We’re certain that you’ve already experienced the full range of arguments of avowed ‘No’ voters in the lead-up to the same-sex marriage survey. After all, despite some elements of the ‘No’-voting public claiming their viewpoints are being silenced, they’re still the ones who stumped up the funds to write “Vote No” in the sky over Sydney.
Still, it’s informative to see how easily the arguments against marriage equality are debunked, especially when they come from sources as supposedly authoritative as government MPs. Last night’s Q&A was a primo example.
Audience member Alexander Lau, who identified himself as a gay Australian-born Chinese man, told the panel his mother had voted ‘Yes’ despite her “traditional” views on marriage. If that was the case within one family, Lau mused, how could homophobia be addressed more broadly within Australia’s ethnic communities?
Labor senator Penny Wong spoke first, pointing out that the Australian community deemed “the White Australia policy was inappropriate, we’ve said that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong.”
In terms of addressing the issue, Wong asked for reflection within elements of Australian society. “You can’t pick and choose equality,” Wong said.
How can we combat the homophobia found in ethnic communities? @SenatorWong & @BretStephensNYT respond #QandA pic.twitter.com/4rHj1Gp6Kf
— QandA (@QandA) September 18, 2017
The message that Australians deserve equality is pretty easy to grasp. Not so the arguments from Liberal MP Michael Sukkar, who instead insisted that his ‘No’ vote didn’t mean he thought less of Lau.
After a brief mention of LNP colleage Matt Canavan’s comment that ‘Yes’ advocates should “grow a spine” over the rhetoric hurled their way, Sukkar said that his side had also been “harangued, get called a homophobe, a bigot.”
Sukkar’s insisted “those of us who believe very strongly in traditional marriage shouldn’t be lumped into the basket that we are somehow hateful, or somehow don’t view, Alexander, your relationship as being legitimate.”
But the logical end-point of Sukkar’s thought process was soundly called out by Lau, who said “you voting no is really a reflection of my relationship, because what you’re saying is that I’m not allowed to have a marriage, or I’m not allowed to have a relationship that is worthy of marriage”.
.@MichaelSukkarMP says that voting No doesn’t mean I look down on your relationship #QandA pic.twitter.com/sjeKHtPeE7
— QandA (@QandA) September 18, 2017
And that’s really the crux of it. A ‘No’ vote is a physical demonstration that one doesn’t believe same-sex relationships are worthy of marriage. It’s an emphatic stance on their validity. Removed from any of the flimsy arguments about the sanctity of marriage, its traditional elements, or the non-existent threat same-sex marriage presents to children, a ‘No’ vote is a demonstration that one doesn’t believe same-sex relationships are equal to straight ones.
It’s nice to see those arguments so cleanly dispatched on national television, but you can only hope the dissection of Sukkar’s argument extends further than ABC’s Monday night audience.
