the feudal system of treating children as property.
One of the dirtier secrets of the present system of unequal marriage is the legal disadvantages the state imposes on children who have gay parents.
dear Alan
“that marriage is feudal is frankly absurd” my royal canadian arse. marriage at its base is a property arrangement, traditionally sanctified by church & state. like in the middle ages, like in the postmodern age. its an anachronism in which i find absolutely no redeeming qualities whatever “parliamentary evolution” is may or may not have undergone over the centuries. whatever stage of “parliamentary evolution” its got to, its still a load of hooey. but knock yourselves out.
now don’t get me wrong on this again, please. my view is that gay people should have equal access to this deplorable anachronism & the state should butt out of regulating it altogether. ideally. but, given that it is presently made to be the state’s business, equal access to it should be legislated for forthwith. slippery slope or not.
yurs sincerely
alfred venison
“Children who have gay parents” Now THAT would be the definition of “Success”.
dear lord benison
Sorry, you can easily show that marriage law has its roots in the Western feudal period. What you need is some argument to show that because a thing has feudal origins that means it remains feudal.
The current marriage act would be unrecognisable to a medieval lawyer. No dowry, no bride price, no merger of property, no lordship of the husband, no right to connubium, etc etc etc.
Almost every aspect of the common law has feudal origins. Does that mean you would abolish contract, tort, offences like rape and murder, and the right to vote? Rape, for example, was once seen as detracting from the property rights of the father or husband of the victim. That has changed with time. But by your argument the offence of rape has feudal roots and must therefore be abolished.
Your arse may well be Canadian and royal. That does not necessarily make it the seat of all wisdom.
Is Gillard from the right faction of the ALP? I always thought she was from the left faction but I can’t find a credible reference that says so. My general perception is that for the issues that the left is notionally correct on (same sex marriage, euthanasia, drug decriminalisation, opposition to censorship) they are completely piss weak on in practice. The few issues that I might like to vote left on the left seeming refuse to deliver on. The Greens used to be for relaxing drug laws but now they are campaigners against those drugs that are still legal. Basically when the left isn’t being inept they are being useless.
In other news I’m pleased to see that the HEMP Party appear to have at long last worked their way past the ridiculous party registration barriers that John Howard introduced and should be in a position to contest the next federal election.
http://australianhempparty.com/
Gillard’s from the left, but the right put her in the driver’s seat. (No, I don’t have a reference).
I pretty much agree with Lord Alfred Venison, though I suspect the state would have to maintain a minimalist role in civil marriage for contract, financial and child responsibility purposes.
Of course, male and female homosexuals can be parents. Why the surprise?
@Ikonoclast
Alfred did kind of nail it.
Freelander *sigh*, for context please read the final paragraph of Alan @27.
Back on topic:
“…. her disastrous leadership in general – simultaneously unprincipled, unconvincing and politically unsuccessful.”
This is an apt a summation of the of the Prime Minister as I’ve seen.
‘left’ and ‘right’ are dynastic rather than political labels in the modern Labor party. For the record Gillard identified historically with the left but there is little sign of that in any of her policies.
@Freelander
Freelander, I was actually thinking about heterosexual polygamy of the sort typical of mormons in the U.S. My point was that liberals support gay marriage but would probably shy away from supporting polygamy even though the basic rationale is the same. BTW I too am not bothered by it on a personal level, but I think that recognizing it officially would be interpreted as a government endorsement of a whole lot of stuff that I am bothered by (weird religion, exploitation of women etc).
@Dan
@Sam
Dan and Sam,
I think the qualitative distinction you draw is not really qualitative and hence I don’t think the slippery slope is avoided. Like you, I don’t want to endorse polygamy as I think it is very likely exploitative and would result in highly unequal distributions of power between husbands and wives. However it is clearly possible to have equitable polygamous marriages (at least in theory) while many heterosexual relationships surely exist across big differences in money, assertiveness, physical strength etc.
At best we can say that 1 to 1 relationships (straight, gay whatever) are likely on average to be less exploitative and draw the line there. But it is still a line in the sand. If it is the potential for exploitation and the asymmetry of power that we really care about, we should also apply this to heterosexual couples.
@Sam
“If there are simply no utilitarian arguments against, and a strong libertarian argument for, we should always be for”
I think that this is a brilliant rule of thumb and more-or-less summarizes my own views on a wide variety of issues.
John Quiggin’s review of Michael Thompson and his Gillard-baiting, is a bit unfair.
Thompson specifically says up front in his Preface that “economic rationalism” was not the problem. This should protect him from reviewers’ criticism that he:
.
