Julia Gillard is a strange thing.
As mentioned in a previous post I take an interest in ‘new atheism’ and am heartened when I find public figures that willingly ‘come out’ and declare their beliefs (or in this case, lack thereof).

There are certain assumptions I make when someone declares themselves a fellow non-believer:

1. I assume they have given quite some thought to the matter of deities and their existence
2. I assume they reject the bigotries the major religions introduced to society that still linger
3. I assume the would, if asked, side with science and evidence
4. I assume their thought process, for the most part, would be rational

In my last post I highlighted one of many ‘atheists’ that show very little rational and considered thought and choose to make fools of themselves (and incidentally the ’cause’) under the guise of entertainment.

I also make another assumption, one that pertains specifically to public figures.
I assume that if they show the ‘mettle’ to declare themselves an atheist, that they would at the very least try and act like a secular humanist would be expected to act.

By act I mean to say that they would perhaps be ‘champions’ of free thought, heroes of human rights and the bane of those whom to limit human rights or free thought based on religious inclinations.

I’m not suggesting that they be an evangelical about their non belief nor would I suggest they discourage religion. They would, however, encourage religion to be a private matter and not let its influence be felt in public life.

When it was learned a few years ago, and heavily publicized when she came to power, that Julia Gillard (now Prime Minister) was an atheist, myself, and like minded individuals almost rejoiced. We were stifled by the fact that it is a politician and, unfortunately, one cannot put too much faith (pun intended) in what any of those people say. Nonetheless, I thought we would finally have a ‘leader’ that wouldn’t bend to the will of the dogmatic right and would govern for all Australians.

Though never fading away completely, the debate on weather homosexual partners should have right to be legally married has been resurrected, climaxing in the decision of the ALP to allow a conscience vote in the House of Representatives.

While it seems like a ‘win’ for those who share an interest in equality and anti-discrimination, it was not the best possible outcome.

Had the party voted to incorporate the freedom of marriage into their policies then a conscience vote wouldn’t be needed. Regardless of how some individuals felt the ‘party line’ would be that equality for all Australians is imperatives and all members would be expected to tow that line.

The sad truth is that a conscience vote will very most likely see the motion defeated and the bigotry and discrimination evident in Australian law will remain, at least a few years longer.

One of the main supporter of the conscience vote, one that is doomed to fail, is the Prime Minister. The Atheist Prime Minister.

I can admit to being stubborn and pig headed at the best of times, but I cannot think of a real rational reason why two men cannot have their union called a ‘marriage’.

If I were a believer in the Judeo-Christian world view I can understand why the union of two members of the same sex would be an unfavorable situation. Their God has explicitly forbade the practice.

Thinking, though, as a secular being with no particular motivation from a religion I find it hard to justify denying the right to marry to any consenting adult.

In fact, if you take God out of the arguments against what remains are irrational and petty ‘justifications’ for dogmatist and intolerance views.

The main arguments that remain are:

- It breaks tradition
- It is unnatural
- It will undermine the marriage between men and women

And incredibly:

- It will cause people to not reproduce as being gay would be more acceptable

Each of the above ‘arguments’ don’t hold much water when put up against the smallest bit of logic.

‘Tradition’ as an excuse doesn’t quite work as slavery, forced female circumcision, child marriages and public stoning are all traditions that nobody in the civilized world could support. Most legal rights that we hold today came about by breaking traditions and choosing a progressive stance. These rights (gender equality, race equality) are values we all take for granted today and any one that opposes them appear not only ignorant, but also neanderthalic.

It is accepted by the medical world and psychological sphere that homosexuality, or indeed the sex you are sexually attracted to is not in control of the subject. It is as natural as maternal instincts. Homosexuality also occurs in nature with many animals exhibiting homosexual behavior.

In regards to allowing two people of the same sex to marry somehow undermining the concept of marriage, I must admit I have never fully understood the argument. I personally do not see how allowing two people in a committed relationship to marry could undermine the ‘sanctity’ of marriage. Wouldn’t divorce be the biggest threat to this, in particular the Divorce due to ‘irreconcilable differences’. Would celebrities divorcing 72 days after the ceremony by a larger threat?

The last ‘reason’ being thrown around I think may be, or at least I hope would be a joke. Birth rates dropping due to gay marriage is absolutely preposterous. If anyone in your vicinity suggests this as a reason to oppress a group of citizens every level headed person should immediately, and publicly, call them out on the utter absurdity of the statement.

I didn’t have to think very hard or for very long to find major problems with the arguments not having to do with God.

I submit that unless you believe in the existence of a deity that opposes the union of members of the same sex then you have no argument at all.

Which brings me back to Julia Gillard and the assumptions I made.

I do not believe that Julia Gillard is lying about her atheism, or lack of religiosity. It has been shown time and time again that if one doesn’t feel the need to announce themselves an unbeliever than it would be best to not say anything at all.

What I am suggesting is that by hiding behind a weak argument and not being a champion of marriage equality she is being not only dishonest with the Australian public, but also is demonstrating that she is willing to compromise her morals or beliefs to ensure the all-to-powerful religious right do not see the need to have her ‘removed’ but siding with the coalition (if they haven’t already).

Gillard isn’t our first atheist leader, mind you, so some blame could be put on her predecessors but the key difference between, for example, Gough Whitlam, is that the social climate is right for such a change. Not enough people are passionately pro-marriage equality but the vast majority of the population are indifferent. The time was right for the ALP to make history and move to change a law that promotes discrimination only to be halted by a major and unlikely obstacle.

An atheist leader that has on ‘objection’ to equality based on… nothing.

Perhaps having an atheist PM hasn’t been the breath of fresh air I had hoped for. Knowing she doesn’t believe in the ludicrous rules and demands of a God who, very most likely, almost certainly, does not exist yet upholds the bigotry has caused my head to hurt in parts I didn’t know were working.

- db