From the Archives: Marriage Equality Complaint Letter

By on July 19, 2016

Dear Reader,

Last year staff writer Luke Morris took it on himself to write a response to an anti-equality letter.

The response was published online and gathered a lot of attention.

As a plebiscite is approaching on the issue of marriage equality, we have decided to re-publish the article.

Here it is:

To the anonymous and gutless person who wrote a marriage equality complaint letter,

You are aware that the Meadow Boutique shop in Bendigo placed a sign in their window stating This Business Supports Marriage Equality. After this your complaint letter (see image for reference) to them was also placed in their shop window.

While it was very kind of them to give your views a public place, I felt all angry that there was no informed response to your concerns. Therefore, perhaps with some arrogance, I supply this response to correct your anonymous and anti-equality letter. Here it goes:

  1. Wrong: The definition of the word “marriage” is not associated with the religious process of Holy Matrimony. Not within any legal text in Australia, nor in any accepted dictionary definition. Family units and Western society are also not associated with the religious process of Holy Matrimony. This is due to the separation of church and state. It is the passing of laws that uphold values that define us. Not religion. Fighting to make a Church State is a bad idea, so please don’t.
  2. Wrong: Same sex couples already have the right to adopt and raise children. That boat has sailed. Also, there are no biological rights, as nurturing requirements are not dependent on DNA. Plus, research has shown that supportive guardians independent of gender are more successful at raising emotionally and financially successful children than dysfunctional guardians of mixed gender. That’s a fact.
  3. Wrong: Gender confusion relates to an individual’s sexuality issues, not stereotyped at-home role models, and if sexuality is the topic here, no thorough independent research supports the view that same sex guardians, or even mixed gender guardians, that supply a stable and supportive environment cause gender/sexuality confusion. Kids learn or mislearn most of that stuff at school.
  4. Wrong: Freedom of Speech is the freedom to say dumb things as much as it is the freedom to reply to dumb things. This is part of the Socratic method of testing ideas. There are no grounds to argue that expanding the legal definition of a word, any word, will impact Freedom of Speech or even freedom of religion. Only policing law could do that.
  5. Wrong: First of all, accommodating minorities is a Christian act, it is an extension of being a Good Samaritan. Second, what future plan? Robot marriage? That would be cool, but first robots would need the right to vote. Third, anything could happen in the future. Luckily we control the present, and presently nowhere in the world that has passed marriage equality has experienced a breakdown in society or mass confusion. Of course they might reverse the law if it was headed that way.
  6. Unsure: Does this suggest that the current marriage definition is also contributing to the undefined current unsustainable fertility rate?
  7. Wrong: The more informed school students are, either in junior or adult education, the less likely they are to engage in risky behaviour to discover things. This is true for sexuality as well as electrical engineering, ladder usage and brain surgery.

My personal views? The slight legal change to the definition of the word “marriage” will affect me as I might have to attend two extra weddings in the future. On one side that will take two days out of my life in support of other people and their enjoyment of a life in unity (though I usually like to do that anyway), while on the other side I’ll get some cake.

I like cake.

Let marriage equality occur.

Cheers,

Luke Morris

(PS 2016: It’ll also be really good for jobs and growth)

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: