Prev
Next

They’re getting hitched in the city that never sleeps

Alex Greenwich

by Alex Greenwich

26 Jul 05:35am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Gay Marriage, New York, Same Sex Marriage, Society

49 comments

This week in New York the hottest ticket in town is not the latest Broadway musical or the opening of hip new restaurant, it’s the Marriage Bureau. So many same-sex couples have been waiting for the day when they can say “I do” that a lottery system has had to be introduced to deal with the amount of weddings set to take place.

Hey, come on, three's a crowd! Photo: AFP

This marriage boom is much needed in a state that has 50,000 divorces a year, almost 1000 a week! The gays will be combating this figure over the coming months with thousands upon thousands of loving and committed couples set to legalise their love.

Marriage is an institution that so many straight couples have taken for granted for so long, and it is now being strengthened by the same-sex couples who fought to be a part of it.

This involved years of protests, lobbying, sharing of personal stories, and asking politicians to put aside prejudice and replace it with principle. As we have done in Australia, New York’s advocates for equality produced studies on the benefits to health, the economy, and society by allowing loving same-sex couples to be equally recognised and protected by the law.

Of course, just like here, there was fierce and well-funded opposition to equality, by tricksters who used every scare tactic possible to de-rail the love and equality arguments. It always strikes me as intensely confusing that conservative religious organisations try to say we “gays” are attempting to destroy the institution of marriage.

The call to action for the Australian Christian Lobby’s upcoming “Marriage Day” on August 16th was come on down to Canberra to fight the “powerful secular forces working to destroy marriage” What!?!

In recent history has anyone heard one group talk more about how important marriage is than the gays? We have rallies, forums, and of course marriage was a major theme during this year’s Mardi Gras.

Every weekend same-sex couples have “potential” wedding ceremonies where they profess their love and commitment, before their family and friends, despite not getting the legal recognition and protection.

And if you don’t believe me when I say we are not trying to bring on the rapture, early reports in from New York today tell us that the sky hasn’t fallen in and no-one has married a goat.

Canada has just celebrated 6 years of marriage equality, and no major natural disasters have been linked to same-sex marriage. The Netherlands has had marriage equality for 10 years, and Joe de Bruyn can’t point to any travesties of justice in his birthplace that are a result of allowing gays to have in-laws. 

In Australia there are an estimated 25,000 couples who would get married if they could, that’s 100,000 parents who want to see them walk down the aisle and bring back the respect to marriage that their generation once knew.

Ironically, the decision as to whether we can get married or not is largely in the hands of an unmarried woman and her colleagues. They will all be reporting back to parliament on what you think about marriage equality very soon, so if you haven’t yet shared your support for it, do so now, here.

Most commented

49 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • S.L says:

      05:50am | 26/07/11

      Alex I still can’t see the point why the gay comunity wants legalized same sex marriage so desparately?
      I’m a hetro male who’s nearly 50 and never been down the aisle. But I have children, ex’s and maintenance. When I had a partner we had the same rights as if we were married. The same for gay couples I know. To each their own I know but it doesn’t make the world turn any differently!

      Reply

    • JJ says:

      07:50am | 26/07/11

      SL:  It’s not about whether 1,000 gay couples or 100,000 gay couples will actually decide to marry one day.  It’s simply about having the right to choose.  Just like you have the right to choose to marry, or not.  No one should be denied what is a most basic, civil right in Australia because of their gender, race, age, sexuality or religious preference.

    • Facetious Filly says:

      08:39am | 26/07/11

      I know, right?

      They all have the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us.

      And who cares about their civil rights, and the lack of legitimacy given to their relationships by the state not recognising their commitment to one another. Who really wants to get all those tax breaks, concessions, legal rights and other responsibilities when they get married?

      I sure don’t, and because of my limited anecdotal experience, that’s why gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married.

    • Willie Mac says:

      10:25am | 26/07/11

      Similar to civil rights legislation in America, a group will never be seen by society as truly equal if the law does not recognise them as such. I would imagine that the gay community just wants to be seen as equal.

    • Ross says:

      08:29am | 26/07/11

      @S.L the gay community is seeking equality. As a gay man married offshore I can attest that our marriage has strengthened our relationship and given us confidence in our relationship. Saying “I do” in front of family, friends and loved ones with full recognition is not too much to ask is it?

