The other morning I stuck up a
rainbow flag poster in my window which said ‘chose love’, but I hesitated in
case this message offended my neighbours. What I have written here is my
reaction to that feeling, which I have chosen to share.
I’m living through my second national debate about marriage
equality. Australia is currently having a plebiscite, the UK having had their
debate many years ago. I often resist the temptation to publish about politics
– I have drafted many unpublished pieces since moving to Australia. However, I
decided not to stay silent on marriage quality – because we are not talking about
politics – we’re talking about something much more profound – more profound
even than human rights….
Arthur C Clarke wrote that ‘the
greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality
by religion’.
The most well-organised campaigns against marriage equality
in the UK, Ireland and currently
Australia are from people who identify as religious, or people who get
voted into power by the former. However, in my lifetime, it appears that in
England, Ireland and Australia - the 'moral authority' has begun to
disintegrate of people and organisations of people who describe themselves as ‘religious’.
Census
results indicate the growing majority of people who don't identify as
'religious' is accelerating. Is this new reality reflected in political power? For
example, a party which describes itself as religious is by far the
largest in the European Parliament.
And I use this word power deliberately. As people and
organisations of people who label themselves as religious lose 'moral
authority' what are they left with?
They are left with something we all have - a personal
perspective, utterly subjective, to be considered and balanced with everyone
else's perspective – against the objective ideal of human rights and our place
within the eco-systems that represent all life.
What we are then left with is people who identify as religious,
people who don’t and people who are not described by either of those
binaries - all of whom, have
perspectives which, if we chose to, we can consider and balance with everyone
else's.
Equally, with equality.
No longer are we seeking permission from those in power,
masking it behind religion or morality - for we are not even asking for their
permission in the first place - because we don't have to.
I have literally
never asked any one of my elected representatives who they think I should love
and marry – would you, honestly, even entertain the idea? It is preposterous.
Elected
representatives are public servants, paid to serve us, asked to help us make
informed decisions and then required to reflect our democratic decisions – all
together – transparently and accountable.
At no stage did we, the people, ask
them (our representatives) to tell us the answer. If you allow people with control
of law, finances or information to encroach into this territory of considering
themselves to have more ‘moral authority’ than you, then watch them – and call them
out on it. For when you label it, it disintegrates under the weight of it’s own
self-evident absurdity.
My perspective, for what it’s worth, is that no one should
be allowed to impose their views on others - especially not when it affects
human rights.
So who has ‘moral authority’? Everyone. We all do. All views
should be balanced, all decisions weighed.
So what is the best way we have, as a species, of doing that
at the moment? It's evidence-based decision making. This is asking collectively, 'what do we know?' (science means knowledge), asking 'what don't we know' and 'what do we need to know' - all while acknowledging what can we never know.
This is the start of evidence-based decision making. When ‘evidence’ includes data
from as many sources as possible – especially ‘qualitative’ research - the
'subjective' (the 'what I feel' – the sense of the qualities something has -
opposed to the 'what I'm told’) – then it can be balanced with other kinds of
data. This method of constantly asking questions is constantly evolving, and is currently called 'the scientific method'.
I live in a country where, after recent popular votes, it
feels like the plebiscite for ‘marriage equality’ could go either way. What terrifies me most is that some people still feel that legitimate political debate consists
of people, who were never invited to do so, telling others what to 'feel' and
what to do and who it is OK to love.
Naturally, there have been, are and will be many points in
spacetime, where the ‘moral authority’ of the powerful is supreme, whatever
label they chose to apply to it. The struggle to overcome that with the rule of
law, accountability and evidence-based decision making is an ongoing one in
many parts of this planet. Those who feel they are struggling in
the other direction, must therefore believe that their personal inner conviction is supreme
to others – or perhaps merely use other people’s belief in that to impose their own
personal power.
But don’t we all want the same? Love, peace, happiness?
There are many ways up a mountain, each of us should be
able to make an informed decision to chose our own path, that is what we sometimes
call ‘freedom’.
When I put my poster up in a quiet neighborhood, it took no courage compared to the acts of people in previous movements for human rights, but I did hear that quiet defiant scream of freedom. I want everyone to have the chance to feel that scream of freedom from deep history – the deep sense of universal human rights - from the rule of law, to universal suffrage, from the anti-apartied movement through
to marriage equality.
We must feel this and act on it, for what lies ahead is much more important - what lies beyond – is our very balance with
the ecosystems in which we all live and upon which we (and all life after us) all depends. There is no 'moral authority' required in these decisions, what we need is evidence-based decision making to prevent the unconscious destruction of life on earth.
Vote with conscience Australia -
I hope you show the world you are ready to move forward in hope and love.
Thank you for reading this.
I’m now preparing my next piece for the 2040 vote on ‘equality
for trees and all life on earth’.
If you still look down on people who merely hug trees, just wait
until the equality laws reach the forest.
