Buzz words have become a bit of a thing, haven’t they? Some even find their way into the dictionary eventually, but while “marriage” has never really attracted buzz word status, if prefixed with “same sex” you get the the buzz word of the moment; same sex marriage.
Okay, fine, so that’s three words (buzz phrase maybe…?) but those three words have been dominating the media in Australia for quite a while, with the promise of a plebiscite being followed by a non-compulsory postal vote that won’t necessarily have any impact on changing the current Marriage Act, which would allow same sex couples to marry.
Confused? Me too, but the nation appears to have split into two very distinct groups regarding this matter and both are steadfastly defending their right to their opinion and how they intend to vote.
On one side of the fence are those in favour of same sex couples having the right to legally marry, granting them the same rights as opposite sex couples. The “Yes” voters really want this, hence the lengths they have gone to in the hope of convincing the rest of the nation to vote with them, hence the barrage of text messages to mobile phones, the Facebook posts, the protest marches, door knocks and a whole lot of other vocal shenanigans to put the “Yes” vote perspective out there. Fine, that’s all well and good, right?
Except with those on the other side of the fence. That’s where the “No” voters are holding fort and they are just as passionate in their opposition to changes to the Marriage Act as the “Yes” voters are for it. They just haven’t been as noisy or demonstrative about it.
The “No” voters oppose changing the Marriage Act to allow same sex couples to marry because they believe it will cause a domino effect which will open the door to other changes within society that they aren’t comfortable with. They are predicting further complications, like someone using the changes to the Act to attempt to marry their cat or their goldfish or the stunning frangipani tree in their backyard. Admittedly, people wanting to marry something other than another person would have to be in the minority but if that passion for the frangipani burns hot enough, all they’d need is a smarty pants lawyer who can find a loophole blindfolded and with one hand tied behind his back! And that’s one of the biggest issues with the “No” voters; the smarty pants, loophole-finding lawyer!
Oh, and the rainbows. Once a popular non-political thingy, the rainbow now appears to be monopolised by the “Yes” campaign. Actually it has been a symbol of homosexual pride for a while now but I see where the “No” group is coming from here. Once just a pretty decorative element on clothing, rear window and bumper stickers, and anything vaguely to do with the hippy scene, it has now become somewhat of a political statement. The “No” crowd really object to the rainbow being used in that way and they want it back.
But meanwhile, where are the pollies in all of this? Well, you’ll find them perched precariously atop the fence separating the “No” voters from the “Yes” voters and waiting to see who gets the greatest number of votes and then side with them accordingly. But I think the truth is that none of our pollies want to go down in history as being the guy who changed the Marriage Act! Especially if it does open the door to further issues that blur the lines of that to which society has become comfortably accustomed. There will be sufficient “No” supporters out there to say “Ah ha! We told you so!” And then they will not vote for the guy that changed the Act which will probably mean he can kiss his political career goodbye. He won’t like that. Unless, of course, there is an overwhelming number of “Yes” votes which will guarantee his political position is as safe as houses. But remember, an overwhelming “Yes” vote via the postal vote does not guarantee the Marriage Act will change in the foreseeable future…
Plans to wed the frangipani might have to go on hold.