Skip to main content

Where is the Love?

Hey there Dear Reader,

Well, the results are in. Australia has decided!

Yes, yes and yes. Australia has delivered a landmark decision on....what?

If you recall, the Same Sex Marriage Survey was recently completed. It asked the Australian population ‘Should the Law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry’.  Seems straight forward yeah. Approximately 61.6% of respondents voted ‘YES’. So there we go, no problem, guys and girls can now get married to whoever they want. As they say, ‘Love is Love’.

Well, it’s not that simple really. Sorry.

The law as it stands is based on the 2004 amended Marriage Act, which states that marriage is ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’. And there’s a bit more from the original 1961 Marriage Act that tells you who else can or can’t get married. 

So, as it stands, the following people can’t get married in Australia:

1.  Same sex couples
2.  Anyone under 18 (special circumstances 16 can be authorised)
3.  Siblings (whether by blood or adopted)
4.  Ancestors and descendants (I guess they mean living ones)
5.  More than two people.

Ok, so if I understand the Law right, I can’t marry a guy, a kid, my brother or sister, my mum or dad, grandma or grandpa, my children or grandchildren, or a group of people. So who can I marry?

Well, I can marry my aunty, cousin, niece and any other adult female I can think of. Well, I can’t really, coz I’m already married!

Ain’t I one lucky fella!

Anyway, as I was  saying, the recent survey asked us if we should change the law so that one of those prohibited groups would now be legal. And the Yes Campaign was very loud in proclaiming that ‘Love is Love’, and fair enough I say. What right does the government have to tell me who I can love? Well, you actually already can love same sex (legal de facto), you just can’t get married, but you get the point.

So, here it is. I have to ask the question. What about everyone else?

If we’re happy to shift the line for who can get married in accordance with our new moral norms, what about all the other disenfranchised people?

If we accept that we can’t help who we fall in love with, can we at least accept that the line should be moved even further?

Should I be allowed to marry more than one person? Already, the acceptance of Polyamory (a loving relationship with more than one person) has begun. In Australia, many couples are now proudly describing the benefits of a polyamorous relationship  And it seems that this isn’t just sleeping around, but true love between more than two people. 

Now there will be a bunch of people I guess who will say that this isn’t love, but a fling. Maybe, but I wonder how many ‘normal’ marriages fit that description as well.

If these people truly love each other, why can’t they get married? In Columbia, it’s already why not here?

What about those who fall in love with someone under the age of 18? Now don’t blow a gasket ok, in some places this is already legal. And I’m not talking about some crazy, out-there, everything’s allowed country, I’m talking about the USA. Yep, in most of the States in the US, people under 18 can get married as long as their parents or guardian are ok with it.  And...there is no minimum age in many of them.

Ok, so now we see that there is already a level of acceptance in the Western World of non-monogamous and under 18 marriages. So are we the ones who are out of step, still hanging on to outdated traditions? Should we move the line to be more accepting of ‘Love is Love’? If not, why not? Why is our Love right and any other form of Love wrong? And please don’t bring up faith or tradition as an answer, because apparently we’ve already decided they are outdated at best and wrong at worst. And the Church? Forget them.

Now let’s go further. What about an adopted sibling? What logical reason can be put forward (other than morals or faith based teachings which we’ve already trashed) for not allowing non-blood related siblings to marry? We already allow blood relative cousins, aunties, nephews to marry, so  what’s the problem with adopted siblings?

I hope you can see where I’m going with this. Once we accept that our tradition and religion based morals in regard to Marriage and Love are wrong and have no place in our modern society, who decides where the new line is? Who decides which type of love is to be celebrated and which type of love is outlawed. If Love is Love, when does society have the right to tell me that my type of love is wrong? Remember, homosexuality was still illegal in Tasmania only 20 years ago. And it was only 68 years ago that anal sex was punishable by the death sentence in Victoria (they saw the light in 1949 and downgraded it to only 20 years imprisonment!).

Where is the new line and who will decide it?

And here’s something else to think about. What about those people who don’t identify as male or female? If we agree all male and female adults can marry each other, what about non-binary adults? Where do they fit into this supposed nirvana of free love for all? 

Or maybe, just maybe I say, the government should have looked at all these issues before they came up with their ‘survey’ and promised an end to all discrimination. Well, not all discrimination, obviously just the bad discrimination, ‘We can’t just have everyone loving who they want and being happy...obviously’. 

So where will our new line be and who will decide it? Us, the public? The vocal minority? The loudest voices and deepest pockets? Or the media and government flunkies? Whoever it is, do they know where we want our society to be? I hope they do, I sincerely hope they do.

Bottom line......Where is the Love, and when will it be Right?


Popular posts from this blog

Remember, we only kill Black People

Hello again Dear Reader, If you've been following my blogs, you probably know by now that I usually like to be nice and rational in my blogs (well I try to anyway), just flow along and rely on the evidence to gently lead you to what I hope is a logical conclusion. Without emotion yeah. Purely objective. Usually. However.
But sometimes I get cranky and just have to raise my hand and call out hatred and plain old bigotry for what it is...evil. And yes folks, that's exactly what I mean and exactly how I feel right about now. I'm confused, I'm amazed and I'm bloody angry.
For those of you who read my blogs (do you exist?), you know I'm a big fan of the USA, it's people, it's culture and it's total acceptance of us Aussies in their land. So, how do you think I feel when I watch a for real video of an American Police Officer saying to a white, female civilian at a traffic stop, 'Remember, we only kill black people'?
What the hell? Did you really…

The ABC of Stupidiity

Hello again Dear Reader,
Nice to be back after a while.
Today’s comment in the daily Australian news was so bloody comical, I just had to put my toe back in the blogging pond and have a bit of a chuckle at the mindless stupidity of some of our highly paid professionals.
In this case, I draw your attention to the recent sacking of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) managing director Michelle Guthrie. She was terminated halfway through her $890K job with immediate effect by the national broadcasting authority on 24 September 2018. Obviously, as any reasonably sane person would be, she was almost certainly mightily pissed off when the hammer came down.

Keeping in mind that in many cases people are misquoted by the local tabloids (sometimes accidentally, more often deliberately), I found the following quote by Michelle absolutely hilarious.....
While my contract permits the Board to terminate my appointment without cause and with immediate effect, I believe there is no justification …

Fantasising online. Is it a crime?

Hello again Dear Reader,
Today I would like to start by offering you a hypothetical. Let's pretend that you are a senior judge in your country's judicial system (and if you really are, just go along with it!).
A person has been brought before you charged with a serious crime. After a thorough investigation by the police, this person was found to have engaged in online discussions with like-minded adult individuals in chat rooms where they discussed their desires and fantasies for carrying out acts of the most vile and unspeakable type. Acts which if carried out or if even only planned would clearly be illegal under your country's criminal law code.Now, this person has not to date acted on any of these depraved fantasies, has not carried out any overt planning that would tend to indicate their intention to commit this act soon, but has spoken of their desire to do these things online on numerous occasions over a long period.
You are the sole decider of this person's fate b…