A lot of people, particularly some vocal ones in Melbourne, would like me to overlook the fact that the first team qualified for the NRL grand final plays out of Victoria’s most ‘proud’ suburb, boasts one of Australia’s most openly ‘eccentric’ supporters – Molly Meldrum – and even dresses in bright purple.
Depending on who wins between the Roosters and Cowboys, the premiership could be decided between teams representing the two most ‘cosmopolitan’ demographics involved in the national competition.
But no, let’s not be drawn into topical politics. It will only distract from the game we love, so we’re told. There’s no symbolism here. Please look the other way and elect to take a safer option.
Instead, let’s talk about Jordan Kahu taking a kamikaze dive at Billy Slater’s legs, or Adam Blair stacking on cheap shot after cheap shot when Brisbane couldn’t possibly win – all good, clean fun.
Apparently that game-focused analysis will only increase the likeability of our game’s stars and keep the kids coming back. I’m sure that’s what the metrics show.
No need to draw divisive tangents about what is happening in wider society at the moment.
I expect like many other Australians I watched the Storm-Broncos game with a certain envelope sitting on my coffee table.
After a busy week of work and other commitments, it was the first chance I had to open it. In fact, my wife waited until I arrived home so we could open it together – a rare shared ritual in our busy lives.
She has a close relative who could not enjoy equal rights if they lived in Australia. I have an elderly relative who has lived almost his entire life lying about who he really is. We have work colleagues, friends and clients who will be affected by what we did with the envelope.
In our household there were two special things we wanted to do together last night – make our voices heard in one of the more defining moments of our generation, and then watch the Broncos win against the odds.
At least one of those happened. But, you know, let’s not talk about it. The subjects must remain mutually exclusive, apparently.
Let’s instead talk about how my wife and I watched the game after I finished an interview with Queensland Firebirds champion Laura Clemesha, who has been facing clear anguish about the outcome of… oh, never mind.
Or how I drove home from working at the University of Queensland, where our social media feedback has been dominated by… erm, you know, just some stuff.
We may have even had half a dozen police called out to campus this week to observe a heated protest between two sides of this particular issue.
But yeah, how about we just stick to footy, hey?
Like how when I first watched Billy Slater play State League in 2002 he reminded me of that skin-and-bones kid that all footy teams have – no matter the code – who plays without fear.
They’re often the guys you need when the chips are down, who’ll come to the rescue when everyone else is down on their haunches and inspire the whole squad by playing above their weight.
We had a kid just like that in my footy team when I was growing up – Ben*.
He was a year younger than all of us and would be lucky to weigh more than his jersey when it was wringing wet. For at least four years he was regularly playing two age groups, travelling across town and filling in for us as we struggled for numbers on some hot, dusty Queensland afternoons.
Ben never gave up and was always among the best on ground despite his comparative size and age. I was always surprised when it eventuated that he never played senior football.
In fact, he pretty much disappeared, even though his brothers continued on. I’m sure (or, at least, hoping) from the theme of this article, you’ve guessed the reason behind that.
Let’s just say Ben was courageous in a lot of different ways.
He doesn’t have a profile like Ian Roberts or Gareth Thomas, but he’s one of those real people in all of our lives who will be affected by what’s currently on the nation’s agenda.
When I mail my envelope back on Monday I’ll be thinking about all those footy values people say we should concentrate on – mateship, loyalty, looking out for each other, never forgetting the sacrifices made in the hallowed club colours, or ever thinking you were better than anyone else.
Most of all I’ll be respecting what it means to have heart. I’m pretty sure we’re allowed to mention that.
*Ben is not his real name.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
marriage is a civil act, not a religious one. Hence the Marriage Act. Last I looked we are a secular country. If the biological family is your weak argument then ban people from marrying who cannot have children, choose not to have children or are too old to have children Marriage pre-dates christianity by thousands of years (the Sumerian's had marriages) and no religion has ownership of marriage. If they did then arranged marriages would be legal. If you are so protective of the term of marriage then go protest that channel 9 show, you will be doing society a favour You lose nothing if SSM becomes legal. Some people will just be raised a level closer to equality, but nobody loses anything
Joel
Guest
Robert, the act of Marriage is a christian religious process, it is actually a religious process in many old cultures, and most or all of those cultures do or have not included same sex in this process. You say you don't believe in god which I am guessing you are stating that you don't believe in religion or have religious beliefs, though what you might not understand is that being part of a community with organized laws pertaining to common beliefs is in itself a religious act. You have being living under the protection of christian law all your life. The government was created to organise and maintain democracy. The government heads of state are not the law makers, and they should not just decide to change the law, the law is created by and needs to be in accordance with the people. We are not a communist state and we need to protect the principles of democracy.
Joel
Guest
Yes ... It has nothing to do with Bruce from Cairns meeting Rodney from Wollongong and deciding “hey this person’s really nice, we have shared interests and want to form a life together”. Don't make it out to be a vote on this ability, because it is not. They can share a life together. And civil unions will strengthen this commitment, and have pride of place in the community.
Joel
Guest
Robert, the difference being the family which lgbt peoples are part of and always will be part of. Don't be offended for peoples to draw the line here, because same sex relationships can not share a biological family. It is different and thus should be treated as different. You have been supporting the ability to change and grow with diversity. Here is a prime example to apply that. Why can you not accept this?
