2010/22: Should Australia legalise gay marriage?
What they said...
'I do believe that in our society, with our heritage, with our traditions, with our history, that marriage has a special place and a special definition'
The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, explaining her opposition to same-sex marriage
'The message that comes with the legalisation of same-sex marriage is important for the entire gay community, but is critical for our more vulnerable members, particularly gay teenagers'
Jacqueline Tomlins, member of the Rainbow Families Council
The issue at a glance
On November 18, 2010, a Greens motion urging federal members of parliament to gauge community support for gay marriage was passed by the House of Representatives.
In February 2010, the Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young's Marriage Equality Bill was rejected by the Senate. Senator Hanson-Young re-introduced the bill to the Senate in September 2010. The bill will sit on a notice paper until the major parties agree to a conscience vote on it.
Gauging community views on same-sex marriage will keep the issue alive in the media and increase its profile among the electorate. Currently both the Labor Government and the Liberal Opposition oppose same-sex marriage. There appears to be majority support for the proposal within the Australian community, though all major churches oppose the legalisation of same-sex marriage.
Background
(The following is an edited and slightly extended version of the Wikipedia entries for 'Same-sex marriage' and 'Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia'. The full text of the Wikipedia entries can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia)
Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage) is a legally and socially recognised marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender.
Same-sex marriage is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many nations. The conflicts arise over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status (such as a civil union, which either grants equal rights as marriage or limited rights in comparison to marriage), or not have any such rights. A related issue is whether the term 'marriage' should be applied.
Same-sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are only performed in Mexico City, but these marriages must be recognized by all Mexican states. Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same-sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdictions.
Australian Commonwealth
Same-sex marriages are currently not permitted under Australian federal law. Since 2004, the Marriage Act 1961 has defined marriage as 'the union between a man and a woman'. In addition, Australian law expressly declares that unions between same-sex couples entered into outside the country are not to be recognised as marriage in Australia.
In 2004, amendments to the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act to allow tax free payment of superannuation benefits to be made to the surviving partner on an interdependent relationships that included same sex couples, or a relationship where one person was financially dependent on another person. Further initiatives were also tabled by the Howard Liberal government.
The subsequent Labor Government continued some of this progress in November 2008, when the Australian Parliament passed laws that recognised same-sex couples in federal law, offering them the same rights as unmarried heterosexual couples in areas such as taxation, social security and health, aged care and employment. This means that same-sex couples who can prove they are in a de facto relationship have most of the rights of married couples since 1 July 2009. Australia does not have a national registered partnership or civil union scheme.
Currently both the Gillard Labor government and the Liberal opposition are opposed to same-sex marriage. Neither party allows a conscience vote on the issue.
The Greens, who have a major role in the Labor government after the August 2010 federal elections resulted in a hung parliament actively support same-sex marriage. In February 2010, the Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young's Marriage Equality Bill was rejected by the Senate. Senator Hanson-Young re-introduced the bill to the Senate in September 2010. The bill will sit on a notice paper until the major parties agree to a conscience vote on it. A Greens motion urging federal MPs to gauge community support for gay marriage was passed by the House of Representatives on 18 November 2010.
Australian States and Territories
In all states and territories, cohabiting same-sex couples are recognised as de facto couples, and have the same rights as cohabiting heterosexual couples under state law.
The Australian Capital Territory is the first jurisdiction in Australia to legalise civil partnership ceremonies for gay couples. However, they are not recognised in Australian jurisdictions outside of that territory.
Registered partnerships are available in New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria; however, they offer no legal benefit to either person in the partnership. On September 1, 2010, Tasmania's Lower House of Parliament approved laws recognising same-sex marriages and civil unions registered in other states or countries. The bill has not yet gone before the Tasmanian Legislative Council for approval.
