Part of the problem is that the “No” case is quite difficult to make if you leave out all the fear mongering. The case rests on the fact that one group in our society wishes to deny another group access to a set of rights and privileges that they regard as their sole prerogative.
The Yes case is equally simple. In a just society, everyone has equal rights.
I have read the article “Tony Abbott on why same sex marriage would fundamentally change society” published in the Fairfax media, twice now.
It’s not much good but it is about as good as the argument for the No case is ever going to be. I’ve summarised it to save you the trouble of reading it.
Abbott starts off with some condescending shit about “being there” for his gay friends.
And then goes on to say that gay couples are in fact equal to married heterosexual couples.
Which they are not.
Which is to say he actually finds it difficult to understand what all the fuss is about.
Then there is a lot of argument about the fundamental change to the “institution of marriage” and how changes to the Marriage Act will change one the foundations of society: heterosexual marriage. The implication being that this change will destroyed marriage, and by implication, society as we know.
Personally, I find it difficult to understand how Christine Forster, (Tony Abbott’s sister)
getting married to Virginia Edwards is going to have an effect on the relationship between Tony and Margie
But that’s the fundamental argument.
If gay people get married, the institution of marriage viz heterosexual marriages will somehow be threatened. If the two people in the top photograph marry, somehow the relationship between the two people in the bottom photograph will be threatened.
Surely there is something fundamentally idiotic about this argument.
But I digress, back to Tony’s article.
Then there’s a long rant about the fact that the supporters of the “No vote” , particularly the Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous,
and Coopers Brewery, have been very badly treated . But generally all the bad things that have gone on in the campaign, so far have been perpetrated by supporters of the “Yes vote”.
Parts of the article are incomprehensible and there is a lot of ranting about Catholic adoption agencies having to close down and a baker being prosecuted over icing on a cake.
And then the whole thing slides away into arguments about “gender fluidity in the marriage act”, freedom of speech, parental choice, religious freedom, political correctness gone wrong, Uber, Subway and Magnum Ice Cream.
So if we want to protect these things (freedom of speech, parental choice, religious freedom, that is. not necessarily Uber, Subway and Magnum Ice Cream), we should vote No.