It’s about damn time that I composed a piece on marriage equality. Can I first of all preface this by stating what an absolute farce it is that the Government has put an issue of basic human rights to the public for a vote around whether or not we continue to impede on something that should be a fundamental given?! But this aside, I wanted to pen something that affirmed my absolute commitment to the yes vote and at the same time attempt to work through the notion associated with how a segment of the population are convincing themselves that voting no is anything but bigotry and playing into an example of systemic and entrenched discrimination.
In my own life, I work in the international development sphere and surround myself with those who are passionate about making a change in this world. This has meant that I have been blessed to consistently find myself around free & forward thinking, liberal innovators who most of them are activists themselves. However, my family background is quite different to this circumstance. I come from a traditional, conservative Sri Lankan family who often tend to unwittingly and mindlessly spout things like ‘marriage should be between a man and a woman’. I’ve often commented on these seemingly abrupt and out of place expressions by asking questions around why they hold this belief in the first place. All of them will immediately cite religion, Christianity and the Bible. But when I attempt to dig a little deeper and ask why they believe this beyond what they have interpreted religion to express they can’t seem to come up with a definitive answer.
Now, there are 2 ways that we can deal with this. The 1st is the whole notion that something that was written in a book thousands of years ago should still be used as a literal ‘how to guide’. I mean society has evolved and changed so much in this time and the whole scope of a community’s moral compass, its values and ideals have changed alongside with this. It is a fluid process and therefore the notion that the guidance for such should be rooted in a document which remains stagnant seems absurd in the greatest.
The 2nd point and the one which I cannot move away from is that this entire issue, of one human being having the freedom and ability to marry the one that they love is not a question but instead it is and always will be a fundamental and basic human right which is universally applicable to all. Imagine if the Government turned around tomorrow and mandated that the general public will vote on whether or not people of South Asian descent have the right to work in the commercial sector. And please don’t turn around and tell me that the latter goes against equal opportunity rights and is downright discrimination whereas the former, around marriage equality is an ‘ethical issue’. The no vote’s ability to compartmentalise is this entire situation astounds me as much as it scares me.
Then there is the debate (which isn’t actually a debate at all) around whether or not a child should have parents who are of different sexes. There is no evidence, research, data or any academic study out there that indicates that a child has a lower quality of life when growing up with same sex parents. Nor is there any data to suggest that all heterosexual coupled, nuclear families produce happier and more well adjusted children. Let me say from experience, coming from what on the outside looks like one of these families that my childhood was anything but this and the quality of my life as a child was actually impeded on the fact that my cis heterosexual parents stayed together. And what of the children that come from single parent households….?!
Honestly, it pains me so to even have to write a piece such as this where I am attempting to justify why we shouldn’t impede on the rights of other human beings. This isn’t a matter of ethics or morals, because those elements are fluid and constantly changing. Nor is this a matter of religion, because this itself is up for multiple and differing interpretations. This, at its heart and at it’s very core is a matter of humanity. It’s a question of whether or not the principle of freedom from discrimination, freedom from oppression and equal opportunity for all is universally applicable or whether or not one human being is deemed lesser than the other and therefore not viable for the same amount of respect, dignity and equality before the law.
Sx
I blog for Change. 