Internet information
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance are an international group who present arguments on ethical issues. They usually attempt to canvass both sides of the issues they treat. Their treatment of same-sex marriage can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr_menu.htm
The Australian Family Association is opposed to same-sex marriage. The organisation has gathered a collection of links to sites that share its view and present arguments supporting their opinion. This set of links can be found at http://www.family.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=328&Itemid=53
The Potential Wedding Album is an Internet site established to present the case of those Australian same-sex couples who wish to be allowed to marry. This site presents personal details of some gay couples seeking to marry. The site encourages browsers who support their position to register this. The site can be found at http://www.thepotentialweddingalbum.org/
The Internet site of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne has a section titled Life, Marriage and Family. This explains the reasons why the Catholic Church supports heterosexual marriage and opposes same-sex marriage. The relevant section of this site can be found at http://www.cam.org.au/lifemarriagefamily/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=14
On May 5, 2004, Online Opinion published the views of Associate Professor Igor Primoratz, author of 'Ethics and Sex'. Professor Primoratz supports same-sex marriage. His article is titled, 'The arguments against allowing gay and lesbian marriages do not stack up'. The full text of the article can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2185
On March 4, 2009, Quadrant Online published an opinion piece by Bill Muehlenberg titled 'What Marriage Means'. The article analysis and supports the views of David Blankenhorn expressed in his book, 'The Future of Marriage'. The book is an argument for the maintenance of the current definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman intended to provide a stable environment for the rearing of children. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/muehlenberg/2009/03/what-marriage-means
On July 7, 2010, Rodney Croome's opinion piece 'Gillard and the choice to marry' was published on the ABC's opinion site, The Drum Unleashed. Rodney Croome traces the history of changes to legalised marriage that have resulted in the removal of discrimination against heterosexual women and those of different races. Croome suggests that Julia Gillard's position of marriage equality is inconsistent. The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35274.html
On July 14, 2010, The Punch published an opinion piece titled, 'In defence of gay marriages, and ending bad straight ones'. The piece is written by David Penberthy and argues that opposition to same-sex marriage is based on prejudice. The full text of the opinion piece can be found at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/in-defence-of-gay-marriages-and-ending-bad-straight-ones/
On July 16, 2010, The Punch published an opinion piece titled, 'It's time to allow gay marriage in Australia'. The opinion was written by Rob Mills who argues that same-sex marriage has been successfully legalised in a number of other countries. The full text of the opinion piece can be found at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/its-time-to-allow-gay-marriage/
On August 30, 2010, the ABC's Religion & Ethics site published an opinion piece by Rodney Croome titled, 'Beyond equality: the deeper case for allowing same-sex couples to marry' The piece is a careful consideration of the significance of marriage as a social institution and its importance for those who are allowed to marry. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/08/30/2997182.htm
On November 22, 2010, Nielsen polls released the results of a poll of 1,400 respondents to discover their attitude to same-sex marriage. The poll revealed that 57% of respondents favour the legalisation of same-sex marriage. The full text of this report can be found at http://au.nielsen.com/news/200512.shtml
On November 23, 2010, Online Opinion published 'Gay marriage - the moral obligation of our time' by James Mangisi. The piece argues that the right to marry is a fundamental human right that should not be denied same-sex couples. The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11267
On November 25, 2010, Quadrant Online published an opinion piece by Bill Muehlenberg titled, 'Homosexual marriage and the slippery slope'. The piece argues that legalising same-sex marriage could lead to the legalisation of polygamy, bisexual unions and perhaps even incestuous unions.
The full text of the opinion piece can be found at http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/muehlenberg/2010/11/homosexual-marriage-and-the-slippery-slope
On November 29, 2010, Quadrant Online published an opinion piece by Bill Muehlenberg titled, 'Marry us, marry us!' The piece is an argument against the legalisation of same-sex marriage. It stresses that doing so would pave the way for legalised polygamy, bi-sexual unions, incest and bestiality. The style seems in part exaggerated for satirical effect. The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/muehlenberg/2010/11/time-for-some-real-marriage-equality
Arguments in favour of legalising gay marriage
1. Not allowing gay couples to marry is discriminatory
It has been claimed that denying same-sex couples the same opportunity as heterosexual couples to formalise their relationship denies them equality and grows out of prejudice.
'The Potential Wedding Album' is an Internet site established to build support for the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Australia. On its home page the following statement is made, 'There are many couples who share the good, the bad, the hopes, the fears and the trivialities of life in Australia. But some of them cannot get married because the Marriage Act 1961 defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This limitation discriminates against the many same-sex couples in Australia who would just like to have the same means of expressing their love and commitment as heterosexual couples.'
Rodney Croome, an author and gay rights activist, stated in an article published in The Age on August 12, 2010, 'We are people too, with the same dreams and hopes as everyone else, and to deny us such an important path to the fulfillment of these hopes and dreams is to deny our very humanity.'
Relatedly it has been claimed that disallowing same-sex marriage adversely affects individual homosexuals and lesbians. It has been argued that marriage is not simply an institution intended to supply a stable environment for the conception and rearing of children. It supplies social recognition of the legitimacy of a couple's union. Without that, they will feel their union is seen as inferior.
On November 5, 2010, The Age published an opinion piece by Jacqueline Tomlins, a Melbourne writer and member of the Rainbow Families Council. Ms Tomlins argued, 'The introduction of gay marriage in Canada shifted the overriding social mores to our side. Quite simply, it said that being gay was OK, and that you should not expect to be treated any differently because of it. It said that you are valued equally as a member of this society.'
Ms Tomlin went on to explain the negative self-perception that societal prohibitions and hostility impose on lesbians and homosexuals. 'Many people still quietly struggle with their sexuality and the horribly negative views that are blithely espoused by certain sections of the community. The message that comes with the legalisation of same-sex marriage is important for the entire gay community, but is critical for our more vulnerable members, particularly gay teenagers.'
2. Allowing gay marriage will not undermine the institution of marriage
It has been claimed that allowing gay marriage would actually strengthen the institution. It has been suggested that in a period of accelerating divorce rates, any substantial group of people who wish to commit to each other formally via marriage are serving to add to the social legitimacy of the institution.
In an article published in The Punch on July 16, 2009, Rob Mills wrote, 'I mean if more people get married isn't that good for marriage, doesn't it make it more relevant? In a world were 50% of marriages end in divorce, it doesn't make sense to turn people away who want to tie the knot.'
Chris Berg, writing in The Age on November 21, 2010, has made a very similar claim. 'Straight people have been undermining the sanctity of marriage for decades. This is a bad thing ... So extending the marital franchise to gay and lesbian couples would multiply the number of Australians who can join this crucial social institution, spreading the positive impact of marriage on society.'
Supporters of same-sex marriage also argue that marriage is not and should not be an unchanging institution and that its capacity to alter to accommodate changing social realities is one of its strengths.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on June 30, 2010, Senthorun Raj noted, 'It was not long ago that women were transacted as property in marriage, moving from their father to their husbands. We no longer restrict marriage between different racial or religious groups, as we did previously for indigenous Australians or interfaith couples. Gender, race and religion have been pivotal sites for the regulation of marriage in Australia, but they have changed over time with progressive shifts in social attitudes.'
3. Same-sex couples can meet all the criteria usually associated with marriage
It has been argued that all the features usually considered to typify a marriage union can be displayed by same sex couples. Author and gay rights advocate, Rodney Croome, has had his views on this issue placed on the ABC Religion and Ethics site. Mr Croome has stated, 'The Marriage Act ... does not require marrying partners to be able or willing to conceive children. As a result, heterosexuals are not prevented from marrying if they are infertile or have no intention of having children. It follows that we should also not prevent same-sex couples from marrying just because they cannot conceive.'
However, Mr Croome goes on to note that to the extent that marriage is an institution supportive of the rearing of children, then child-rearing is something often performed by same-sex couples.
Rodney Croome states, 'It is currently estimated as many as 30% of same-sex couples are raising children, which in Australia means we talking about the equal protection and recognition of tens of thousands of children.'
Rodney Croome also indicates that research indicates that same-sex couples make equally good parents and therefore should not be denied the sanction of marriage on the basis that they rear children poorly. Mr Croome observes, 'After reviewing the available studies, the American and Australian Psychological Associations have both concluded children raised by same-sex couples are just as well adjusted, emotionally, intellectually, socially and sexually, as their peers.'
It has also been claimed that same-sex couples are less inclined to monogamy and so should not be allowed access to an institutions which promotes monogamy. Rodney Croome states that such claims are based on prejudice. 'A large-scale Australian study of sexual behaviour conducted by the University of New South Wales has found 93% of men in same-sex relationships are monogamous, a higher level, according to similar studies, than for men in heterosexual relationships.'
4. A majority of Australians support gay marriage
A majority of Australians support the legalisation of same-sex marriage according to the latest Nielsen Poll. The national poll of 1,400 respondents, taken from 18-20 November, 2010, found that almost six in ten voters (57%) support legalising marriage between same-sex couples while 37% were opposed. There was clear majority support in every mainland state except Queensland, where 47% supported same-sex marriage and 43% were opposed.
This is becoming a clearly accepted view in Australia. A Galaxy poll commissioned by GetUp in 2007 found that 57 per cent of respondents supported same-sex marriage - up 20 points from when Newspoll tested the issue in 2004. Another Galaxy poll commissioned by Australian Marriage Equality (AME) and released in June 2009, found that support for gay marriage had risen to 60 per cent.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on November 25, 2010, John Kloprogge/Brett Jones noted, 'The [2009]Galaxy Poll also quashed some other myths about supporters of same-sex marriage, namely that it's predominantly inner-urban, white-collar, left-wingers who support reform. In fact, 57 per cent of blue-collar workers support equality, only nine points lower than white-collar workers. Some 59 per cent of rural and regional dwellers support equality, just five points lower than city folk. And there is broad support from left and right. Nearly half of Coalition voters (48 per cent) want the law to change.'
Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that the nation's political leaders are acting unwisely in refusing to alter the Marriage Act so that it reflects the majority opinion in this country.
Rodney Croome, an author and gay rights activist, has written an opinion piece published in The Age on July 2, 2010 which is critical of Julia Galliard for her personal refusal to support same sex marriage. Mr Croome writes, 'Gillard's opposition to marriage equality will be deeply disappointing to the 60 per cent of Australians who believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and the 80 per cent of same-sex partners who believe they should have the right to marry.'
5. The religious beliefs of some within the community should not shape Australian law
Supporters of same sex marriage argue that the religious convictions of a certain section of the Australian population should not be allowed to influence the framing of Australian laws.
Australia is a secular democracy with what many argue is a deliberate separation between Church and State. Those who claim Australia has established no particular Church and so is obliged to represent the view of no particular religious denomination cite section 116 of the Australian constitution. Section 116 states, 'The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.'
Supporters of same-sex marriage stress that this should mean that the beliefs of the various religious denominations in Australia should not play a determining part in the drafting of Australian legislation. Religious groups can obviously express a view, but their attitudes should not be given disproportionate weight.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on June 30, 2010, Senthorun Raj argued, 'While religion may saturate various political dealings, it should not dictate the meaning of legislation. Equality before the law and non-discrimination are fundamental human rights principles. Federal legislation should mimic this by allowing couples to marry regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.'
Senthorun Raj has also pointed out that the majority of marriage services are no longer performed within churches. He has noted, 'In 2007, 63 per cent of all marriages were solemnised by a civil celebrant rather than a religious minister.' Were same-sex marriages legalised, as now, religious ministers would not be compelled to officiate at them and the service could be performed by a civil celebrant. Supporters of gay marriage argue that under these circumstances Australia's churches should be able exercise no extraordinary influence on this country's marriage laws.
6. Other countries have allowed gay marriage
An increasing number of states and nations have given legal recognition to same sex marriages. Supporters of gay marriage note that this has been done without any apparent harm to the social fabric of these states and countries.
Rodney Croome, an author and gay rights activist stated in an opinion piece published in The Age on July 2, 2010, that 'In the past few weeks, Portugal, Mexico City and Iceland have joined Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Sweden, Norway and six US states in allowing same-sex couples to marry. The number of places where same-sex marriages are either soon to be allowed or are already recognised from elsewhere is even larger and more diverse, ranging from Argentina through Slovenia and Israel to Nepal.'
Thus seven national jurisdictions around the world allow gay marriage. From the point of view of Australia, the legalisation of gay marriage in Canada is seen as particularly significant because Australia and Canada share many cultural and historical similarities.
It has also been noted that heterosexual marriage in Denmark appears to have suffered no ill-effects despite same-sex marriage having been recognised in that country for twenty years.
Sociologists William Eskridge and Darren Spedale have examined the effect that recognition of same-sex relationships - marriage and civil unions - has had on Scandinavia since Denmark introduced registered partnerships in 1989. The authors found that after nearly two decades of registered partnerships in Scandinavia, social indicators, if anything, were getting better. The total divorce rates have got lower and there are higher rates of heterosexual marriage and fewer out-of-wedlock births.
Arguments against legalizing gay marriage
1. Marriage is traditionally a union between a man and a woman
It has been argued that gay marriage should not be allowed because it denies the fundamental nature and purpose of marriage.
The argument is made that marriage is primarily an institution intended for the conception and rearing of children. Christopher Pearson, writing in The Australian on November 20, 2010, stated, 'Most men are not naturally disposed to be monogamous ... One of the purposes of marriage is to bind them to their spouses and children for the long haul and to give the state's approval to those who enter such a contract and abide by its terms.'
Pearson further stated, 'Another of the purposes of marriage is to affirm that parenthood is a big, and in most cases the primary, contribution a couple can make, both to their own fulfillment and the public good.
It follows that societies which want to sustain their population size, let alone increase their fertility level, should positively discriminate in favour of stable, heterosexual relationships and assert the preferability of adolescents making a normal transition to heterosexual adulthood.'
Relatedly it has been claimed that legalising gay marriage would encourage gay parenting. There are those who believe that this would be unfair to the children concerned. In an article published in On Line Opinion on November 24, 2010, Dr David van Gend stated, 'The most serious objection to gay marriage is that it means gay parenting, and gay parenting means depriving a child of either his mother or his father. A child deserves at least the chance of a mum and a dad in her life, and same-sex marriage makes that impossible.'
David van Gend went on to argue, 'There are already tragic situations where a child is deprived of a mother or a father - such as the death or desertion of a parent. Some broken families reform as a homosexual household, and nothing can or should be done about that. But the tragedy and brokenness of a motherless or fatherless home should not be inflicted on a child by the law of the land.'
2. Allowing gay marriage will undermine the institution of marriage
It has been claimed that marriage as an institution has been under concerted attack for at least a generation and that allowing same-sex marriage would merely compound this.
On August 13, 2010, Dr Alan Carlson, the editor of 'The Family in America' gave an address in Sydney in which he stated, 'Australia has not been immune from other legal changes over the last several decades, which taken together have weakened marriage as an institution. These include the elimination of legal distinctions between births in- and out-of-wedlock; abortion laws that ignore the claims of the husband/father; the acceptance of cohabitation as a legal status, providing some of the benefits of marriage without the corresponding duties; [and] the elimination of "fault" in divorce proceedings, which has had the effect of rewarding infidelity while ending the community's interest in marriage preservation'
Opponents of gay marriage claim that legalising such unions would be the final legislative step in a steady trend toward the undermining of the institution of marriage.
Tim Cannon of the Australian Family Association has stated, 'The institution of marriage is an ancient and long-standing one. Before tampering with such an institution according to present trends in public opinion, legislators should carefully consider why a public institution of marriage exists at all.
We suggest that marriage is not an exercise by which the state arbitrarily recognises and celebrates some relationships but not others. To the contrary, marriage is the means by which the state deliberately identifies and protects a particular type of relationship - the uniquely progenerative male-female relationship - which carries a unique (and not inconsiderable) significance for both contemporary Australian society, and for the entire human species.'
According to such social critics, to change the definition of marriage is to damage it. They therefore hold that if Australia were to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, then the institution of marriage in this country would be harmed.
3. Politicians should act according to their best judgement, not simply be directed by the wishes of the majority.
It has been argued that the fact that a majority of the electorate now appears to support same-sex marriage is not sufficient reason for the Australian parliament to enact it. There are many decisions governments take which would not be endorsed by a majority of voters. Many surveys have indicated that a majority of the electorate support the re-introduction of capital punishment. This however, is an issue on which Australian parliaments have exercised moral leadership, arguing that capital punishment is not merely ineffective but contrary to the moral values that best typify this country.
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that our parliamentarians need to act similarly in relation to this issue.
