马克 拉山姆 : 同性婚姻合法将如潘多拉的盒子,给社会带来更多问题 - Mark Latham: Same-Sex Yes Vote will Open a Can of Worms

大家可能都在预期,等到11月15日澳大利亚同性婚姻立法民意公投结果公布后,澳大利亚政界对这个问题的争论将得到永久的解决方案。

民调显示,支持同婚立法的声音可能会扫除一切障碍,最终达到修改《婚姻法》的目的。
但是,这场持久的辩论中,也许还有更多曲折与转机。

There is a widely held expectation in Australian politics that once the result of the same-sex marriage postal vote is announced on November 15, the matter will be resolved, once and for all. According to opinion polls, a Yes vote looks likely, clearing the way for amendments to the Marriage Act. But perhaps there’s one more twist in this long-running, vexed issue. I hate to say it, but it might run for a good while yet.

原文 Source:http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/mark-latham-samesex-yes-vote-will-open-a-can-of-worms/news-story/248eb22253826ed116f51eb08c353a48

到目前为止,我们都听到澳大利亚数据局的广告,鼓励大家都出来为以下议题投票:“澳大利亚婚姻法是否应该修改,使同性伴侣可以结婚?”

如果投票顺利进行,投票者将理所当然地认为,《婚姻法》会被修改,使得同性关系纳入婚姻范畴。

目前对婚姻的定位为“一男一女的结合”。被修改后的婚姻相关立法将顺理成章地将婚姻解读为:

“婚姻是以下的结合:

a)一男一女;或者

b) 两个男人;或者

C)两个女人。”

然而,这并不是议院原有的提案。

By now, we have all heard the Australian Bureau of Statistics advertisements, encouraging people to vote on “whether Australian marriage laws should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry”.

If the proposition is carried, the average voter would expect extra clauses to be added to the Marriage Act, widening the scope of wedlock to include homosexuality.

Marriage is currently defined as “between a man and a woman”.

One would logically expect the new legislation to read:

“Marriage is a union between:

a) A man and a woman; or

b) Two gay men; or

c) Two lesbian women.”

But this is not what our parliamentarians have been proposing.

 Bill_Shorten.jpg

反对党首领 比尔 薛顿 致力于将婚姻定义为“两个人的结合”。Opposition leader Bill Shorten sought to define marriage as ‘a union between two people’

2015年,当比尔 薛顿将他当内成员的《婚姻法修改法案》(《婚权平等》)提案递交议院时,该法案的目的是“允许澳大利亚人获得结婚的权利,不论论他们的性别、性倾向、性别认同或者双性人的特征。”

他希望婚姻定义为“两个人的结合” -- 意思是:所有的澳大利亚成人都有权结婚,不论他们是异性恋者、同性恋者、或者其他性别或性倾向者。在自由党内,当有党员提议修改《婚姻法》时,他们也跟比尔 薛顿有类似的提议。

When Bill Shorten introduced his private members’ Marriage Amendment (Marriage Equality) Bill in 2015, its purpose was to “allow Australians to marry regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.”

He sought to define marriage as “a union between two people” — meaning that all Australian adults were eligible: heterosexuals, homosexuals and people of any other gender or sexuality. In the Liberal party-room, whenever private members’ bills have been proposed to amend the Marriage Act, they too have followed the Shorten formula.

那就是,婚姻是两个人的结合,不论这两个人的性别和性倾向如何。

这跟现有的情况产生了明显的矛盾。现在的邮政投票所问的是“同性伴侣”的问题。

邮政投票所提问的这个问题,却忽略了其他的可能性 -- 多种性倾向的问题、性别认同问题,双性向倾向,这些都是工党和自由党议员提案中所涉及到的问题。

That is, marriage as a union between any two people of any gender or sexuality. This raises an immediate contradiction. The current postal vote is asking about “same-sex couples”. But where is the question covering other possibilities — the various sexual orientations, gender identities and intersex statuses allowed for in both the Labor and Liberal private members’ bills? This is no small matter.

在自由党内,每当有议员提出修改《婚姻法》时,他们都是遵循比尔 薛顿的方案 -- 婚姻是人和两个人的结合,不论他们的性别或者性倾向。

左翼活动家宣称,现在已经识别了多达250种性别和性倾向。包括有名的LGBTI群体中的各个种类 -- 女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、转性别、双性人 -- 外加一系列相关术语。

显然,现在对于形形色色的性别种类也是可以纳入讨论和立法范畴了,譬如:性别酷儿、介于有性和无性之间的性向、双灵人、无性人、泛性人、多元多重关系、性别流动性、女性论、性别二元化、gynephilic,SAAB,MSM/WSW,超性恋(只会对性别模糊群体吸引的人),无性别,两性人,对双性都感兴趣的人、顺性人、无性恋,被冷落后互相建立的性关系,女变男和男变女。最后两个是《星球大战》的特色角色。

In the Liberal Party whenever private members’ bills have been proposed to amend the Marriage Act, they too have followed the Shorten formula — marriage as a union between any two people of any gender or sexuality.

Left wing activists claim to have identified up to 250 gender and sexual categories. These include the well-known LGBTI designations — lesbian, gay, ­bisexual, transgender and intersex — plus a bewildering array of other ­terminology. Apparently it is now possible to be genderqueer, demisexual, twospirit, asexual, pansexual, polyamorous, fluid, femme, gender-binary, gynephilic, SAAB, MSM/WSW, skoliosexual, agender, androsexual, bicurious, cisgender, demiromantic, down low, FtM/F2M and MtF/M2F. I swear those last two featured in one of the Star Wars movies.

