 |
| Rainbow Wedding Bands Art Print by Ashley @ Fine Day Press. Find it on Etsy. |
Welcome to Week 16 of Human Rights Meditations. This week we're exploring an Article from the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Find out more about the series here. This series emphasises the time you dedicate to reflection and contributing to the discussion through comments below and Twitter (hashtag #hrmlak), so put on your thinking cap!
This week we're examining Article 16 of the UDHR.
Article 16: (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to establish a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental social unit and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Read through the article above several times and allow it to settle in (this is an extensive one, so you may wish to separate it as you contemplate). As you contemplate, take into account the following:
· What image popped into your head first?
· What was your reaction to the material?
· Think about how you view yourself when set against others.
· Think about the way you see those around you.
· Consider what you've learnt about world concerns.
Jot down the article and post it in a spot you'll notice regularly during the week. This will encourage you to maintain that reflection! Or, jot down something that caught your attention during this contemplation.
Time to start conversing! Let's discuss our views on each piece, what we're discovering about ourselves and the measures we're adopting to align better with the Declaration. Remember that you can also engage on twitter using this handle: #hrmlak
Let me start:
- The question of legalising same-sex marriage... Truly. I cannot fathom why Australia hasn't already done so! It fills me with such fury! What angers me most? That Australian law didn't explicitly state marriage was limited to being "between a man and a woman" until our former PM, John Howard, guided parliament in amending the marriage act to add this. For those outside Australia, Howard took office in 1997!
- What also frustrates me is that we even refer to it as "gay" marriage, as though it's something novel and distinct that we're discussing. It isn't distinct. It's precisely the same as "straight" marriage. It's about two willing adults making a conscious decision to pledge themselves to each other. This isn't about a slippery slope. We're not introducing anything novel. We're not discussing marrying children or goats. (And while I'm on the subject, I find it deplorable that this is even considered a valid argument!)
- The matter of marriage & religion: It's fair to say that marriage has, predominantly, moved from a religious institution to a civil one. The overwhelming majority of those who marry today do so under law, rather than the church. Set aside the argument about the high frequency of "Straight Divorce", the straightforward reality that most marriages aren't grounded in religious convictions is sufficient to dismiss this reason for preventing same-sex relationships from accessing this right.
Kate xx
