The land of the big gay rainbow
UPDATE 3/5/13: I've joined Twitter! Feel free to follow me here @James_ARobins
Well, two men or two women are allowed to be married, and as far as I can tell, the skies have not yet fallen in.
It’s the morning after (so to speak) and the crops haven’t withered in the earth, nor have buildings crumbled, nor has a demonic and enraged god descended upon the earth in a protest of damnation.
The opponents of happiness put forward one argument upon another in an obtuse orgy of prophecy that would see our wee nation collapse under the weight of all the bumfun and tribbing – but no such thing has happened.
If I ever do feel vindicated, it’s because the imperishable laws of physics have remained intact despite the best efforts of the religious, the intolerant, the chaps topped in tinfoil hats, to ruin what should’ve rightfully happened a long time ago.
Because, in the grand scheme of things, we’re running behind the times.
The Dutch got to the gay marriage vote first (depressingly, 12 years ago) followed by Belgium, Spain, and Canada.
If there was something we learned from the affair – because let’s be honest, the campaign was a series of quick melees rather than a long slog uphill – it’s that those who were opposed to the idea right from the offset were never quite honest with themselves, and certainly weren’t honest in public.
Aside from a few on the rabid fringe, whose tinfoil hats and chastity belts were in desperate need of a shine, the arguments against gay marriage were incoherent at best, and offensive at worst.
Bob McCroskrie (head of Family First, and a prime mover in the anti-gay marriage brigade) was particularly…devout…in his opinions.
His mighty cannonball? That ‘marriage equality’ doesn’t really mean ‘marriage equality’.
Well, golly Bob, even I could agree with that! There’s a damn good reason why a 4-year-old girl shouldn’t marry a dirty old octogenarian – the thought repulses me.
His secondary weapon is drawn from its holster and BANG! It’s a dud misfire!
We all know that marriage predates both religion and the state – and it hasn’t always been the sole privilege of the non-queer. Thankfully because of this, we can return the definition of marriage to its rightful place: as a state-regulated scrap of paper, infinitely malleable by those who we elected in to power.
If you think I’m sticking the pike in, you’d be right. Because the fight is not over, I’m afraid to report.
Questions still remain over the validity of amendments made to the bill respecting the rights of the religious. The law claims that no church or religious institution would be forced (or bound and gagged, if you like it that way) to perform a gay marriage.
It’s all under the guise of religious freedom, but when two lovely lads, or two blushing brides, line up contenders for a wedding venue, hostile territory won’t look so appetising. Would gay couples really push for a celebrant that despises them – not for what they do, but for who they are? Their very nature is under attack!
So the ship rights itself in that regard , but churches are once again allowed to discriminate.
I would suggest that we remove the right of the religious – let’s make them blaspheme! They certainly can’t claim power from the ‘almighty’, especially when the record shows a historical hatred for many sectors of society – gays top a seemingly endless list.
So let’s go out and revel in the sunshine under the “big gay rainbow”, enjoy the victory, and relish yet another triumph over the boorish reactionaries and their maladaptive ways.