我支持同性婚姻,希望在公投中投“赞成”票。然而,显然工党和自由党对于婚姻的定义有更广阔的想法。

他们的计划里,婚姻将不会受限于异性恋或者同性恋,而是将以上列举的多种类别都纳入婚姻范畴--- 对我而言,其中大部分类别我都闻所未闻。对于多元成家、超性恋成家、双灵人婚姻立法将是什么意思?

为什么邮政投票中的问题只提了关于同性关系(LGB中的一部分而已),而对左翼提出的其他247种关系闭口不谈?

I’m a supporter of same-sex marriage and would like to vote Yes in a plebiscite. But clearly Labor and Liberals have in mind a far broader definition of marriage. It won’t be restricted to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

It will include the multitude of categories listed above — most of which I’ve got no idea what they are talking about. I mean, what does the legalisation of polyamorous, skoliosexual and twospirit marriage involve? Why is the postal vote question asking about same-sex (the LGB component) but not the other 247 types of marriage being promoted by the left?

 mock_wedding.jpg

在维多利亚州立图书馆,婚权平等游行的结尾部分,有人在模仿婚礼中亲吻。A couple kiss at the conclusion of a mock wedding at the State Library of Victoria during a Rally For Marriage Equality. 

为什么政府不将其计划中的《婚姻法修正案》公诸于世,是我们清楚地明白,如果此次公投中投下“赞同”票,所将带来的实际变化?

另一个问题是左翼在这次使命中的策略:用这场辩论来不断扩大对婚姻的定义。十五年前,左翼提倡“男同性恋婚姻”,逐步转换为“同性婚姻”,最终演变为“婚权平等”。大部分人以为这只是一场用语义转换来进行的市场营销策略。

And why won’t the government release the amended Marriage Act it has in mind so we can understand what a YES vote will mean in practice? A big part of the problem has been the left’s strategy of mission creep: using this debate to constantly broaden the definition of marriage.

Fifteen years ago, they advocated “gay marriage”. Then the mantra became “same-sex marriage” and finally, “marriage equality”. Most of us thought this was a marketing ploy, an exercise in semantics.

然而其中有严肃的用意。婚权平等的范畴不仅仅针对同性伴侣,而是重新定义婚姻,将其他的247种“性别”概念也纳入婚姻范畴。我对大家的忠告是:如果你还不明白这个提议,不要投票支持。我不会投支持票。

我也担心有一天,“婚姻是两个人的结合”立法成功,也将同时引出性别流动性概念。

But it actually had a serious intent. Marriage equality is not just for gay couples. It involves a sweeping redefinition of marriage, extending to the other 247 gender/sexual categories.

My advice to people would be: if you don’t understand the proposal, don’t vote for it. I won’t be.

I’m also worried about the way in which marriage between any “two people” legitimises the notion of gender fluidity.

Newtown_wall.jpg

在牛顿Newtown街区,一面墙被刷成彩虹色,并标注“投赞成票”。A wall painted with the rainbow flag and a message "Vote Yes" at Newtown.

透过“安全学校和尊重关系”等近马克思主义项目,一些激进的理论已经入侵我们的教学系统。

这些项目努力说服年轻人来探索性别流动性的可能性:意即男孩可以随时变成女孩,女孩可以随时变成男孩。

在柏林大墙倒塌前克思主义者试图在经济系统里制造政治恐慌和反叛。如今,他们在努力操纵学龄孩子的自我身份辨别和情感,试图说服孩子们,世界上没有什么是一层不变的,如生物科学,也是可以更改的。他们试图说服澳大利亚的年轻人去相信,“资本主义霸权”住在压迫他们的真正的社会性别和性倾向 -- 这可以激发新的社会动荡。不论付出怎样的代价,我们要竭力制止这种宣传。

 Through neo-Marxist programs like Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships, radicals have infiltrated our education system. They are trying to convince young people of the possibilities of gender fluidity: that at any time, boys can be girls and girls can be boys.

Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, Marxists tried to create political anxiety and rebellion through the economic system. Now they are trying to manipulate the identity and feelings of school students, to convince them nothing is fixed in this world, such as biological science.

They want young Australians to believe that “capitalist hegemony” is suppressing their true gender and sexuality — a new source of social unrest. We must resist this propaganda at any cost.

既然大部分家长都说,他们不希望“安全学校”这类激进额性别酷儿理论入侵学校课程,那么为什么我们需要把这些理论引入《婚姻法》?

婚权平等成为了披着羊皮的狼。

这对11月15号之后的议院,意味着什么?

如果公众选择投“赞成票”,那么联盟党内的保守派议员们,必须有权利限制其他关系进入婚姻范畴。

那就意味着,同性关系纳入婚姻范畴,不可再增加其他内容。

然而,邮政公投并未提及其他的247类性向问题。

如果公众对于异性恋之外的同性恋问题都还没有达成一致,议院将如何有权将婚姻范畴定义为“任何两个人”的关系?

随着同性婚姻立法,麦肯 腾博的政治噩梦将接踵而来,永无止境。

With a majority of parents saying they don’t want radical queer theory in the school curriculum via Safe Schools, why would we want it in the Marriage Act?

Marriage equality has become a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

What does this mean for Parliament post-November 15?

If the public votes Yes, conservative MPs in the Coalition party room will be entitled to limit the scope of any new marriage statute to the mandate of the people.

This means writing into law a specific provision for marriage between same-sex couples.

But no more than that.

The postal vote process has made no mention of the other 247 categories.

If the public hasn’t approved marriage beyond heterosexual and homosexual couples, how can the Parliament proceed with a broad, “two people” definition?

Malcolm Turnbull’s political nightmare with gay marriage is a long way from ending.