Bass Coast Post
  • Home
    • Recent articles
  • News
    • Point of view
    • View from the chamber
  • Writers
    • Anne Davie
    • Anne Heath Mennell
    • Bob Middleton
    • Carolyn Landon
    • Catherine Watson
    • Christine Grayden
    • Dick Wettenhall
    • Ed Thexton
    • Etsuko Yasunaga
    • Frank Coldebella
    • Gayle Marien
    • Geoff Ellis
    • Gill Heal
    • Harry Freeman
    • Ian Burns
    • Joan Woods
    • John Coldebella
    • Julie Paterson
    • Julie Statkus
    • Kit Sleeman
    • Laura Brearley >
      • Coastal Connections
    • Lauren Burns
    • Liane Arno
    • Linda Cuttriss
    • Linda Gordon
    • Lisa Schonberg
    • Liz Low
    • Marian Quigley
    • Mark Robertson
    • Mary Whelan
    • Meryl Brown Tobin
    • Michael Whelan
    • Mikhaela Barlow
    • Miriam Strickland
    • Natasha Williams-Novak
    • Neil Daly
    • Patsy Hunt
    • Pauline Wilkinson
    • Richard Kemp
    • Sally McNiece
    • Terri Allen
    • Tim Shannon
  • Features
    • Features 2024
    • Features 2023
    • Features 2022
    • Features 2021
    • Features 2020
    • Features 2019
    • Features 2018
    • Features 2017
    • Features 2016
    • Features 2015
    • Features 2014
    • Features 2013
    • Features 2012
  • Arts
  • Local history
  • Environment
  • Nature notes
    • Nature notes
  • A cook's journal
  • Community
    • Diary
    • Courses
    • Groups
    • Stories
  • Contact us

Brothers and sisters

2/6/2017

4 Comments

 
“Selective equality” doesn’t exist, writes Rob Easton. We are either equal before the law or we are not.
By Rob Easton

“WHEN we look at modern Man, we have to face the fact that modern Man suffers from a kind of poverty of the sprit, which stands in glaring contrast with a scientific and technological abundance ... we’ve learned to fly the air as birds, we’ve learned to swim the seas as fish, yet we haven’t learned to walk the Earth as brothers and sisters ...”
 
So said Martin Luther King Jr. some 50 years ago – and from recent public comments, it appears we are still learning.
 
Recently Bass Coast Shire councillors showed their ability to put aside agendas, politics and persuasion, and with the votes of seven out of eight councillors, pledged our community’s support for gay marriage to our federal MPs and the Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
 
The date chosen was May 17 – the International Day Against Homophobia; timely and fitting. It marks the date when homosexuality was removed from the International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organisation in 1990. Ergo – gay is not a choice.
 
The most recent online edition of the Bass Coast Post published an article concerning the council’s vote with several comments from readers.
 
These comments made me cringe:
“There are a great many rate payers of profound faith who will disagree with the Council's public display of political correctness ... you do not have a mandate to make such a decision,” wrote one.
 
“Did the council as me for my views. NO.” wrote another.
 
“The vast majority know different and will properly consider the unintended consequences of going against nature ...” proffered one more.
 
I consider myself fairly open to people of all walks of life. I have many friends, family members and employees in my team – some are old, some are young, some gay, some straight, some Muslim, some Jewish, some black, some Asian, to name a few – but first and foremost, they are good people. They are all people who abide by and respect the law, and who, after lengthy discussions on the topic of gay marriage, agree that if the law is good for the goose, well then it’s good for the gander.
 
Our council last week did exactly what needed to be done – they stood up for the rights of all ratepayers whom they are mandated to represent on an issue of morality and equality. They spoke for those who are not able to speak for themselves, lest they find themselves being treated as “unnatural” or “ye of little faith”. They have now shone the light on an issue that should not even raise eyebrows, let alone be as contentious as this.
 
When I voted in the last election, I did so based on policy, not whether or not a councillor supported gay marriage. Not because it’s an issue of “mandate” but because equality and human rights are now a no-brainer. It is not a matter of “political correctness” to ensure all citizens have equal rights before the law. And no one, no matter how “faithful” they may be or how “natural” they see themselves as, has the right to deny another person the same rights afforded to them under the law.
 
Our community is one of inclusion and our community members, minority or majority, deserve to be represented.
 
Well done, councillors, for showing our community that our elected officials have so much more of a role to play than just being local government administrators. You are leaders; paving the way for the next generation. Your declaration shows that we are moving forward to a new era – one where every person is valued and respected and where we stand true to the belief that we all deserve access to the same rights and responsibilities under the law.
 
To those in the community who are undecided on whether or not people of the same sex should marry – ask yourself what you would tell your brother or sister, or cousin or a friend or, heaven forbid, your own child who questioned why they shouldn’t be able to marry the person they love under the exact same law that allows you to do the same thing. Why do they deserve anything less than the same rights and responsibilities you have?
 
“Selective equality” does not exist. We are either equal, or we are not. It might seem fanciful, but I hope that maybe one day we will walk the Earth as truly equal brothers and sisters.
4 Comments
Mohan de Run
5/6/2017 05:50:29 pm

I don’t agree with Rob Easton’s views but like all on his side of the debate, he is entitled to his opinion.
I do not believe the majority of the voting public in this country are ready to accept marriage equality and many like me, share the fear of the unintended consequences, especially for the children of today.
So for the sake of the children, who are the future of every country, I say to both sides, press for the plebiscite.
That will be a fair way of dealing with this proposed piece of social engineering and I for one will respect that outcome.
Should the Marriage equality group believe they have the numbers for a change in the law, there is no reason to fear the plebiscite and they should lobby the crossbench senators to bring in whatever amendments are necessary to the bill before them in the senate to ensure the outcome of the Plebiscite receives full endorsement in both houses of parliament.

Reply
Geoff Ellis
5/6/2017 09:06:19 pm

One of the great things about the Bass Coast Post is the ability for people to exchange views and opinions in a public, un-moderated forum.

I respect your views and as I said in the preamble to item F4 you can not legislate morality and I do not want to challenge people's beliefs.

Our motion has nothing to do with social engineering, we are adding weight to the community push for equality and a change to legislation that should better reflect the social norm. As always the inertia built into our democracy needs to be overcome occasionally.

I am glad that you have declared that Rob and I, "like everyone on" our "side of the debate" are entitled to our opinion, that's a particularly benevolent attitude, thank you.

I do not fear 'the plebiscite' - the proposal was for non-binding one so it was simply pointless, merely another Kanute-like gesture. There are better ways to spend $160 million dollars.

I agree that we need to press for our elected representatives to achieve a result in both houses of parliament but why not just press them to have a conscience vote based on what their electorates tell them - if we need to put this to a plebiscite we also need to run a number of other matters through a similar process. Lets start with plebiscites about coal mines, climate change, free trade, refugee quotas, coward punch laws, euthanasia, penalty rates, tougher sentencing, the age limit for drinking, which schools should be built, .....mmmmm....maybe its easier to get politicians to do what they know is right and fair. It's why we vote for them.

That's just my opinion, of course.





Reply
Rob Easton
25/6/2017 06:21:59 pm

Thanks Geoff. You're 100% right. The ability to discuss in a forum like this is an invaluable resource.

I must admit, that for a moment there I thought I was the only one harping on about marriage equality. Then I remembered over half the nation all think the same way and support the move ... Notwithstanding the 20 + other countries constituting hundreds-of-millions of people around the world who, through supposed social engineering, have paved the way forward for equality under the law.

Perhaps they're thinking of their children and their futures ... I know '-I-' am.

Rob Easton
25/6/2017 06:13:50 pm

"Won't somebody please think of the children!?"

What an interesting concept ... and a quirky Simpsons reference at that.

Just a quick reminder that today's Children are tomorrow's leaders. And who knows, they might even be gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, intersex, queer ...

God forbid they should be permitted to marry someone they love because of some outdated beliefs that no longer represent the values of our Nation and her people ...

Heaven forbid we should evolve our social structure to acknowledge all people as equal. God only knows it's taken us long enough to get where we are.

This country, like many others before us, has already spoken. The polls show it, the general community input shows it, our leaders are saying it ... Legal marriage should be open to any 2 consenting adults... regardless of their orientation or sexuality. A costly and non-binding plebiscite will not benefit anyone and will not close the debate. What is needed, is real social change in how we think about these sorts of topics - and that comes in each of us, our leaders (even those in local government), and our communities all acknowledging that selective equality does not exist.

Here's to hoping that the 'social engineering' of those wanting to continue living in the past doesn't detract from our future ... one might even call that stagnation or 'devolution'.

Let's not fear change - we might even enjoy it!

Reply



Leave a Reply.