Thompson is criticising a different deformation that has damaged the ALP, and removed it from its real political duty. This duty cannot be conflated to tailing “aspirational bogans”.
In general the rights to shares in Australia’s wealth by workers have come under sustained corrosion through policy drifts driven by economic rationalism, and fake promises made under the Accords and ‘Australia Reconstructed’.
ALP “QANTAS club suits” such as Lionel Bowen promised unions that an ALP government would appoint labour attaches overseas – this never happened.
The Accord was a Prices and Incomes Accord – but they delivered on Incomes (ie workers restraint for super contrib + social wages enhancements), but never pursued prices.
Australia Reconstructed (AR) had fine words such as ‘import replacement’ in its recommendations [Recomm 3.13, AR p97] – did we ever see this.
AR also said “Government must institute a comprehensive, visible, and effective policy of price restraint … to match the restraint being exercised by wages salary earners” [AR Recomm. 2.8 – 2.9, AR p56]. Still waiting.
It is not Gillard, that is being politically stupid – it is the ALP as a whole – except for some brave sub-branches.
Thompson’s complaint was a reaction to what he observed, and he should be protected from reviewer’s attacks that he left some elements (consultants, lawyers) of the middle class out of his conception. Thompson was only illustrating the issue.
Thompson’s complaint “The gentrification of the ALP” is valid as far as it goes. Gillard’s strategy is more driven by public opinion polling, and is the strategy of ALP machinery in general and would be the same with Rudd as rudder.
Thompson also contested a cartoon view of the ALP as male, blue collar, Anglo.
However Thompson misses the point when he restricts his concerns to what he observes and misunderstands the relevance of economic rationalism (and underlying influences). This is typical of most of the ALP Right and some in the Left (particularly the young graduates who cannot tell the difference between Groucho Marx and Karl Marx, and think it is all a uni-bar joke). Thompson probably supports Keating’s and Peter Cook’s economics and is protecting them from critical analysis by waving “gentrification”. But this is a different issue.
Thompson does not realise that university graduates, and middle strata consultants and lawyers, have given an incredible boost to unions – John Sutton (CFMEU), Julius Roe (AMWU), Louise Tarrant (LHMU-UnitedVoice), a swathe of labor-lawyers and probably others.
John really needs to let whatever bee he has in his bonnet over Gillard, out. A Rudd switch will not address the loss of ALP political relevance,
Remember it was Whitlam who announced that “Wages and conditions are no longer the chief determinants of living standards” Since then health, housing, and education have been the watch words – and wages and conditions have been savaged, the health system is a mess, housing is unaffordable and priced in a bubble, and education now comes with so many fees and bastardised curricula, that who knows whether there has been any real improvement over the NSW Wyndham scheme (allowing for independent improvements due to technology). I would say that anyone going through a school system today, using just the education available before Whitlam (1972) would still be adequately prepared to enter any Australian university or TAFE system, or the workforce. It is this trend – superadded by the economic rationalisation of Hawke and Keating particularly that has driven a wedge between the ALP and society.
I for one will not get over excited about Gillard’s difference with Rudd over any particular policy. This seems to be part of the Rudd campaign which captivates people who really think that Leaders run (or should run) the ALP. Rudd thought he should run the ALP and setup a kitchen cabinet and in effect, played the factions against each other, with help from the media.
Any way, I would have thought that State/Territory jurisdictions have powers that can coexist with the Commonwealth Marriage power, so presumably some of those not happy with Gillard can pursue their agenda elsewhere?
Is John Quiggin’s concern over equal marriage rights sincere or is it just another convenient broadside in the Gillard-Rudd leadership war?
@Alan
Left and right in Australian politics in general often does seem to mean much. Witness the policy responses to climate change.
should say “doesn’t”
@TerjeP
“Left and right in Australian politics in general often does seem to mean much.” – TerjeP.
I agree, if you are talking about Labor and Liberal. As I say (ad nauseam), Australia, with respect to the major parties is a one-party, one-ideology state.
@Ikonoclast
It isn’t quite a one party state. We do get to choose our conservative socialist overlord every few years.
dear Alan
of course i don’t favor repealing protections of common law – even the magna carta has its use in the absence of a bill of rights. but i’ll stick with marriage & to me, any arrangement that involves the state, in collusion with churches, synagogues, mosques, &c. in approving & regulating citizens’ interpersonal relationships is feudal, whatever historical trappings its lost along the way. it is a vestigial institution that some citizens like to indulge themselves in. bully for them. but this personal indulgence should be no affair of the state except that places of celebration should meet with the fire marshal’s approval.
and marriage does not necessarily protect children from dysfunctional families. departments of social services work to protect children in dysfunctional families whether the parents are married or not. the state can commence the necessary monitoring of children’s welfare from the time it issues its birth certificate. the state’s “approval” of the form of the parent’s interpersonal relationship is irrelevant to it discharging its responsibilities to the children. if there is property involved & it matters that much then take out a contract, a “pre-nup”. if old time religion matters then seek out a religious celebrant who’ll oblige, there’s plenty to choose from. if a secular ceremony is wanted then maybe the president of the humanist society could hang out his shingle. there is no need for the state to run a ceremony & declare anyone married, except perhaps in far flung or isolated communities, where i’d nominate the postmaster or postmistress for the gig.
i see in this to-ing & fro-ing by parliaments, parties & gillinger a response to unwholesome interference/lobbying by meddlesome priests & archbishops in what should be straight forward policy making – an elected government making public policy the public largely supports. instead we get pusillanimous or devious politicians morally & logically contorting themselves in responding to fear mongering by superstitious reactionaries. so, since churches won’t get out of lobbying for their peculiar moral codes, i say let the state get out of the business of sanctioning interpersonal relationships. the state should register births & deaths and let the word “marriage” sort out as it may.
yours sincerely
alfred venison
dear lord venison
Entail flourished by contract and was abolished by legislation. Would you allow that? The religious right in the US advocates for legally indissoluble ‘covenant marriage’? Would you allow that? If your answer is no in either case then you recognise a role for the state in marriage and we are just arguing over the details.
As to children, i was not thinking of child protection where you are correct. I was thinking of situations where for instance, the biological parent dies and the state, as now, does not recognise a legal relationship between the child and the non-biological parent. You’re 7. One parent dies. Suddenly your future is in the hands of biological relatives whom you may never even have met and who may for religious or other reasons not want you to see the surviving parent ever again.
Contrary to popular belief there is no civil union legislation in Australia. Partners do not have equal rights. Several states do not even recognise same-sex couples as de factos. Most states do not allow homosexuals to adopt even the biological child of their partner. Australia mostly followed the US in allocating powers between the federation and the states. They deliberately departed from the US model by making marriage a federal power. The reason for that was they did not want the legal chaos in the US where marriages and divorces are recognised in one state but not in another. Abandon marriage and divorce legislation and everything goes back to individual states and your legal status, and worse your children’s legal status, changes when you drive over the bridge between Coolangatta and Tweed Heads.
You can achieve some marriage-like arrangements by contract, although at considerable expense (and it is by no means obvious to me why people need to hire lawyers to do what the Commonwealth now does at fairly modest cost). It is easy to determine if someone is married because there is a public register. It is less easy to determine if they have entered into a private contract that may or not be a matter of public record. You cannot however regulate relationships with third parties whether they are children, hospitals, relatives or whatever. Contracts only ever bind those who consent to them.
And lastly, you have yet to tell us why feudal origins make marriage bad and parliaments and rape laws good.
@Alan
There are good reasons for the state to be involved in marriage and civil unions. Marriages involve (typically) involve strong emotions between the parties involved. If and when, and by the time a union dissolves those strong emotions can often be strongly negative. Frequently, these strong emotions can give rise to undesirable behaviour with impacts on third parties, including children, if any. In some cases, violence and murder, even multiple murders, can result.
In these circumstances leaving the dissolution of a union to free arranging by the parties involved or simply to the ordinary law of contract is less than optimal and is socially undesirable. Strong emotions involved in the creating and disolution of a union are not really consistent with the relatively dispassionate way in which a contract is agreed to, as is assumed by contract law. These are all good reasons why the state ought to continue to have an interest in marriage, civil and defacto unions. But there is another. Those who wish to marry, often wish to make a public commitment to each other. This public commitment is something often valued by those involved, and that value, to them, can be enhanced by the formal recognition of the state (and religion, if they are so silly to have those sorts of beliefs).
@Freelander
I could not agree more. I am unsure why a discussion of marriage equality has devolved into this fantasy about privatising marriage. Until 1753 marriage in England was privatised in almost exactly the way His Lordship of Venison and others argue. The result was constant dispute and legal uncertainty over relationships, children and property.
@Alan
Interestingly, the development of much law in the United Kingdom was the result of wrongs people did to each other spilling over and creating a threat to civil order. If two individuals had a dispute, pretty soon the friends of each would join in and all sorts of mayhem could occur. Private provision of law can be a problem. The King and the nobility saw this sort of carry on as a disruption which could make it difficult to raise an army, when necessary, as ill feeling between neighbours does not make an effective fighting force. That is way, for example, you would hear people being charged with “disturbing the King’s peace”. Interesting that the law wasn’t really provided for the benefit of the King’s subjects, but came about to benefit the King.