(Carol Cho/European Pressphoto Agency)
The Australian government has planned to cast a plebiscite (referendum) to leave the public the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legalized. It is suggested by some people that, it is a way the Turnbull's government to have the last chance to defeat same-sex marriage by appealing to the (potential) majority of the public, since the majority of the Parliament is obviously for same-sex marriage.
So what is wrong with having a plebiscite to decide on that?
I think putting out a plebiscite is only appropriate when it is something that is less crucial and more about the preference of the public, like changing the country's flag. Letting the public to decide on a certain group of people's right is extremely inappropriate.
The majority is not always respectful for certain people's rights. History speaks louder than my words. Why else did the institution of slavery exist and why was it so hard to demolish? Easily passing something to the public to exercise direct democracy and make a decision without personal consequences is not ideal representative democracy. It is "mob rule".
There is no doubt that same-sex marriage involves the question of whether it is a human right. If it is, and the legislature and/or the executive government passed it to the public to decide, the public would possibly use the power of the majority to suppress gay people. That would be against the concept of protecting minority rights under democracy.
If the government considers it necessary and critical, then they would exert their power and do things in their authority to make it happen, i.e. proposing the bill and trying to persuade the Parliament to pass the law.
The legislature needs to debate about whether marriage for same-sex couples is a human right. If it is a fundamental right, then by nature, it is crucial to everyone's life and should always be enjoyed. It is a great responsibility for the lawmakers to pass or amend laws to safeguard human rights for the country. If you are a lawmaker and you have conscience, knowledge about human rights and basic ability to reason, then you should propose to pass laws to secure human rights and reverse laws that violate human rights. Proposing a plebiscite for the public to decide is to escape from the responsibility.
In my humble opinion, I would say the right to marry of same-sex couples is clearly a human right. To put it very simple, It is because everyone is equal before the law, all people should have equal rights. And this is only subject to certain limitations while reasonable justifications are given. If a straight person has the right to enter a union with another person that is recognized by the government, then why can't a gay person do so? I cannot think of a good reason. When the law gives gay people the right to marry a same-sex person, it is more than just the right to marriage, it is the right to equality, the right to be seen as equal before the law. It ensures the dignity of gay people.
Everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to equal rights. This is a common law principle and also the fundamentals in the modern concept of human rights. Politicians have to point out that, the present law that limits marriage to only the opposite-sex couples is discriminatory. It discriminates against certain citizens based on their sexual orientation.
The government and the Parliament should legalize it now.
The legislature needs to debate about whether marriage for same-sex couples is a human right. If it is a fundamental right, then by nature, it is crucial to everyone's life and should always be enjoyed. It is a great responsibility for the lawmakers to pass or amend laws to safeguard human rights for the country. If you are a lawmaker and you have conscience, knowledge about human rights and basic ability to reason, then you should propose to pass laws to secure human rights and reverse laws that violate human rights. Proposing a plebiscite for the public to decide is to escape from the responsibility.
In my humble opinion, I would say the right to marry of same-sex couples is clearly a human right. To put it very simple, It is because everyone is equal before the law, all people should have equal rights. And this is only subject to certain limitations while reasonable justifications are given. If a straight person has the right to enter a union with another person that is recognized by the government, then why can't a gay person do so? I cannot think of a good reason. When the law gives gay people the right to marry a same-sex person, it is more than just the right to marriage, it is the right to equality, the right to be seen as equal before the law. It ensures the dignity of gay people.
Everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to equal rights. This is a common law principle and also the fundamentals in the modern concept of human rights. Politicians have to point out that, the present law that limits marriage to only the opposite-sex couples is discriminatory. It discriminates against certain citizens based on their sexual orientation.
The government and the Parliament should legalize it now.
No comments:
Post a Comment