Don't get angry at Married at First Sight. It's got nothing to do with marriage equality
|
Version 0 of 1. Much gnashing of equality-sharpened teeth has been occurring since Channel Nine revealed they would soon be screening a domestic version of the international reality program, Married At First Sight. The battle cry for those that oppose it is a well-worn one: “How can this be legal when marriage equality isn’t?” Perhaps instead of being offended by entertainment that undermines the institute of marriage, it’s time to admit that the sacred cow was carved up long ago. So why are some LGBT so desperate to worship it? In case the obtuse poetry of the title was somehow lost on you, the format of Married At First Sight is simple: contestants looking for love begin the process of finding “the one” at romance’s traditional endgame, the wedding. Complete strangers are thrown together down the aisle and presumably scramble to find redeeming qualities in their new spouse as they honeymoon together, meet (join?) each other’s family, and live together. All very gauche, and should come as no surprise to anyone who’s been observing the way love (and thus marriage) has been co-opted by television executives to generate ratings for some time. Before farmers wanted wives and bachelors had roses to distribute, lonely Australians were happy to defer to a dividing wall and Dexter the love robot in their search for love. All of these examples treat marriage as the prize beyond the grand prize though, an assumed result of finding love. Beyond these workaday examples of television trivialising love, Married At First Sight has struck a chord with marriage equality advocates. Perhaps because it deliberately suggests that marriage (originally created to offload useless daughters and validate rape as an act of war) is somehow not the sacred institution built upon the celebration of love we want it to be. Could it be such crass television offerings have finally exposed the ugly truth that marriage is a deeply problematic institution resulting in the continued oppression of women? Not likely. The discussion of marriage in contemporary Australia has naught to do with that pesky issue of feminist empowerment (sorry, ladies). Marriage-as-political-agenda is firmly the domain of the gays and lesbians (and when the movement remembers, includes trans* and intersex people unless it’s convenient to remove them to force through legislation, as was the unforgiveable case in the ACT). For those fighting for marriage equality, both LGBT and their allies, Married at First Sight is perceived as another slap in the face. It’s a movement that’s copped its fair share of slaps, too: John Howard went out of his way in 2004 to redefine the Marriage Act to exclude non-heterosexual couplings; Julia Gillard seemed pre-occupied with her feminist politics, too busy delivering historical speeches about misogyny to come around to the idea that gays should be able get married; and current prime minister Tony Abbott would presumably let Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull marry and “House of Cards” his government before letting two men walk down the aisle. In launching Married at First Sight this week, Channel Nine has reminded marriage equality advocates of the sting of those many slaps, all the more painful as they prepare for what could be another big one. Much investment has been made in the introduction of the freedom to marry bill by Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm, which stalled again yesterday as the Liberal party avoided the topic before breaking for six weeks. Such is the desperation of the marriage equality movement that it’s prepared to make an uneasy ally in Leyonhjelm, a politician with an agenda to undo Australia’s world-leading gun law reform, with, in my view, a somewhat chequered past regarding both casual and overt homophobia (however inadvertent or ham-fisted). Is this the path we’re to walk towards marriage equality? Throwing in with a libertarian gun advocate one day and crying outrage at the programming decisions of Channel Nine the next? If those passionate about marriage equality wish to achieve their ends, they might wish to reassess their means. The issue with making such noise about Married at First Sight is that eventually your argument begins to lose impact. The majority of Australians have come around to believing in, or at least not opposing, marriage equality. What this has created is a feeling that it’s inevitably going to happen. When marriage equality’s supporters use any and every perceived slight to draw attention the movement, they risk the issue becoming white noise. One need only look to the unforgivable apathy we display towards asylum seekers to realise how quickly we switch off from an issue. If Married at First Sight is meant to be offensive to those of us who cannot marry, imagine what people on Manus Island think of us watching Big Brother. |