Max's Miscellaneous Musings

A buddy of mine sent me the following question on FaceBook. I wrote him a long answer and decided I might as well put it on my blog, so here it all is:

How does your country view same sex marriage? I know you refer to your love as your wife...is that a legal thing like the country recognizes your union or is it more of a personal thig? Here in the US it is not recognized (lame) so couples must just take part in a "Promise" type ceremony that does not carry any real weight as far as benefits and taxes and such. I mean for christ sake its 2010! I think we are getting close though there has a been a really serious push as of late to legalize and recognize the marriage and to allow the spouse on to insurance and such.

My answer was pretty long, so settle down for a long one:

The short answer is that Australian government is in denial about its GBLT population.  It refuses to recognise gay relationships as "real" or "serious" or any other term that implies legitimacy.  Get yourself a cuppa mate, because this is going to be a long reply!

There's been somewhat of a coup in the government's leadership this week; the Prime Minister was ousted in favour of the deputy PM, who happens to be a woman.  This is the first time we've had a woman PM, and although women's libbers everywhere are screaming victory, I see it as a hollow one.  Our country still can't get its head around putting a woman in charge by electing her (rather than having her win by default when the elected leader gets kicked out).  We (collectively) are still being held back by antiquated ideals.  Finland just recently included gay relationships in the definition of marriage.  The very first person to take advantage of it was the country's Prime Minister!  Imagine that!  A PM (a woman who was presumably elected to the role unlike our current PM) being the first lesbian in her country to be legally married!  Talk about leading by example.  Australia needs to get its head out of the sand.

The nation's capital, Canberra, is located in a small section of land known as the Australian Capital Territory.  The ACT's only purpose in life is to house the government's buildings and a whole bunch of federal departments.  It is some irony, then, that the ACT is the only state/territory in the country to formally recognise same-sex unions.  Even then, it can't bring itself to call it "marriage".

I think that the concept of marriage as an institution whose sole purpose is to create and raise children is long outdated.  This country, as a whole, needs to recognise the growing shift (even within the heterosexual community) away from settling down in your 20s, having 2.5 kids, buying a house etc etc.  These are concepts that even straight people are starting to reject.  More and more straight couples are quite happy being together without the formality of a marriage.  However, they still have implied rights that gay couples do not.

Why then, is the gay community pushing for a change in the definition of marriage?  There are many answers to this question, so I will only give you my personal ones:

1.  Legitimacy.  My relationship with MaxBabe is no less real than the relationship between the husband and wife living next door to us.

2.  Recognition.  We (the world) need to stop being in denial about this.  Gay relationships are a fact of life.

3.  Formal/legal recognition.  This bit is important.  Once a straight couple are married, each member of that marriage has rights.  If a husband becomes sick, his wife is entitled to be at his side in the hospital.  She can make decisions for him if becomes unable to make them eg a comatose situation.  There's a famous case in the US where a lesbian was comatose after a car accident, and despite (previously) making clear to her partner that she did not want to be kept alive through artificial means, her partner had no right to demand that.  The comatose woman's parents had absolute rights, the partner had none, and she was kept alive for over a year.  A complete vegetable who, because of her sexuality, was robbed of her dignity in her final moments.  I've had personal experience with a hospital that couldn't cope with the concept that I'm MaxBabe's partner.  Being denied access to your sick partner by some narrow-minded bureaucrat is a terrifically stressful and disempowering experience.

4.  In the same vein; when one of us eventually dies, the other does not automatically have rights over inheritance, property etc.  Even wills can be challenged by homophobic family members.

5.  Kids.  The fact is every lesbian and her dog seems to be breeding today.  What happens if Mum dies, and the partner and 2.5 kids are left behind?  I'll tell you what happens!  Mum's family steps in and tries to separate the 2.5 kids from Other Mum because she's not a blood relative!  This sort of thing would not be tolerated if it were a heterosexual step-parent relationship, particularly if the step-parent was in that role from day one of the kids' lives.

6.  Entitlements such as pensions, taxes etc.. all the legal and financial stuff that straight couples take for granted.  Sometimes the lack of recognition actually works in our favour.  Years ago, when I was out of work and taking dole money from the government, my partner was in the same boat.  If we'd been legally recognised, the government would've given us (total) approx 2/3 of the money we actually received.  Why?  Because couples get less than 2 x singles.  Since the government saw us as 2 x singles, we got 2 x dole instead of 1.7 x dole.  Great, huh!  But more often than not, the lack of recognition works against us.

Mate, I could go on forever and still not fully articulate why I think the concept of marriage needs to include gay couples.

As to why I call her my wife, it's pretty simple.  The term "wife" implies long-term commitment.  Girlfriend is wishy-washy.  Lover suggests a purely sexual relationship.  Partner is OK, but I still prefer wife.  It removes all ambiguity about who she is to me, or how serious our relationship is.  And my greatest hope is that by using the term as frequently as possible, people will start to regard it as normal usage, not something odd or anti-establishment