By Bruce Wearne
Dr Bruce Wearne responds to a recent assertion of Senator Bob Brown in the light of California's same-sex marriage laws
From: "O'Toole, Michelle (Sen B. Brown)" Michelle.OToole@aph.gov.au
To: media@lists.greens.org.au
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:57 AM
Subject: [Greens-Media] FW: RUDD SHOULD HEED CALIFORNIA'S SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAWS
Sunday 18 May 2008
The Rudd government should drop its unpopular, discriminatory and old-fashioned opposition to same-sex marriage when it wipes all other discrimination on the basis of sexuality from the statutes later this year, Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown said today.
"If Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is going with the Californian Supreme Court ruling that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, surely Kevin Rudd and Nicola Roxen can back growing majority opinion in Australia that their support for the ban, while old-time quaint and Howardian, is wrong. The Greens will seek to amend the government legislation to end discrimination in marriage law",
Senator Brown said.
Dr Bruce Wearne responds in an open letter:
Dear Senator Brown,
Your argument is fallacious and borders on the abusive. But I ask myself: Where has the good Senator actually spelled out his grounds for the dogmatic assertion that a homosexual relationship is a marriage? Have you articulated that in some document? Please refer me to it.
Not only does your statement assume that it is government which create marriage, which governments do not, you assume that those who resist equating marriage with homosexual friendship are simply supporting a political agenda promoted by those addicted to "oldtime quaint and Howardian" views. And here you are promoting the views of Arnold Schwarzenegger instead. This is really poor politics.
This is not only pathetic rhetoric on your part, it fails to actually address the issue which you should address. Why don't you actually spell out in detail the basis for your equation of marriage and homosexual friendship? Without this the argument of the Green Party for same-sex marriage simply comes down to the assertion that those who disagree simply want to restrict the rights of homosexuals. Your argument continues to come close to an offensive one and does not actually advance public discussion of the issue. You continue to leave the actual grounds for your political opinion unexpounded.
When you turn the attack on those who do not share your equation, not only do you not discuss the needful reform of laws and regulations which deal with all non-marriage supportive (private) relationships in public life - thus avoiding treating the friendship of homosexuals as just one kind in this much needed process of law reform - you also fail to actually educate the country about the basis for your particular assertion: namely a view of sexuality that implies that marriage and homosexuality are basically two (social) forms of the same (physiological-evolutionary) kind. If you kept your discussion on that level then you would not have to try to shore up your rhetoric with slurs against those who hold differing views.
How about going the next step and developing your own view on the grounds for the equation, so that those who disagree with such grounds, will at least have your statement of the basis for your viewpoint and are not provoked to ignore your appeal for justice simply because of your tar-brush rhetoric?
Those who hold a contrary view, an alternative normative view of human sexuality to your own, do not necessarily hold that view in order to deny the rights of homosexual people. But if perchance you believe that is so, the grounds for that assertion should also be given.
So, please, may I appeal to you that from now on you avoid such slurs and instead actually address the question of why a friendship between people of the same-sex who are committed to developing that friendship in a sexually oriented way should be defined in law as a marriage which hitherto has been framed to respect the rights of the conjugal life-long bond between a man and a woman so committed. In other words, in contributing to this debate, your party should be putting forward the basis of such a political belief that the rights which the law ascribes to a marriage relationship should be the same as the rights ascribed to a homosexual friendship. And while you do so, please explain why homosexual relationships should be given "marital" status and whether and why those who are not engaged sexuality in such supportive domestic relationships should or should not be allowed to take the marriage label as well. The use of rhetorical slurs should be no substitute for such comprehensive exposition, After all, there are many kinds of non-married adult supportive relationship that deserve reognition in law and it is doubtful to me that such needful recognition can be advanced by the mere ideological suggestion that a de- and re-construction of the conventional legal definition of marriage should now take place so as to include the homosexual bond under marriage.
And certainly the discussion of this inherent complexity of our society is not advanced by slurring those as "quaint and old-fashioned" who do not share the Brown-Schwarzneggar Government view of homosexuality. That silly statement should be withdrawn should it not?
Should not the rights of people who live together in supportive relationships, who have no commitment to homosexuality, also be respected in law, just as carers of serverely disabled and those of the same kin? Your ongoing use of your own well-earned public domain debating status to cast aspersions on the motives of those who disagree with your definition of marriage (simply on the alleged basis of their "precious" protection of their own fragile sexuality) blurs the public-legal issue that does need continual attention by governments, even when the discrimination that is present in the law against homosexuality is properly overcome.
The way the Green Party continues to give priority to the claim that homosexual relationships should be given the "marriage privilege" in law actually raises questions as to whether your party is firmly committed to a genuine equality for all such supportive non-marital relationships in the laws of this land, or whether it has become a lobby-front for homosexual ideologues. The question of equality is much more complex than you imply.
I am not suggesting that those with a homosexual commitment should not be allowed to interpret their lives in the way they wish, but the way your party continues to promote law reform suggests that those who do not believe that a homosexual friendship is a marriage are actually perpetuating an injustice towards homosexual people. That is quite wrong and does not advance debate but simply gives implicit support to those who wish to make such a slur against those who disagree with them on this issue.
It is about time that the Green Party developed genuine maturity on this issue and ceased promoting this unhelpful rhetoric (is your demand to be called a "quaint 1970s hippy view" perhaps?) which borders on an abusive disrespect for those who do not at all share the particular theory that you are here promoting. But as I have said you do not articulate the actual grounds for your belief. Implying that those who disagree with you on this matter are actually supporters of John Howard's views is nothing but a non sequitur.
Yours sincerely
Bruce C Wearne
Point Lonsdale