The latest little pearlers from Senator Abetz just about say it all for me. Straight out of the moral code of the 1950s! Anyone opposing his view should get out of the kitchen.
Abetz is trying to tell me that I am bound for Hades. He insults my marriage, and his view that children may well need to stay within a family racked with domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse, because the marriage is a union between a man and a woman, for life (my emphasis) is a bad idea. Making the kids stay with their parents in a loveless marriage sentences them to a similar relationship on reaching adulthood. You can get parole for murder but not for making a wrong decision to get married.
His view of the world went out at the end of the 1950s when divorce was not the societal sin it had been hitherto.
So what of the Catholic couples who divorced and remarried? They didn’t do the first one for life, Eric…. What about the woman who flees a monster she married for life, and meets Sir Galahad and lives, with her kids, in Camelot? Should she return to the monster, Eric? Or live in sin? Or forsake a life of happiness with a new love? Perhaps she could remarry?
What about the Anglican Church, a Christian institution founded on the notion of divorce!
This for life stuff is just not on! He can talk to his Imaginary Friend all he likes; he won’t get an answer to the question, “if marriage is for life, why does Australian law allow divorces?”
This guy just doesn’t get the separation of church and state.
I support same sex marriages, not just unions. I don’t care if the religions don’t want to recognise same sex marriages because they are not sanctioned in the eyes of a God. The Catholic Church doesn’t recognise my marriage of 32 years of wedded bliss (almost) anyway. Hades, here I come!
But the state’s attitude should be a different story. It should have no reference to permission from some deity, or some imaginary friend. States govern for their citizens not their parishioners. Gay people are citizens (and in many cases, parishioners as well) and they deserve equal treatment before the law like the rest of us.
And, as a jocular aside, why should gay people avoid the pain of divorce just because Eric Abetz won’t let them marry? If it was good enough for me, it is good enough for the gay and lesbian community.
But also, the politics are dumb.
They can have a short debate in the House and lose or a long debate and lose, all the way to the election. It’s not inconceivable that they could have a short debate in the House and win. This scenario would see the issue pushed back to the next Parliament and the debate would rage again, possibly as a sideshow in the election. The bright thing is to minimise the pain. Leave it and it will turn cancerous.
The PM can’t ignore the wave of change going round the world in relation to same sex unions. Abetz can quote Austria and say that the Asian countries aren’t going there so why should we, to his heart’s content but the reality is because a significant number of the people around the world and in Australia want that change. The wave will become a tsunami of discontent if not addressed now.
If the United States can do it, so can we. Senator Abetz’s comment that the US Supreme Court is a group of activists insults that court and denigrates its role as the ultimate arbiter. He may as well insult our High Court. The US is one of the most radical Christian countries in the world, but it is a world opinion leader and we should watch carefully.
It is not often that pollies reflect their community attitudes but perhaps we are seeing this with all sides of the parliament having varying views. There is a thundering whispering of discontent that Abbott again speaks with forked tongue. He says that the parliament of the people should decide such matters yet won’t bring it on for debate.
One has to wonder why it is so. Is it because he is the captain, and the team will do as he says on everything? Is it because he requires blind obedience? Abetz’s demand that frontbenchers who oppose the view of Abbott and Abetz on this issue in the party room should resign from the front bench would suggest so. Go young Christopher!
Is it because this captain’s Catholicism is the rule of law in this country? Well, I was born a Catholic, and it has shaped my view of life and it is different to that of the captain! And whose side am I on? I’m on the side of the gay and lesbian community.
Will that community get justice and equality before the laws of Abbott and Abetz? You wouldn’t take bets on it.