      Reply

    • v says:

      12:42pm | 26/07/11

      And you could have all the same satisfaction and rights if the word marriage to a word of the gay communities choosing. Please don’t however destroy any of the good words like “gay” as I have sicne gone off eating “gay times”, or feeling gay (happy).

    • Cheeto says:

      04:07pm | 26/07/11

      wow clever comment V.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      08:38am | 26/07/11

      “...No one should be denied what is a most basic, civil right in Australia because of their gender, race, age, sexuality or religious preference…”

      Find me an Australian Imam who will consecrate homosexual ‘marriage’?

      Reply

    • Matt F says:

      09:16am | 26/07/11

      That’s a poor, irrelevant deflection. What has this got to do with Islam? The whole debate is about changing the legal definition of marriage. Leaders of any religion can still choose to marry, or not marry, who they want.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      09:47am | 26/07/11

      “...Leaders of any religion can still choose to marry, or not marry, who they want…”

      Wrong. Show me where the Bible an the Quran endorse or approve of homosexual unions let alone marriage.

      “...The whole debate is about changing the legal definition of marriage…”

      Your ‘legal’ defence is bogus.  There is no ‘discrimination’ beyond the use of the word “marriage”.

      Even if the “legal definition” is changed to appease you, some sections of the community will still not recognise it.  So where does that leave you? 

      With the same boring and tedious argument.

      You rail against Pell for his religion’s stance yet will you picket the Lakemba mosque and demand equal marriage rights and recognition for gay muslims?

    • Willie Mac says:

      10:35am | 26/07/11

      You’re conflating civil marriage with religious marriage here.

    • Matt F says:

      10:41am | 26/07/11

      1. Obvioulsly it was implied that they are free to follow their religious teachings regarding who to marry and who not to marry. Hence how even if gay marriage was legally enacted priests/rabbis/imams etc could still choose not to marry them if that was their religious belief.

      2. The use of the word marriage is the issue. Under law gay couples cannnot be “legally” married to eachother hence the whole legal issue part (also hence the definition of the word part.) So I’m not sure how it’s bogus?

      3. As for “some sections of the community won’t recognise it,” it will be legally recognised. You cant change every persons individual view point but removing a form of discrimination is a good start. if people still speed does that mean people don’t recognise speeding laws and therefore it should be scrapped?

      4. As for your last point, if you change the legal definiton of the word marriage then any gay person, of any religion will be able to be married in Australia whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever so your last paragraph seems irrelevant and unfounded.

    • iMitchy says:

      11:09am | 26/07/11

      I don’t think they care about whether any religions recognise their marriage or not, just the legal system. The point though is that those opposing any change to the legal definition of marriage are largely basing their arguement on religion. Think of it like a courtroom, the idea isn’t to convince the other party, it is to convince the judge - in this case the government.
      That being said, I won’t show you “where the Bible an the Quran endorse or approve of homosexual unions let alone marriage”, but I can show you in legal text exactly where it states that homosexuality is legal in Australia, that all couples have the same rights and responsibilites in a proven de facto relationship, but also where it states that they cannot legally marry.
      On that point, if a single man and woman live together for a certain period of time, they can be legally considered to be in a de facto reltionship even they are simply friends, and if they recieve centrelink benefits they must be able to prove that they are in fact not in a relationship or risk losing benfits upon a review.
      For a same sex couple, they must be able to prove that they ARE in a relationship before centrelink will reduce any payments (of course they want their relationship recognised for other reasons than simply to throw money away but the point remains).

      This is not about religion, it is about law. And if you use the arguement that marriage is a religious word for a religious union - that’s a poor arguement. Words can change and as long as the word has a legal definition it will remain pliable. Think about it, 20 years ago “google” was the term for the number starting with 1, followed by 100 zero’s. Now it means “websearch”.
      I’m not going to make a lot of noise in support of gay marriage but I certainly think that the arguements against it are pretty poor.
      My biggest arguement is that it makes economic sense - weddings are expensive and when gays can finally marry we will see a wave of cashed up poofs splashing their money around on lavish wedding celebrations, money which will filter through many small businesses all over Australia. But until they are allowed to marry, I guess that money will just sit in their bank accounts collecting interest - instead of yours or mine.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      11:43am | 26/07/11

      Let’s make it simple; this is getting sooo boring.

      I have one heterosexual couple and one homosexual couple.

      The heterosexual couple was married in Canada as was the homosexual couple.

