Bolt: I want marriage equality for all
Last Monday, my brother Andrew Bolt published a column presenting his views in opposition to same-sex marriage. I belatedly attempted to post a contribution to the lively blog debate. When it wasn’t published, I knew I didn’t want to leave it there — being a lesbian in a committed relationship I want to participate in the conversation happening across the country, tell my story and, in doing so, hopefully make even the smallest difference to the long-running campaign for marriage equality.
As my family will recall, I came out when I was 21 years old. Like many in the GLBTI community, I was awash with the relief and joy of recognising and expressing such a fundamental part of who I was. Again, like many, I experienced much uncertainty about my value to the community and the fear of rejection.
For the most part though, I feel fortunate to have received respect and love from people important to me as I made those first tentative steps out of the closet. That, of course, is not everyone’s experience. Rejection by parents, siblings and peer groups is not altogether uncommon and low self-esteem, anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicide can be the terrible result.
Even with my good fortune, I have felt the effects of ignorance, fear and hate by others: fearing for my life, I was chased down city streets one night by a group of drunk teenagers for holding hands with my girlfriend; I have been verbally abused and taunted about my sexuality when playing sport; and I have felt on social and work occasions the discomfort or disapproval of others upon hearing the word “girlfriend” or “she” in relation to my partner.
Some gays and lesbians view their relationships as equal to those of straight people. But I know of others who would admit to feeling “lesser” or, even if they don’t, are fed up with receiving negative physical, verbal or other signals from the world around them.
Offering civil unions seems a reasonable compromise from the position of any straight person who has not ever had to question for a single moment others’ acceptance of their relationship or their right to choose to marry the person they love. Offering civil unions sends a signal that, to me, says I am lesser.
I’m then told that civil unions are in a legal sense similar to marriage and, therefore, why should it not be embraced by same-sex couples? If it’s such a palatable alternative it’s then fair to ask why it’s not embraced by many more heterosexual couples?
To point out the blindingly obvious, many of us regardless of sexuality want to get married; we want the ceremony that is such a significant marker in life’s journey. There may be little that legally separates the two, but socially and culturally there’s a chasm.
Marriage is touted as one of our most enduring traditions. Traditions are organic; their foundations are laid in the past but they grow and evolve over time. Granting me and my partner the right to marry — to have our loving and committed relationship recognised in law and by the community — doesn’t erode that tradition; it builds upon it.
My partner and I celebrate two anniversaries. We first held a “commitment ceremony” at home witnessed by many of our family and friends on a stormy Adelaide spring day. It was the day I told the world I would love my partner forever. It was the best day of my life.
However, it wasn’t until we married in the simplest of ceremonies one month later in Canada that I sensed a legitimacy and belonging I wasn’t expecting to feel. I think that’s because I have built a layer of protection against judgment and negativity for many years around my s-xuality, my relationship and, now, my young son.
It may seem naive, but having that certificate in my hand made me untouchable, secure, normal, and for those wonderful few weeks, I could drop the shield. It’s disappointing beyond measure that my brother and others who share his views don’t wish that for me and everyone else like me.
I want marriage equality. At the very least, I wish for a rational and respectful debate.
I trust that more thoughtful consideration of this issue will prevail and, whether under this government or another in the future, my wife and I will finally see our relationship legitimised.
Fantastic piece Stephanie. You’re proof positive that the problem with the Bolts is not one of genetics.
Thanks Stephanie.
How many more of these intelligent articles are we going to have to read before people get it??
I’ve been married twice. The first time was in 1978 in a Baptist Church with all the prayers and blessings etc traditionally bestowed by that corner of the Christian faith on its adherents. The second time was in 2003 on the shore of Pittwater where there were no religeous pomp and ceremony at all.
I think that my second marriage constitutes a civil union but I would like someone with expertise on the issue to comment. I am firmly in favour of same sex civil marriage and as seems necessary, a change to the marriage act to enable this to occur. It’s a question of discrimination from my point of view.
Fantastic article and amazing that two people who share the same genes have totally different lives!
My favorite bit within the article was this sentence:
“There may be little that legally separates the two, but socially and culturally there’s a chasm”.
It eloquently captures the heart of the issue. Thank you!
Another of the long awaited Australian Democrats policies is succeeding.
I’m white, middle class and heterosexual. The world is my oyster.
For anyone else who is not in that narrow range barriers are thrown up and it is a disgrace. Every person is entitled to what others receive. They don’t always get it and we should be striving for that equality in every single thing as an ideal.
Andrew draws a very long bow when he involves Dr. Philip Nitschke in his argument.
Well said, Stephanie.
Your story is powerful.
I hope your brother reflects on it and changes his mind.
My brother had no reservations about my de facto husband being his brother-in-law.
Unfortunately, my de facto husband’s sister has never accepted me as her brother-in-law.
When I saw that “Bolt” was writing for Crikey, I nearly had a heart attack. But then … it was Mr Bolt’s sister! And what a great piece. I hope it gets more widely circulated. Thanks for sharing your story.
Bob Katter’s brother and now Andrew Bolt’s sister. Nice work and thank you for letting us into your world.
A poignanat and moving piece, dripping with honesty Stephanie. As an aged male hetero I have sympathy with your aspirations.
However there is one point that hetero’s have had that you ignore or overlook and that is the non maried partners that have only in recent years gained some legal recognition for themselves and their off spring.
Thank you, Stephanie.
Onya Stephanie!!
One of my sons is gay and although I thought I was pretty much understanding of the importance of this issue, I learnt something today from this article (which is surely what we are all looking for in this life - a little bit of enlightenment).
Thanks for writing it.
Well put Stephanie. Best wishes to you.
…at least we can choose our friends!
Thanks Stepanie
“How many more of these intelligent articles are we going to have to read before people get it?” <- What SusieQ said
Apologies Stephanie on misspelling your name. (I need an edit button and also need to be more careful - sorry)
Thank you Stephanie for sharing your side of the debate, I am richer for the insight.
I am and nor should you be surprised that Limited News didn’t publish your blog post. Your points are presented with honesty, appear to be well researched and are in good faith. All three criteria that would automatically exclude you from any MSM site controlled by Murdemocracy especially your brother’s.
Thoughtful, warm-hearted piece. Here’s looking forward to many more.
Thank God a human Bolt. I wish you all the best Stephanie, I have no idea what archaic arguement your brother has put forward as I don’t read his articles or else I feel murderous. I am a hetersexual and I think it this day an age it really should be equal on every level for everyone, you and me. Some are saying that Marriage is an old institution and it should stay that way, well it used to be so, so that men could own us women who were mere chattels in the olde worlde. I’m all for progression. And a shrew mask for your brother!!!!!! ha ha ha
Dear lesbian in a committed relationship.
As a lesbian who enjoys a bit of committing with various other lesbians (bi-curious also welcome), may I point out that you represent only one section of a particular sexual orientation/lifestyle choice … whatever we want to call it.
And a very conservative, monogamous, twee section it is …
It’s a shame to see gays going so …, well, straight
My gay friends don’t seem to be much agitated about the issue and neither am I, a heterosexual married male with heterosexual children and granchildren. That it is not something anyone ought to die in the ditches over is supported to some extent by the absence of even mild demands for this aspect of “equality” or of full human or civil rights 30 years ago when the heavy lifting had been or was being done on removing discrimination, or even much later when more stringent anti-discrimination laws were passed. So….
Not exactly a matter of fashion but capable of being looked at from more than one perspective. What about a different analogy to the one of equal rights, namely that of Trade Marks and weightier claims to Patents and Registered Designs though perhaps Copyright is even better. Marriage belongs to communities who have continued it as part of ancient traditions which make them communities. Is it not insensitive of gays to ask for more than legal support for civil unions and to demand that they be able to upset those who regard the marriage element in their ancient traditions as important and therefore are rationally concerned that confusing their children about the centrality of traditional marriage could result from an act of state which seems to contradict the tradition?
The title with a Bolt byline made me gasp, I must admit. You go, girl!
Of course, this article can be looked at in comparison to the news that Kevin Rudd’s sister, who has apparently resigned from the Labour Party over their support for gay marriage. She thinks it goes against the teachings of Moses or something - guess she’d be fine about bringing back stonings in the public square and all that other stoneage twaddle?
Jean’s point is an important one. It highlights the discriminatory nature of marriage.
As Stephanie says: “Granting me and my partner the right to marry … doesn’t erode that tradition; it builds upon it.” This is precisely the problem. Legalising same-sex marriage would very likely strengthen the institution of marriage. Of course the status quo is severely damaging and unjust, but legalising same-sex marriage would be a step in the wrong direction: we should be moving to abolish marriage entirely.
Marriage idealises a certain type of relationship and denies those with alternative relationship preferences the same sense of “legitimacy and belonging” that Stephanie is so pleased to have obtained. In other words, the origin of that “legitimacy and belonging” is a distinction that marriage (as a pervasive social and legal norm) generates between “married” people and “unmarried” people; a distinction that by definition discriminates against “unmarried” people. This is the same distinction that makes the status quo so horrendous, but legalising same-sex marriage would only make it more likely that marriage’s discriminatory and unjust effects will continue.
Great article, Stephanie! Thanks for writing this.
And don’t take the non-publication of your comment at Andrew Bolt’s blog personally. Every day, his moderators vet the comments contributed and decline to publish many of the ones that are critical of Andrew Bolt. One can only presume this is to deliberately create the misleading impression that most people agree with him. His ego doesn’t permit him to listen to what people really think of him.
There are left of centre Christians advocating for equal rights for gays to marry. (I am one of them.) In the light of that, and also of Jean and Samuels comments above, I find this quote from American (left of centre) Christian, Tony Campolo to be quite insightful:
People say that “marriage is a sacred institution and should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman. If this is the case…I have to ask why the government is involved at all in marrying people? If marriage really is a sacred institution, then why is the government controlling it, in a nation that affirms separation of church and state? Personally, as a Baptist minister, I always feel a bit uneasy at the end of the weddings I perform when I have to say, ‘And now, by the authority given unto me by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I pronounce you husband and wife.’ At weddings, after performing a variety of religious exercises, such as reading Scripture, saying prayers, giving a biblically based homily and pronouncing blessings on the marriage, I suddenly shift to being an agent of the state. Doesn’t it seem inconsistent that in a highly religious ceremony I should have to turn the church into a place where government business is conducted? … Allow me to suggest a way out of this conflict and the difficult questions being raised these days about whether our country should approve of homosexual marriages. I propose that the government should get out of the business of marrying people, and instead, only give legal status to civil unions. The government should do this for both gay couples and straight couples, and leave marriage in the hands of the church and other religious entities. That is the way it works in Holland: If a couple want to be united in the eyes of the law, whether gay or straight, they go down to city hall and legally register, securing all the rights and privileges a couple has under Dutch law. Then, if the couple want their relationship blessed – to be married – they go to a church, synagogue or other house of worship. Marriage should be viewed as an institution ordained by God and should be out of the control of the State. Of course, homosexual couples could go to churches that welcome and affirm gay marriage and get their unions blessed there, but isn’t that the way it should be in a nation that guarantees people the right to promote religion according to their personal convictions? …”
He might be onto something here….
In the meantime, if we dont go that way, then Australia should move to allowing gays to marry. It is an equality issue, first and foremost. And for the gays that dont want to… well… that is their choice, but they deserve to have the choice.
“To point out the blindingly obvious, many of us regardless of sexuality want to get married; we want the ceremony that is such a significant marker in life’s journey.”
You know, I’m sure you do, but I doubt that applies to your contemporaries.
While you hope for and look for a world where gay’s will be able to marry, and I’m good with that by the way, I look forward to a world where inane and outdated concepts such as marriage are long thrown into the dustbin of history.
Most heterosexuals, as far as I can tell, don’t make a discrimination in their mind between marriage, civil unions and cohabitation (de-facto) relationships.
At the current rate of rise in de-facto and civil unions, within a generation or two perhaps only the gays will be looking for “marriage”.
It is in fact you who has taken on board so much of the malarkey about what marriage signifies, when in fact all that is important about marriage is the relationship that follows, not the damned certificate.
Best wishes with it, but all that you apparently felt about ‘marriage’ and the legitmiacy it magically conferred were all confected in your own mind.
You are no more, or less, legitimate than you ever were.
Like others I gasped too - until I read your article Stephanie. What a courageous woman you are. It’s a sad indictment on all of us that you have been and probably still are treated with such petty hatred and violence! I’m disgusted but not surprised.
It amuses me that those who promote marriage as god given between opposite sexes deny the stats re marriage and divorce/s? If it’s so sacred why are people divorcing? The most ludicrous comment against same sex marriage came from a couple who were going to marry for the third time - both of them had two divorces each! How ridiculous was that?
I’m involved with a women’s health centre, and sadly we are all too aware of the discrimination and hatred metered out to wonderful people like you. You have my sympathy and support.
I support same sex marriage(of course) and look forward to an article by you when it finally becomes law - with your son smiling his love and support. Take care Stephanie, you and your partner are not alone! There’s lots of support in the community!
ps - I’m still tossing up whether I want to read your brother’s article????
Very well written piece and i agree with it, but beware those can of worms.
History quiz: What happened first?
1. The state’s legal recognition of marriage.
2. People getting married in wedding ceremonies.
If you answered 1, you fail - go back to school. Marriage wasn’t “legally” recognised (and never actually needed to be legally recognised) by the state for hundreds - if not thousands - of years. Marriage actually pre-dates recorded history.
There’s no law that prevents one person getting on bended knee and asking another person of the same sex (or their dog for that matter) to marry them.
There’s no law preventing those people, once committed, from sending out invitations to all their friends inviting them to their “wedding” ceremony.
There’s no law that prevents the couple from exchanging vows and rings during this ceremony.
There’s no law (at least not these days) preventing those people from consummating that marriage on the wedding night.
There’s no law preventing those people from living together.
There’s even no law preventing a same sex couple from raising children together (though there are laws around how they might “acquire” those children).
The only law there is, is that it won’t be recognised by the state. That’s it. All other legal implications of the union can be handled through a Power of Attorney (bank accounts, decisions when it comes to health-care etc…)
Until same sex couples actually start getting married - why /would/ the state recognise it?
Stop asking for the state to give you something like Oliver Twist begging for more gruel.
That’s long-winded bull, Samuel.
Examples, please.
“If it’s such a palatable alternative it’s then fair to ask why it’s not embraced by many more heterosexual couples?”
Great question and such an eloquent writer. I wish you and your wife the best of luck! It’s sad that not everyone supports equality but the majority of Australians are with you.
Liz45 - I agree! I heard a very clever statement recently from a church person who was being honest about the situation: Christians are getting divorced at higher and higher rates than ever before, and yet some of the same people are the loudest advocates saying “marriage is a divine institution”. They oppose loving couples who want to marry (gay couples), and they happily divorce! It seems to be only a divine institution until their own marriage goes belly up.
A true human story, written with wisdom and logic.
As many have written, the sky has not fallen where marriage equality thrives elsewhere in the world. Thankyou Stephanie for declaring your truth and what it means to come at life through love. This is a story that should attract higher rotation.
@Jean - Everyone should have the option, not everyone has to choose it.
But Warren, what if that sense of heterosexual ownership of the tradition and institution of marriage that you describe was based on a pre-scientific misunderstanding of the human condition that saw homosexuality as unnatural (at best) and sinful or abhorant (at worst). Now that we understand how flawed this Pre-scientific position was, are we not now obliged to correct our discrimination in order to avoid really confusing another generation of children about embracing their sexuality with honesty and pride - as Stephanie Bolt seems to have!
Well done Stephanie. I am thoughtful, having read your article, and the comments by others, about how my relationships, with my wife and my boyfriend would work in terms of recognition.
Any thoughts?
Well done Steph.
I am Steph’s “Father in law”
When Lisa came out many years ago it was not an easy thing to grasp, but at the end of the day, lisa is still our daughter and we love her dearly.
Eventually Steph came into our family and it has been fun having her as part of our family unit.
Not to much more to say but hopefully you all get the gist that Steph and Lisa and their son (my grandson) Jasper are much loved by my wife and I.
That her brother has such a warped view on life is, in my opinion, his problem.
Cheers
@Lacqueredstudio You really can’t work out what types of relationships/sexualities are rendered less-than-ideal by the institution of marriage, especially after Jean (an earlier commenter) already offered herself as an example? To start with, consider all those people who do not conform to the social norms associated with marriage (e.g. “adulterers, prostitutes, divorcees, the promiscuous, single people, unwed parents, those below the age of consent”, etc.—quoting from the queer theorist Michael Warner). All these people and their actions are deemed undesirable or abnormal by the institution of marriage. Then there are those who wish to enter into relationships of a type that is excluded from marriage, such as relationships between more than two people, relationships between siblings, relationships between people of the same sex (although perhaps not for much longer), etc. Do you see the discrimination yet?
Warner again: “To a couple that gets married, marriage just looks ennobling … But stand outside it for a second and you see the implication: if you don’t have it, you and your relations are less worthy. Without this corollary effect, marriage would not be able to endow anybody’s life with significance. The ennobling and the demeaning go together. Marriage does one only by virtue of the other.”
One would hope the Bolt family get together this Christmas will be alcohol free. I wouldn’t mind being there when Andrew explains to Stephanie how not allowing her comment to his article is not censorship - Andrew Bolt loves freedom of speech, you know.
What a beautiful and insightful article. To me this discussion we are having in our society today should be more about the fundamentals of human rights and whether we have the right to take away those rights from one of our fellow citizens and whether laws passed by a parliament has the right to discriminate because they feel threatened by differences.
Discrimination in all forms is so incidious as to the long term effects on a person way of functioning to render them ineffectual as a human being. The long term effects often have very long term consequences not just for the person at the end of the discrimination but on our society as a whole.
I am so hopeful that the small minority views on people’s choices to choose whether they marry or not be it straight or gay are lessening with time. There has been tremedous progress in our society about respecting people decisions and I see this discussion becoming a thing of the pass.
I have often asked the question why is it we so want to control people’s lives and the decisions they make in their lives especially when those decisions are between the people making them for themselves. What are we afraid of as a society? Why does love draws such derision from sections of our society, really puzzles me. My sister is gay and she is a beautiful soul and a loving person. Does that make her less of a person, absolutely not. I beg my fellow citizens love one another and respect each other’s choices and we will be surely a better society for it.
God Bless you Stephanie Bolt, your wife and your son.
Marriage and civil unions are both indicators of bias towards specific relationship styles. Bias is fine, we’re allowed to prefer things, but don’t get all high and mighty about ‘equality’ or the like. If you want to argue for improving the institution (i.e allowing gays the right to marry) then at least make clear why this would be useful or fair but a full extension of flexibility in contract (polygamy, for instance?), or the removal of the whole shebang, would not be fairer.
@ Frank Quinlan
My answer is that your hypothesis is contrary to fact. Marriage was instituted presumably to firm up the arrangements for acknowledging parenthood and bringing up children with all sorts of variations of detail owing to extreme patriarchy, occasional matriarchy, and so on. The Greeks lack of distaste for homsexuality suggests that the idea that homosexuals might contemplate marriage or that anyone would think of providing them with the same legal attachments as heterosexuals would have produced, as first reaction, a scratching of the head and simple puzzlement. “Why would anyone want to do that?” would have been the reaction.
@ Warren
That your argument for maintaining the status quo rests on a “presumed” interpretation of an ancient, pre-scientific culture, illustrates my point.
Lovely piece.
Bob Katter, now the Blot…. They’re everywhere this lot… even in the best families.
Slowly we are beginning to realise that this is not an issue about Them - it is an issue about Us - and how we live, what we think is a fair go, what we think Government has a role in doing and where it should bugger off.
And now we have Tony Abbott trying to lock his colleagues into not exercising their conscience vote … a divine right according to the mythology. Watch this space.
Sometimes the Australian public are a fascinating bunch to watch.
@Buss Peter
Yours was a very special and wonderful contribution.
Thank you.
Wait, so Bolt wouldn’t even publish the comments from his own sister on his blog? Some bad blood running through that family or just an oversight? Judging from the tone of both of your writings i’d say it’s the former…
Ms Bolt, your bring a well reasoned, logical argument. You’ll never get a career in the media with that sort of attitude.
I have no doubt one day same sex marriages will be accorded the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as heterosexual marriages are currently afforded. Its a disgrace that it has to take so long.
@ Frank Quinlan
I suppose you are right in saying my contributions are an “argument for maintaining the status quo”. Logically correct. My purpose was, however, that of the deep sceptic who would like gays to question their current enthusiasm for being able to say that a whole lot of largely heterosexual legislators, largely uninterested in the issue but deeply committed to re-election by tuning in to whatever vote-changing minorities are passionate about, have enshrined gay unions in the law as “marriage”. Might it not pass like such other trivial enthusiasms as changing the flag or changing the relationship of the Queen to Australia (bypassing her idiot son(s) might be something with a bit more flesh on it)?
As in reading an Agatha Christie novel one shouldd perhaps ask “where’s the money?” the deep sceptic in me suggests. As a recipient of a public sector pension I am deeply appreciative of the fact that, if I survive my spouse, my children or granddchildren can marry me (legally or de facto) to a strong young lad from the Third World who will act as male nurse, driver and wood chopper in return for a substantial super-indexed pension when I die which he can receive for 60 years.
As I had already written on another thread, and was backed up by Mal O’ Canberra, Andrew Bolt may be many things but he is not homophobic. And this illustrates why. I would suggest he did not want his sisters article posted on his blog so that family was kept out of open forum. Would you protect family from some of the more abusive contributors? Or would you allow them thrown to the wolves. You all seem to have a preconceived idea that Bolt readers are feral.
If she were my sister I wouldn’t have allowed it.
Congratulations on a well written article Stephanie.