Equal marriage and Bradley Manning are both big issues

Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Bradley Manning supporters at Occupy London, last year. Photo: Queerfriendsofbradley.wordpress.com

More than 1000 Sydneysiders hit the streets on May 12 demanding equal marriage rights, but prominent left-wing journalist John Pilger criticised the march in his recent article “Bradley Manning, not gay marriage, is the issue”.

He said: “A protest parade in support of gay marriage filled the city centre. The police looked on benignly. It was a showcase of liberalism. Three days later, there was to be a march to commemorate the Nakba (The Catastrophe), the day of mourning when Israel expelled Palestinians from their land. A police ban had to be overturned by the Supreme Court.”

He said the equal marriage issue "diverts attention" from pressing issues of war and poverty, and in particular the detention and trial of alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning. We cannot agree with this.

However, we do agree with Pilger’s criticisms of US President Barack Obama’s hypocrisy on equal marriage. By affirming the right of same-sex marriage, but doing nothing to legislate for it, Obama is guilty of political opportunism. He did not call out his party, the Democrats, to legislate for marriage equality in the US states they dominate. He could have, but did not.

This shows how hollow Obama’s rhetoric really is. As Pilger points out, even worse than Obama’s opportunism is the hypocrisy of him lauding gay rights while his government persecutes the openly gay Manning.

At the same time, it’s a plus that Obama has declared his support for equal treatment for same-sex couples. Obama’s hypocritical words were politically useful for our campaign against homophobia. His statement encouraged people to attend the Sydney equal marriage rally. Some people brought placards that compared Obama’s position with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s refusal to budge.

Support for equal marriage rights is not the same as support for patriarchal property rights, as Pilger suggests in his article. For many same-sex attracted people, especially young and often poor couples, marriage has more to do with dignity and pride than property or inheritance.

Banning same-sex marriage — as Coalition and Labor Party MPs voted to do in August 2004 — relegates same-sex attracted people to second-class citizenship. Queer youth are up to 14 times more likely to kill themselves than their straight counterparts.

These suicide rates make battling second-class citizenship laws a matter of life and death. Excluding at-risk people from the right to marriage exacerbates mental health problems. All progressives should abhor homophobia and its consequences as a social disease.

Marriage has been drastically reformed over the past few centuries. Property rights are now just one of many reasons why couples of all classes marry.

The struggles of women and racially oppressed groups against society-wide discrimination have been the main driver of the past changes to marriage laws. In Australia, those struggles by women and Aboriginal people have made a lasting impact.

Reforming marriage to give access to same-sex attracted people follows in the tradition of these past campaigns.

The marriage equality movement has inspired thousands in Australia. In December, the movement mobilised 10,000 protesters onto the streets of Sydney in a display of people power. The campaign is an example of an oppressed group of people rising up and acting to create a better world.

Pilger’s comparison of the May 12 equal marriage rally — “police looked on benignly. It was a showcase of liberalism” — with a Palestine solidarity rally three days later that NSW police tried, and failed, to ban, does not match the facts.

Police had tried to shut down the equal marriage rally for weeks before the event. Police told rally organisers from Community Action Against Homophobia to cancel the rally because Sydney Town Hall square is “private land”, because minor building works were happening at the Town Hall, and finally, (oh, the irony) because the rally would disrupt a straight wedding.

Rally organisers did not back down. The rally went ahead. And when the street march arrived at the corner of Oxford and Crown, the crowd sat down, occupied the road and performed an “illegal” wedding service.

That police tried to disrupt equal marriage and pro-Palestine protests shows the need for solidarity between different groups.

No single movement is the silver bullet to end all oppression. The US war machine will not free Bradley Manning when we win marriage equality in Australia. But thousands of young queers have gained courage by mobilising in the streets. Their success in changing the political landscape shows how people’s power works. Each victory reveals to people how powerful they really are.

The 1% is wary of such movements because they challenge people’s illusions that the system works. The marriage campaign has influenced a whole generation of young people in this way.

Some people involved in the campaign will go on to strive for even greater victories, like an end to war, poverty and injustice. But unless they believe change is possible in their hearts and minds, that awareness will never take root. We should not despise the day of small beginnings.

As grassroots activists in the equal marriage movement, we have never campaigned for marriage equality just so we could have Disneyland weddings or white dresses and limousines. Instead, we wanted to help the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex community find the ability to stand up for themselves and imagine a better world. That is the real issue at stake.

[Rev. Karl Hand is pastor of CRAVE Metropolitan Community Church. Rachel Evans is the LGBTI spokesperson for the Socialist Alliance. Both authors are long-time activists in the marriage equality campaign in Australia. They are coeditors of the 2011 book, The Rainbow road to liberation: Marriage, sex and gender rights today.]


From GLW issue 924

Comments

Liberal practicality is naïve a-political ‘progress’.

Submitted by socio-image on Wed, 23/05/2012 - 3:30am on “Bradley Manning, not gay marriage, is the issue”.

I agree with Pilger that the equal-marriage movement is of the type: liberal practicality.

Where it is most obvious is when we ask the question: Can certain groupings of underprivileged people possibly achieve these goals without modification of the institutional framework as a whole?

The equal-marriage movement presents itself as a-political and is willing to ‘progress’ forward naïvely. In being a-political, it will be used by whoever is out to gain, clearly Obama right now, but who else in the future? ‘Progress’ is left ambiguous, but since there is a dominant ideology in our society, it lends itself to the current definition of liberal stability and order. Although, this is traditionally thought of in a religious dogmatic way, because of the topic of marriage, power has shifted. It is naïve to think that the current power won’t use an a-political movement to meet its’ ends and distract you and the public away from anything systemic. Liberal practicality is naïve a-political ‘progress’.

It is not a human ‘right’ to be married. It is a human right not to be discriminated based on sexual preference. The institution of marriage has historically been used to turn people into property and to exclude those of same sex relations from the widely held liberal stability and order of man and woman relation. To move from discrimination and go towards marriage fragments the real issue.

Why are homosexuals oppressed? Is it because they can’t get married, and only have civil unions?

Who can and cannot achieve these goals without modification of the institutional framework as a whole? What are the conditions that allow civil unions in one country and the death penalty in another?

To answer these questions, the LGBTI movement requires a firm political stance against a violent structure that allows the powerful to use them at their leisure.