Why am I against, so called, "marriage equality"? ~ the little lioness

Why am I against, so called, “marriage equality”?


Oh, Hai there.

My name is Fiona, and, yes, I’m rather cynical when it comes to the gay//equal marriage movement. I try to articulate why. but it can be hard to when the world you live in is full of weddings and babies and people wondering why someone might be content with the already happening legal recognition of relationships, or even the, supposed, equality that “WILL” come by saying people can marry.

So, in Australia, defacto relationships actually afford the same protections as state or religious sanctioned marriages.

Yeah, so I shack up with a guy or a girl for 6 months or so, and, legally, it’s seen as a marriage, in that I have property rights. Yep, his/her shit could be mine. Remember 2008 where everything except Howard’s precious “vows” became equal? When your pensions and Centrelink payments were combined, when Health insurers considered you a couple?

Yeah, so everything except that state-sanctioned vow is legal.

yeah, some of you want it…. but having to have your relationship sanctioned by the state…. doesn’t that make you turn in your early grave? I need Abbott to say my love is legit…. *spew* I’ll pass..

And continue to live in “sin” and so on. Have your white wedding, I just hope it brings you the hope you thought it would.



Powered by Facebook Comments

4 comments for “Why am I against, so called, “marriage equality”?

  1. July 7, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    Personal views aside, I think, as you say above, defacto couples have mostly the same rights as wedded couples anyway, so why the government is resisting the formality of it is a bit silly in my opinion. Surely they can can go down one way or the other, but saying “you live together you must be married in terms of the law”, then what the heck’s the difference if they have a wedding or not. If they’re anti gay marriage they should be anti defacto as well.

  2. July 7, 2015 at 6:48 pm

    In some ways yes, I am against any sort of recognition or sanctioning of relationships. I feel that Aussie defacto law covers more people in terms of whether they lose out or not when a long term relationship breaks down, but then of course I wonder if it is the best way to “protect” people or not

  3. July 8, 2015 at 9:23 am

    It’s not the same rights though. For example, you have to have been de facto for two years minimum if you need to go to court over financial disputes if you separate. Plus I can meet and marry someone within a few weeks and have more rights than a same sex couple who meet at the same time- they wait months for similar (not the same) rights. The fact is that marriage has less rules and grey areas- you are married or you are not. De facto must be proved or assessed to see if that relationship meets requirements to be considered de facto. If a gay couple want that certainty or just want to marry for whatever reason- I don’t understand saying “I don’t support that, you can have this similar yet different thing instead, it’s good enough.” That’s not equality. I understand if you don’t like the idea “state sanctioned” relationships but is that a good enough go reason to withhold it from others?

    • July 9, 2015 at 11:07 pm

      Yeah, sure

      Which Is why I think get the marriage bill over wirh so we all can go back to having our payments docked by cennalink for having sex with someone

What do you think?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: