Gay marriage challenge: like Doctor Who written by the Westboro Baptist church
|
Version 0 of 1. This week could see some of the shortest-lived Australian mandated unions since Kim Kardashian's first marriage. Over the next few days, the constitution will be wafted around and pointed at, accompanied by the phrase “You see, it says here...” in an attempt to stamp out an irksome outbreak of human-human marriages in ACT. So enjoy those bizarrely tardy and transient human rights for a day or two, because the medieval re-enactment society is coming to smack you in the face with a crumbling parchment. Really, it's the ultimate insult to have to squeeze your marriage into a limited timeframe simply because of some static words in the constitution. Imagine having one of the most important times of your life restricted by the out of date quirks of an overly interfering document: "I'm sorry, but you can't attend your sister's funeral because this Microsoft Word Paperclip says so." I wouldn't mind so much, but I've heard that abandoning logic in an attempt to prevent same-sex marriage leads to politicians comparing homosexuality with bestiality. The rule with marriage equality ought to be that, once it has broken through, politicians should embarrassedly breathe a sigh of relief and let it spread: having been keen to please voters, they can come out as human after being in the closet playing their politician role for too long. Not so. It takes a determined kind of time-travelling annulment fetishist to work to undo the marriages that have already occurred in the ACT – a bit like an episode of Doctor Who written and directed by The Westboro Baptist church. Even if this ends well, and the high court rules in favour of ACT, it cannot change the mindset of the Coalition: same-sex couples will still have to spend the next few years living with the knowledge that the federal government disapproves of their legally-permitted joy. Let the government work its magic and I'm sure, if they have to be legal, that all same-sex marriages will be presided over by a 10-Star military priest, performed in an abandoned quarry and never talked about, except at weekly press briefings atop an undiscovered mountain of heterosexual paraphernalia. On the other hand, should the high court decide the ACT’s legislation is invalid, it will betray a bizarre and harmful focus on federal consistency. I've always thought that there are two ways to maintain consistency: if you’re the owner/operator of a frothy swamp of gurgling farts and happen to notice a gleaming flower bed pop up in the middle, certainly you can walk over to it with a shovel, bury the fresh shoots under some bubbling musty sod, and still be proud of your methane-infused garden of nothing. Alternatively, you could let this new inconsistency spread until nothing of your original, hellish lawn of flatulence remains, and be presented with a new, more pleasant-smelling uniformity. Consistency can be maintained precisely by embracing new ideas, and allowing progress. Burying progress under outdated values thinly veiled by feigned adherence to federal law and constitutional consistency is transparently inhumane. Documents and laws should serve to match the aspirations of humanity’s most loving and committed, not limit them. Let’s hope the high court recognises this and tosses the federal government’s case in the trash, along with any dusty Commonwealth scrolls or 2,000-year-old best-selling novels provided as evidence. Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |