NRL’s stance on mar­riage not in­clu­sive

The Courier-Mail - - LETTERS -

I AM an all-in­clu­sive kind of bloke. I love and re­spect peo­ple from all races and creeds, re­gard­less of sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion, po­lit­i­cal per­sua­sion or which way they have voted or in­tend to vote in the same-sex mar­riage sur­vey.

This brings me to the NRL, which also claims to be all-in­clu­sive. How can it claim to be all-in­clu­sive if it shows no re­spect for up to 50 per cent of the sport’s fol­low­ers by ac­tively sup­port­ing one side of a po­lit­i­cal ar­gu­ment?

The NRL’s de­ci­sion to hire an en­ter­tainer to pro­mote the “Yes” cam­paign in the same­sex mar­riage postal sur­vey dur­ing the game’s grand fi­nal ( C-M, Sep 29) is an act of hypocrisy which can only serve to in­flame the de­bate.

The de­ci­sion to use our game’s show­case event of the year to push a po­lit­i­cal agenda is shame­ful and should be over­turned. Let’s get on with the game. Go Cow­boys! FOR those who can’t un­der­stand other peo­ple’s ob­jec­tion to Mack­le­more head­lin­ing the pre-game en­ter­tain­ment at the NRL grand fi­nal, surely they miss the most im­por­tant point.

For ex­am­ple, if his sig­na­ture song was heav­ily in favour of re­tain­ing the “sta­tus quo” in re­la­tion to mar­riage equal­ity, his ap­pear­ance would still be open to rea­son­able crit­i­cism.

Let’s look at the sit­u­a­tion dis­pas­sion­ately. In re­cent times, the NRL has pro­moted wor­thy causes such as bet­ter sup­port for peo­ple deal­ing with men­tal health is­sues and greater aware­ness of do­mes­tic vi­o­lence. Surely there are songs that in­clude those themes in their lyrics.

Why not also pro­mote th­ese “noble causes” on what is, after all, rugby league’s big­gest stage?

Who within the NRL be­came the “moral guardian” as to which is­sue would be pro­moted over an­other? As a stake­holder in our great game – which is sim­ply ad­min­is­tered by the NRL – I cer­tainly wasn’t con­sulted.

So, in fu­ture, can the NRL, AFL, even the peo­ple who or­gan­ise the un­der-8s mar­ble cham­pi­onship, sim­ply get on with their “core busi­ness”? THE NRL de­ci­sion to use an over­seas rap singer to push for a “Yes” vote on same-sex mar­riage, as part of the grand fi­nal, is a dis­grace.

It will en­sure most peo­ple will not watch it or will leave the TV on mute.

Shame on CEO Todd Green­berg and the NRL. THE AFL rightly has been forced to re­move the “Yes” sign from the front of their head­quar­ters.

All other sport­ing groups, busi­nesses and the like must fol­low with the re­moval or re­trac­tion of sup­port for same­sex mar­riage.

As same-sex mar­riage is a per­sonal is­sue, sport­ing groups, busi­nesses and the like can­not be rep­re­sen­ta­tive of all per­sons en­gaged with such out­fits.

Even politi­cians should not be telling us how they will vote or be sug­gest­ing which way peo­ple should vote on this is­sue.

This far­ci­cal dilemma could have been avoided by the Gov­ern­ment ask­ing the pub­lic to wait un­til the next fed­eral elec­tion and adding the plebiscite ques­tion to that bal­lot, thereby sav­ing $122 mil­lion. I FIND it quite pre­sump­tu­ous on the part of ex­ec­u­tive com­mit­tees at­tach­ing their own per­sonal views to their or­gan­i­sa­tions – whether cor­po­ra­tions or sport­ing bod­ies – without first seek­ing the ap­proval of their share­hold­ers or rank-and-file mem­bers in re­la­tion to the same-sex mar­riage de­bate.

Or­gan­i­sa­tions have no moral con­science in such mat­ters and are driven purely by what is per­ceived to be best for their bot­tom line. BASED on the logic of Tony Ab­bott and the Coali­tion for Mar­riage, John Wil­liamson would have been banned from singing Rip Rip Wood­chip at the 1989 rugby league grand fi­nal.

Ab­bott and his mates are a bit be­hind the game.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.