Joel
Guest
lol Bonza, did you actually read the article?
Joel
Guest
Oingo, being Gay is not left, supporting Gay people is not left, if anything it might come under the banner of being Liberal or non conservative. Marriage is for a man and woman to bind commitment to raise a family and lgbt people are already part of and will always be part of these families. The commitment to raise good families is a lot of hard work and should not be taken lightly, and the lgbt people need to respect this and the views of the people who wish to protect this. Though when you can get married at a drive through in Las Vegas? I have been torn about this subject for the last month as respect to the lgbt peoples and the need for acceptance across the wider community, but the state can not and should not determine this outcome, and the lgbt people need to engage the church as this is what and who they should be petitioning for this practice. Did the girls with the banner saying burn churches not queers actually understand if the fight for the ability to get married, they are actually supporting the church and wanting to be accepted by the church?? Maybe it should be at least tested in these modern converging communities. The history in non acceptance to gay practice from the church was actually to protect children as it was common practice in more ancient communities for males to keep same gendered concubine of younger age. This practice was stopped through religous law and the practice of same sex engagement was rejected. Religious laws or practices were created to be universal and abstain from personal differences the particular ruler of the day.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
It's hard to accept a reasoned aargument when you haven't made one. Your entire premise is that you are against SSM, but have not given a coherent reason why
Robert Burgin
Expert
Where did I mention a church service? You've pretty much rebutted every argument I've put to you with "you've failed to counter the argument". Such an enlightening stance. For what it's worth, but which you'll no doubt have a blunt "you're incorrect, you failed to counter me" response, all the variations of relationship you've been trying to draw a long bow to above - polygamy, incest, pedophilia - all contain an element of power imbalance. All of those situations create scenarios where one partner has inordinately more control or influence over the relationship than the other. Society has chosen to outlaw them because it can lead to grooming, people being taken advantage of or people being forced into relationships. It's effectively the same reason why a psychologist or doctor can be deregistered for forming a relationship with a patient, it's why professors at university get sacked if they admit to a relationship with their PhD students, it's why many people who work together cannot fraternise within the rules of their company. It has nothing to do with Bruce from Cairns meeting Rodney from Wollongong and deciding "hey this person's really nice, we have shared interests and want to form a life together". There is no power imbalance in that scenario. Over to you, sir.
RT
Guest
Polygamy is legal in 58 countries. Should that be legal as well? You have completely failed to counter the argument. As for your marriage that's your issue but again it paints you as a hypocrite. You don't believe in god why did you even want a church service? Talk about shooting you self in the foot. You can't accept a reasoned argument because it doesn't fit your agenda. Try harder.
Mondo
Guest
Thanks for the article, Robert. I remember having an epiphany on the way to my own wedding. It dawned on me that I was about to marry the love of my life, something that wasn’t an option for my best man. It seemed so absurd to me.
Robert Burgin
Expert
And yet so many people above grasped it. I'll type slowly for you next time.
Robert Burgin
Expert
If you can't see the counter argument in this, and argue with statements like "My view. It's correct" then I'm probably wasting my time trying to have a reasoned debate with you. You are saying we need laws to create order in society, but are ignoring that many laws have been created which we've later decided weren't such great ideas. I was allowed to get legally married to my wife, but do not believe in any sort of god at all. People of other faiths have legally binding marriages. It's not a term that one section of society has control over, just because they have a shared coping mechanism of a certain religion. But yet you still feel you should be able to tell other people whether they can enjoy those same legal entitlements.
RT
Guest
No counter argument? But but but love is love right? If that's the case why can't any two or three consenting adults marry? Or are you just a hypocrite? Comparing the SSM debate to racism is a massive insult. What do you think MLK might say about it? Before you call me a bigot allow me to confirm I'm more than happy with civil unions and gay couples having recognition under the law just not marriage. My view. It's correct. You've completely failed to counter it with anything other than ad hominem attacks or the usual lefty sneering, roll the eyes "he just doesn't get it", argument. Try harder. As for Alan, typical sad jealous little man. I never disappeared, I've been posting regularly. You go back to sleep now precious.
Alan
Guest
LOL, the "retired at 40" lawyer reappears...Sorry chum but I suspect your missus bats the other way too.
Alan
Guest
Brhahaha...lol
MickyC
Guest
What a confusing, inarticulate article about who knows what.
Robert Burgin
Expert
Remember when inter-racial marriage was banned? When women couldn't vote? Yeah I say bring back more "limitation of rights". Gee, those were the days. You wrote this all with a straight face yeah?
Robert Burgin
Expert
Seeing as you asked so nicely...
Oingo Boingo
Guest
Here here !
RT
Guest
You are so right "love is love"! Of course only if it's limited to a question relating to SMM. If it was brother sister, brother brother, mother daughter/son, daddy daughter/son, 1st cousins or 4-5 consenting adults that'd be different but of course that's not the question we're being asked is it. Thanks for your massively flawed argument. BTW we have, since the beginning of democracy voted to limit rights. It's sooo part of everything. We've stopped people drinking, drinking at certain times, voting (criminals can't vote), marrying, marrying more than one person, voting till a certain age (mate I could go on forever but I digress). This is a sports website take your views to the echo chamber that is the drum.