Bill Muehlenberg
Shame on those intolerant and discriminatory Australian Greens. How dare they exclude so many people from their basic right to love and marry? They are determined to prevent loving and committed polyamorists from marrying. Unbelievable! In this day and age!
This is 2012 for heaven’s sake. When will this fundamentalist and fossilised political party get with the times? How dare they prevent those in love from exercising their rights? This is an horrific case of irrational discrimination and despicable bigotry. As the press reported the other day:
“The Greens have declared they have a clear policy against support for polyamorous marriage as they pursue their case for same-sex marriage. Greens marriage equality spokeswoman Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has declared the Greens have a clear policy against support for polyamorous marriage. ‘Our bill clearly states marriage “between TWO consenting adults” and that is the Greens' position. No, we don't support polyamorous marriage - the only person who seems to want to talk about this is Senator Cash.’
“It comes after Senator Michaelia Cash, Liberal Senator for WA, today challenged the Australian Greens to state their position on polyamorous marriage. This follows the disclosure that polyamorists have made submissions to the Greens' Senate Inquiry on Marriage Equality. ‘Sarah Hanson-Young must explain whether she does support "marriage for all", as advocated by the Greens, who wish to "legislate to allow marriage regardless of sexuality or gender identity",’ Senator Cash said. ‘Using these benchmarks it would really be a case of “anything goes”’.”
If you think that polyamorists are imaginary, think again. They are gaining momentum every day. Strengthened by homosexual militancy, they are demanding their “rights” -- with the same arguments.
An interesting piece in a recent issue of The Australian offers an example:
“The power couple of Australia's increasingly open polyamorous community, Rebecca and James Dominguez, have made Senate submissions urging the legalisation of same-sex marriage, as they promote greater acceptance of multiple-partner relationships. The couple have led the way in publicly outlining their own journey from monogamous marriage to one in which each has another lover as well.
“In her blog, Ms Dominguez, who is an administrator with IBM in Melbourne, writes: ‘My life rocks… I am incredibly happy and have almost everything I could possibly want… I've built a house with my husband and my husband's boyfriend so there are four of us living together in nice harmony. (The fourth household member is Rebecca's boyfriend.)
“‘James outed himself to me as bisexual a year after we got married. Remarkably, this didn't really phase me. He talked to a nice female friend of ours that was interested in him, informed her about my boundaries and they agreed to have a sexual relationship. I felt more secure in my relationship with James… I knew that James wasn't going to leave me, that he could have sex with and love another woman and still love me and want to be married to me.’
“For many years Ms Dominguez was president of PolyVic, which promoted the ‘practice of honest, open, ethical multiple relationships’. More recently the couple have taken up leading positions in Bisexual Alliance Victoria. The two organisations are closely connected and hold picnics which, the website says, are family-friendly with ‘food and drinks to share, picnic rugs or chairs, outdoor games, kids, dogs, kayaks’.
“As president of the alliance, Mr Dominguez, an IT specialist in the Victorian public service, wrote to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in support of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010. ‘The legal definition of marriage itself has changed over history, such as the removal on restrictions of inter-racial marriage and the provision for divorce,’ Mr Dominguez wrote in the submission.
“Ms Dominguez wrote in her own submission to the Senate committee: ‘Just as we have allowed changes in the past to things considered “traditional” (equality of women, humanity of non-white people), we can change “traditional” understandings of things now’.”
Do these “arguments” sound familiar? Oh yeah, they are the exact same “arguments” being used to support same-sex marriage. Absolutely identical.
Once you throw out the core criteria of marriage (proper gender, proper number, etc) then anything does go. And yet homosexual activists have the gall to mock those who warn of a slippery slope to group marriage.
Even the Greens discriminate. Every aspiring member must sign this declaration:
“I am not a member of another political party and will not join another political party while I am a member of The Greens. I agree to abide by the Charter and Constitution of the Australian Greens, and the Constitution of my state/territory party. I acknowledge that my membership is subject to approval by The Greens party in the state/territory where I reside.”
Hey, wait a minute. Isn’t this discrimination and intolerance? Why am I discriminated against simply because I don’t agree with this charter? Why am I being denied my human rights to join in fellowship with the Greens?
Of course the Greens will argue that to so bend the rules in this manner would undermine and destroy their party organisation. Allowing anyone in redefines the group out of existence. Obviously the Greens cannot alter their own rules and criteria to accommodate those who are bent on destroying it.
I can see common sense and logic in this policy. It is discrimination, obviously, but a vital, necessary and healthy one if the Greens are to survive.
Er, wait a minute. Have I not heard this argument before? Yes, countless times -- about why heterosexual marriage discriminates against same-sex marriages and group marriages.
Discrimination, you see, is not a dirty word. It is a basic element of logic. If only the Greens could see that.
Bill Muehlenberg is a lecturer in ethics and philosophy at several Melbourne theological colleges and a PhD candidate at Deakin University. From here.
No comments:
Post a Comment