      Both have one child.  Both couples live in Annandale.

      List for me what legal rights/benefits the heterosexual couple have over and above the homosexual couple?

      If the only difference is the ‘right’ to ‘call’ themselves “married” your argument is specious.

      Find another word.

      No-one got hung up when the word gay no longer meant happy.

    • Matt F says:

      12:27pm | 26/07/11

      If it’s only a word then why not just let them use it? It’s not as if it’s being taken away from straight couples, just opened up to include others.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      01:18pm | 26/07/11

      Matt F says “...If it’s only a word then why not just let them use it?...”

      I see you cannot answer my question.

      So you’ve got nothing.

    • Matt F says:

      02:17pm | 26/07/11

      The heterosexual couple, as opposed to the homosexual couple, have the right to be married. Given that’s the whole point of the issue (and been mentioned mny times) I didn’t think i really had to point it out. Denying one section of the community the right to do something that other sections can. That sounds fairly discriminatory.

      I do notice that you didn’t answer my question either, though it’s nice to see you’ve moved on from your spurious attempt to link it to a cricitisim of Islam.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      04:45pm | 26/07/11

      “...Denying one section of the community the right to do something that other sections can. That sounds fairly discriminatory…”

      Rubbish.

      Access to IVF and adoption are but two of many areas where some members of the community have NO RIGHT to what the rest take for granted and have unfettered legal access to.

      So basically your argument is busted.

      “...The heterosexual couple, as opposed to the homosexual couple, have the right to be married…”

      In my example both couples were already married.

      But you knew that.

      Beyond using a word, you still can’t tell me what it is they are missing out on?

      Why is that?

    • Cheeto says:

      05:57pm | 26/07/11

      Married partners have immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities. This contrasts to de facto couples who must live together for a certain period before they are deemed to have legal rights.

      A marriage certificate also allows married partners to easily prove their legal rights if challenged, for example in emergency situations. The capacity to quickly and easily prove one’s relationship status is particularly important for same-sex partners because prejudice against same-sex relationships can mean legal rights are denied.

    • Matt F says:

      06:19pm | 26/07/11

      1. In most states gay couples can adopt and have children through a variety of methods so it’s actually your arguement that is “busted.” Though the comment was about gay marriage. Im not sure where you thought I was talking about IVF/Adoption.

      2. In your example only one couple is recognised as married under Australian law. if they both lived in canada then your example would have made sense but…..

      I did answer your question. Numerous times. However reword it and say it again. For the most part it’s ALL about the use of the word and what the word represents. Though you never did answer my question about why you seem to find it such a big deal to deny them the word because, as you say, it’s only a word…..funny that

    • melle says:

      09:12am | 26/07/11

      More boring homosexual stuff

      Reply

    • Snake says:

      11:41am | 26/07/11

      @melle. Your comment is full of win.

      I too am getting sick of the constant fag bleating about equality. Marriage is the union of a man and a women. A gay man and a straight man have the same (equal) right to marry a woman.

      If you want to change the definition of marriage, perhaps you want something other than marriage? Maybe something with a new name?

      So long as you don’t start asking for adoption rights and IVF funding… I think that’s when society will well and truly have had enough of the gay whingers.

    • Dave says:

      12:39pm | 26/07/11

      Snake , unfortunately they are already able to get IVF in Canberra. I had the misfortune of seeing it and a single woman get access to sperm to destroy a child’s chance of a balanced upbringing. State sponsored child abuse as far as I am concerned.

    • Obvi Us says:

      04:12pm | 26/07/11

      I’m getting sick of the constant red neck bigot eg. Snake mouthing off about how other people should live.  Snake doesn’t even have the brain power to enter the arguement and can only offer -

      ‘A gay man and a straight man have the same (equal) right to marry a woman.’ -  poor Snake has the brain power of a snake..

      ‘So long as you don’t start asking for adoption rights’ - lol.. Society has moved ahead of you Snake.

    • Cheeto says:

      04:14pm | 26/07/11

      Snake and Dave. The two of you are clearly mentally disturbed. Studies have continually shown that the best environment to raise children is with two loving parents regardless of their gender. Please provide proof other than your bigoted comments.

      I have more concern for children raised surrounded by your bigoted views of the world than for a child of a gay couple who teach their child about tolerance and acceptance.

      FYI I don’t support state funded IVF for gay couples, but if they want to spend their own money on IVF then it’s none of your or anybody elses buisiness.

    • AJ says:

      09:13am | 26/07/11

      ACL are holding a “Marriage Day”? Will they use that day to rally against no-fault divorces, to call for marriages where children are not produced within 2 years to be dissolved and for all women to formally become the property of their husbands upon signing the certificate of marriage (with the associated rights for the husbands to trade their wives for cows, non mixed-fibre clothing or beer)?

      Or will they simply be making a lot of noise about the “gay mafia” and the zombie apocalypse that will result from legalising same sex marriage?

      Why can’t Australia follow the French model - the Federal Government legislates for civil unions for all couples (being two consenting adults) which provides all the same rights and benefits as marriage and allows the various religions to determine their own rules for carrying out “marriage ceremonies”. If a church decides to allow a same-sex couple to marry in their chapel, then all well and good. If a church decides not to allow a same-sex couple to marry in their chapel, then that couple should not be prevented from being civil unioned (or whatever it ends up being called) in their backyard or on the beach or on top of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      11:24am | 26/07/11

      ‘Ironically, the decision as to whether we can get married or not is largely in the hands of an unmarried woman and her colleagues.’

      It will be interesting to see what the decision is, especially when she’s already made her parties stance clear, as has the LNP.  No and no.  Not even any real reasons, hypocritically the last reason Julia gave was the typical religious reason even though she’s atheist..

      It makes me wonder if the Greens rise to power was because they’re the one of the major parties that believe in equality.  What the ALP and LNP don’t understand is that we may only make up under 5% of the population but we have many friends and family that also believe in equality.

      Reply

    • Cheeto says:

      04:17pm | 26/07/11

      The outcome of the labor national conference will dictate labors policy on this issue. There is no way it will remain as it is. The vast majority of labor support marriage equality, it is just right wing and the fear about losing seats holding them back.

    • Ali K says:

      11:47am | 26/07/11

      ‘This marriage boom is much needed in a state that has 50,000 divorces a year, almost 1000 a week! The gays will be combating this figure over the coming months with thousands upon thousands of loving and committed couples set to legalise their love.???’

      What ???

      Im assuming all things being equal that gay marriages will also end at the same rate as hetrosexual marriages. Granted there will be more marriages to start with but a numerical higher rate in the coming years.

      Reply

    • Cheeto says:

      06:02pm | 26/07/11

      Agreed. It would be totally naive to think that all gay marriages will last forever and that divorces won’t happen. After a lengthy time period I’m sure divorce rates will equalise between the two.

    • Symes says:

      12:30pm | 26/07/11

      I would like to marry my ute, a late nineties Falcon, with a front suspension that creaks when asked to stop suddenly, get around corners without groaning, get’s hot pretty quick, finds it difficult to get up slopes, but does not complain when I get out. We have lots in common. There must be a wedding ceremony available, where I can invite my like minded friends. No?  What about people who want to marry something else. Well, they’re out of luck, like me. Marriage is restricted, (other than objects, one to the other), to marry 1 (?mær?) 
      — vb (sometimes foll by up ) , -ries , -rying , -ried
      1.  to take (someone as one’s husband or wife) in marriage

      Reply

    • Ben says:

      02:29pm | 26/07/11

      Symes,
      Have you never been in a relationship with another human being?

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      07:38pm | 26/07/11

      Gee Ben that’s a big ask….

    • Ben81 says:

      01:06pm | 26/07/11

      Good on them, perhaps when a few more places start doing this and the ignorant and hateful mob realises it doesn’t lead to people marrying inanimate objects and becomimg sexual deviants in general they’ll warm to it.

      Or maybe they just look for more excuses. 
      Serously, the arguments against gay marriage are more than ridiculous enough to convince anyone with their head screwed on to support it.

      Reply

    • mike j says:

      02:22pm | 26/07/11

      All those male and female couples…. why didn’t they just draw car keys out of a bowl and pair up the way God intended? The gays get to be married; everyone’s happy.

      Reply

    • Joseph says:

      02:27pm | 26/07/11

      So many of these responses scare me so much. I thought we lived in a civilised society, obviously not. So many bigoted comments.

      Reply

    • sylvie says:

      02:41pm | 26/07/11

      Joseph,  only about 28 comments.  Not so worrying.

    • mike j says:

      05:00pm | 26/07/11

      Oldmate Alex is omitting all the good ones. Not so much ‘worrying’ as typical of how whining, prattish minority groups go about their lobbying.

    • Li says:

      05:22pm | 26/07/11

      @mike j: “whining, prattish minority groups”

      Typical response from a white heterosexual male.

    • Chris says:

      05:52pm | 26/07/11

      Mike J was clearly talking about those pesky minority religious groups like the ACL

    • Jackie O-my-goodness says:

      02:50pm | 26/07/11

      But it’s still all about monogamy. The illustration you used for this story hints at how much fun can be had if you cast off the tyranny of monogamy and have plural marriages as well.
      My de facto husbands would love to marry me. Why are all those monogamous gays refusing to support us? It’s discrimination!

      Reply

    • Obvi Us says:

      04:08pm | 26/07/11

      What does being a slut have to do with anything?  It’s not discrimination, you can marry one of your de facto’s…

    • Cheeto says:

      04:57pm | 26/07/11

      The funny thing is I have no idea why the fundamentalist religious types are wasting all their time and money on this issue when they could be focusing it on helping the poor and homeless. Civil rights for gay couples will have no negative outcome for them and they will have absolutely no obligation to perform marriages if they don’t want to. No one expects the religious right to like gay marriage, they have done everything they can in the past to prevent gays from being able to live their lives free and happy. But they could at least respect the secular nature of this nation and get back to helping the needy.

      Reply

    • Alvin Purple says:

      05:28pm | 26/07/11

      if heterosexual marriages are for straight couple , then who are homosexual marriages for? Obviously, crooked couples!  What else is the opposite to straight but crooked?
      When I hear that gays come out of the closet, I often wonder what they are doing in a closet in the first place. The closet is usually too small for humans.!

      Reply

    • Outraged says:

      05:41pm | 26/07/11

      The gays won’t be smiling/laughing in a years time when over 50% of their marriages end in divorce…just like Straight People.

      What about fighting for the “right” for Gay Divorce too?

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      06:47pm | 26/07/11

      What a pessimistic view of things, I totally agree that once it is legalised, the honeymoon phase will end and for many couples they will not be able to make the marriage last for whatever reason.

      I can’t imagine anyone would smile or laugh about divorce, what a strange comment., it nearly seems like you would be happy with that outcome?

    • Outraged says:

      09:36pm | 26/07/11

      It’s not pessimistic, just realistic.

      I don’t believe in Gay Marriage. I don’t believe in Straight Marriage. I dont think ANYONE should get married in this day-and-age.

      People live too long nowadays. You statistically are not going to spend 70+ years of your live monogomously with one person.

      Gays had the idea right the first time…just live together. Why do you need a piece of paper from Julia Gillard “proving” your relationship is valid?

      It’s funny because more and more Straight Couples have cottoned-on to this and now just live together defacto…like Gays used to do…because it WORKED!

    • Shane says:

      08:22am | 27/07/11

      It’s a bit naive to think that gay men and women would get married for the same reasons as straight couples and thus end up divorcing at the same or similar rate. 

      In actual fact, homosexual divorce rates so far in the UK, Denmark and Sweden are lower than heterosexual divorce rates.  To be fair, it’s far too early to even begin extrapolating accurate divorce data since gay marriage has only recently been legalised. 

      To that end, how about actually legalising gay marriage in the first place and then accurately measure the long term impacts before using gay divorce as an excuse for the non-legalisation of gay marriage.

      As my stats professor would say: “what a load of codswallop! back to high school with you young man!”

    • Servaas says:

      08:53pm | 26/07/11

      “Marriage is an institution that so many straight couples have taken for granted for so long, and it is now being strengthened by the same-sex couples who fought to be a part of it. “

      Being allowed to punch your opponent in the face is something many boxers have taken for granted for so long, and it is now being strengthened by rugby, soccer and basketball players as well as athletes who fought so long for their right to be part of the hand-to-hand combat codes.

      Many who opposed these other codes from joining in on the fun did so, amongst other reasons, because they feared the slippery slope effect which might lead to cricketers and baseball players wanting to use their bats to hit eachother with.

      The various sporting commitees finally gave in to the calls from the depraved sportsmen participating in the bat-less and stick-less codes because man, they deserve to be happy and practice their love for the game! They have rights for goodness sake! Who cares if their love for the game and fists fights has absolutely nothing to do with eachother and the fact that sport in general will be affected by this strange trend.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter