The legalisation of gay marriage in New York has touched off another heated round of debate over the hot-button issue. Here are two opposing points of view published in the Brisbane Courier Mail:
Gays have just as much right to marriage
By Karen Brooks
A BILL legalising same-sex marriage has been passed in New York, prompting celebrations and the usual outburst of homophobia.
The passage of this Bill draws attention to the issue in Australia where, despite our sense of social democracy and progressiveness, same-sex marriages are still illegal.
When asked about her stance, Prime Minister Julia Gillard monotones the definition given in the Marriage Act, which states: “Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”
In other words: homosexuals need not apply.
The other reason most often given for refusing same-sex marriage is based on religious principles. I always feel this flies in the face of basic sacred tenets, which generally espouse universalism, acceptance and love. Here it’s a case of words speaking louder than actions.
That we’re still discussing these kinds of issues and framing them in such reductive ways in the 21st century is a disgrace. I’m not alone in thinking this either.
A recent Galaxy poll indicates 75 per cent of Australians feel the Act should be changed to include same-sex marriage.
So why won’t the Prime Minister listen? Is it simply gutless populism and pandering to the religious Right? Or are their more complex issues involved?
For the full article, click here