NAMA WINSTON: “I’m divorced so please stop talking about the ‘sanctity’ of marriage as a reason to vote no.”

Video via Get Up

Same-Sex Marriage opponents argue that the ‘sanctity of marriage’ – a term which originally described the Christian Bible-related holiness of marriage between a man and a woman – will be destroyed if The Gays are allowed to get married. But I have some disappointing news for them: it’s already ruined.

Because I already ruined it.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, (ok it was about a decade ago) I got married. I had a diamond ring, and a new surname, and called myself Mrs. So there was a time when I held marriage sacred.

MORE FROM MAMAMIA

But never in the traditional religious sense. God had nothing to do with our union. I didn’t get married anywhere remotely near a Church, which is hard to achieve in the freaking City of Churches. I got married at a winery. Where they make lots and lots of wine. Because wine is what I hold sacred.

And even worse – I married a man who had already been married – twice. If you’re good at maths like I am, you’ll realise that meant I was the THIRD WIFE.

Gasp.

But even before we were married, we’d already ruined its potential sanctity. You may be shocked at this, but…we had sex before our wedding night. With each other.

Advertisement

This pre-marital carnal knowledge happened in the name of good times and strictly was not for procreation purposes – in direct violation of sanctity of marriage principles.

And, when it later came time to make our contribution to re-populating the planet as is every heterosexual couple’s absolute obligation, I once again failed. Our son was not conceived as part of our holy union – he was made during a threesome involving me, my husband, and our fertility specialist doctor. There was nothing natural or divine about it. It was about as far from an immaculate conception as you can get, because science vs fiction.

nama winston

Nama and her son. Image via Facebook.

In my defence, I’m not the only one to blame. Heterosexuals in general can be held responsible for the decidedly un-sanctimonious state of marriage (since they have been the only ones actually allowed to marry). But also, these factors have made a significant contribution to the decay of the family unit and the fabric of society:

  • The Kardashians (whom I don’t really object to, but let’s face it, marriage has been a bit of a rollercoaster in their family).
  • The Ashley Maddison website for “Married dating and discreet encounters”.
  • Feminism (JOKING!! Was just testing to see if you were still reading.)
  • Kids (Kind of joking. Having kids has nothing to do with ruining the sacredness of a marriage – but let’s be honest, kids ruin pretty much everything else so they deserve a mention on this list.)
  • Quality television such as Pimp My Bride, My Gypsy Wedding, and Engaged and Underaged.

Ever since my emancipation/divorce, I’ve been more determined than ever to give the finger to the sacred institution. I’m living proof that it is absolutely possible for a single adult to successfully raise a child without married parents of different genders in the home. (I could even say I’m doing a better job of being a mother now than when I was married, but we all know that’s not true – I’ve always been amazing.)

And I can guarantee you one thing: I value and hold sacred my divorced status considerably more than my married one. I wouldn’t give up being divorced for a billion bucks.

I wouldn’t re-marry for a billion bucks. And I know most divorced people would feel the same way. (Note: I am willing to test out this claim if Ryan Reynolds, down on one knee, would like to present a cheque to me for that exact amount.)

We have a very clear (and passionate) message to Malcolm Turnbull abou the plebiscite. (Post continues after audio.)

So there you have it. Marriage was definitely already shot to sh*t before our nation’s overlords decided to revive Australia Post by holding a plebiscite asking if The Gays are real people. Meaning there’s really no point in SSM opponents using the archaic notion to argue against marriage equality.

My sneaking suspicion is that those people do know all of this deep down inside. What they are really concerned about is that gay marriage will revolutionise marriage – and expose it for the inherently gender-roles-based institution that it is (just look at all the child-rearing, bread-winning and home-making debates we have).

But look, I’m not here to marriage-bash. I know it represents a special union between two people; that’s what all of this is all about, right? The legal recognition of that. I know that billions of people around the world still want to, and do, get married. I used to feel the same way (and potentially could again if Ryan Reynolds ever calls my bluff).

All I’m saying is that the sanctity of marriage is no excuse to argue against marriage equality. Because the Sanctity Ship has already sailed, my friends, and it was captained by heteros like me.

So let’s vote YES at the upcoming plebiscite. For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, til death do us part – why should non-heterosexuals get to be less legally bound to each other? That’s essentially what the current situation means. And don’t all people deserve the right to live happily – or unhappily - ever after? More importantly, don’t they deserve the right to choose?

To use a phrase that’s so often being uttered by SSM opponents, won’t somebody think of the children? Except this time, I literally mean it. We need to think of our future generations and what legal recognition of the unions of all sexualities would mean to them: basic respect.

Because Love is Love. So save the sanctimony, and #VoteYes.

To help out the 'YES' campaign, click here.

If you loved this article by Nama Winston, we have plenty more from her: 

Nama Winston is a writer and a recovering solicitor, who just wants us all to be nicer to each other. You can follow her own Facebook, here.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

More articles