“Love is Love” is such an appealing, feel-good yet trite …

Comment on Alice’s upbeat YES campaign for marriage equality by Bruce.

“Love is Love” is such an appealing, feel-good yet trite simplification of the far broader issues of human rights that extend way beyond the right of same-sex couples to marry.
But this is our modern “education” system at work: the inability for many to analyse more complex issues.
The implications of changing an institution (marriage) that extends across all cultures, religions and is almost as old as society itself, seems entirely lost on many in the West.
“The sky hasn’t fallen in” is such a common response by those (including if I recall correctly our own PM), that ignores notable losses in rights for those beyond immediate church marriage practitioners who seem likely to find exemption from prosectution under protection legislation.
Marriage has been politicised by its feminist opponents (ironically predominantly I feel certain now in the “Yes” camp) for its role in asset maintenance as opposed to the role of the protection of children resulting from procreation within traditional marriage.
The campaign has failed to honestly analyse the primary purposes of marriage that extend beyond the rights of the couple themselves.
Yet all the emphasis is focussed simply on the rights of (any) two people who love one another.
So what drives the populist rainbow flag waving “Yes” campaigners to ensure that every possible supporter casts their optional vote?
Memory of Brexit I suspect is driving the die-hards out of the cafes and campuses.
If the vote for this cohort was via their “smart” phones the result would surely be a lay down misère. But putting aside the “smart” phone on-line world for the physical world involves a huge privation.
The challenge is registering to vote; tracking down the survey to their nominated mailing address; and finding their way to a post box.
These seem such daunting problems that “Yes” voters seem to require great assistance, encouragement and “permission” (of the majority within their cohort) to cast and submit a valid “Yes” vote.

Recent Comments by Bruce

NATS benefit to economy open to question
On this the weekend of the footy finals, no less: George Orwell in his book 1984: “Films, football, beer, and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult …” Now add the idiot box into the mix.
Yep, Bread and circuses indeed, Erwin. Each one pushing the previous one out of the way. All surviving on local (Council), Territory and Federal funding for their existence.
It’s as much about funding to travelling (whitefella) artists and local arts organisations as it is to tourism.
You’d be excused for believing the money supply was endless.


You can vote No with love: Alice priest
There are so many ironies at work in this SSM “Yes” campaign.
First I witness the intimidation, and lack of respect via name calling by so many in the “Yes” camp who assume such righteous, even moral superiority, that they believe belongs with those “narrow” moralising proponents in the “No” camp.
Then there is the situation that the LGBTIQ community now desires access to an institution (marriage) that it has denigrated over several decades.
Finally the institution is being abandoned by the traditional male-female partners at the very time those same-sex couples wish to embrace.
There seems very little tolerance in the “Yes” camp. It is much like the Republican Movement. In the unlikely event that it fails to carry a majority it will simply result in a new, (even nastier) campaign at a later date.
“No” won’t mean “no” at all. Well, not for long. The argument that “every other western country has embraced SSM so jump on board”, is really a post-modern argument of populism versus moral persuasion.


Be Sociable, Share!