They claim that a majority of Australian have unclear and ill-considered views in relation to the institution of marriage. The fact that over forty percent of Australian marriages end in divorce is taken to indicate that many within the electorate are confused about the nature and value of the institution - perhaps both entering it and leaving it too easily. It has been suggested that instituting supposed same-sex marriage would only serve to exacerbate such trends.
Scott McInnes, in an opinion piece published in On Line Opinion on December 17, 2010, stated, 'On the issue of gay marriage, [politicians'] duty is to determine the morally relevant principles and arrive at the most morally defensible position. Consulting the electorate can only be justified in so far as it assists the member to discharge that duty.'
Mr McInnes went on to argue, 'When our elected representatives consult us, we should remind them of the job we are paying them to do: to make reasoned and principled decisions on our behalf. In deciding how they should vote, we should ask them to exercise their own best judgment and conscience, without fear or favour. This will relieve them of the impossible task of determining "the moral will of the people" and refocus their responsibility where it properly resides.'
Placing the responsibility for making the best possible decision in the hands of Australia's parliamentarians means that their views should not simply be shaped by the majority opinion on an issue.
4. Same-sex couples already have significant legal and civil rights
It has been claimed that the legalisation of same-sex marriage is essentially a symbolic issue as same sex couples already enjoy most of the legal and civil writes that attach to heterosexual couples.
The Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has stated her belief that Australian customs and traditions dictate that marriage within this country should remain a union between a man and a woman. She has, however, stated that her government and preceding governments have taken steps to do all possible to ensure that homosexual couples have equal rights under the law.
Ms Gillard has stated, 'We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples.'
At the end of 2008 the Australian Government amended eighty-four laws which discriminated against same-sex couples in a wide range of areas including taxation, social security, employment, Medicare, veteran's affairs, superannuation, worker's compensation and family law. Some of the new or amended laws were effectively immediately while others commenced on 1 July 2009.
Looking in more detail at some specific instances, same sex couples are now treated equally to heterosexual couples in income and assets tests for entering aged care facilities. Under the new laws, the home of same sex couple is not counted in the assets test. Same sex partners are recognised under Federal and state compensation laws. This means that if one partner died in a work-related accident, the other partner may be entitled to compensation. Same sex partners are recognised under motor accident compensation laws. This means that should a same-sex partner be killed or injured in a road accident, the other partner may be entitled to compensation.
Opponents of gay marriage argue that same-sex couples are not effectively discriminated against under the law as they have most of the rights available to married heterosexual couples. All they are denied is access to a type of socially-sanctioned union for which their particular choices or inclinations disqualify them.
5. Legalising same sex-marriage would encourage the legalisation of less conventional unions
It has been claimed that by legalising same sex marriage the Australian government would encourage other unconventional unions to seek to be legalised. The main instances that are usually given are polygamous and/or bisexual unions.
Bill Muehlenberg is the secretary of the Family Council of Victoria, and lectures in ethics and philosophy at various Melbourne theological colleges. Mr Muehlenberg has noted that Canada is in the process of reviewing its laws against polygamy. He argues that this move is a consequence of Canada having legalised same-sex marriage. Mr Muehlenberg states, 'If marriage is no longer one man, one woman for life, then any number of alternatives seems to be possible. If homosexuals can argue that a loving committed relationship should qualify anyone for the institution of marriage, then other equally binding and loving unions should be recognised.'
Mr Muehlenberg claims that if Australia legalises same-sex marriage then our legislators may find themselves in a situation where they cannot reasonably deny claims for legalisation from groups and couples whose unions Australian society would not accept.
Mr Muehlenberg argues, 'The same arguments used for legalising same-sex marriage could be used to argue for legalising incest, polygamy, and any number of other sexual combinations.
If a man wanted to have a long-term sexual relationship with his daughter, or if three women wanted to do the same, how could any society argue against it, if it has already overturned the traditional understanding of marriage?'
6. Same-sex marriage is against the belief systems of many churches
Christian denominations oppose same-sex marriage as contrary to the will of God, which they believe proscribes marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne has a section of its Internet site given over to Life, Marriage and Family. There the following statement is made about the nature of marriage. 'Marriage, as both a natural institution and a sacred union, is rooted in God's plan for creation. The truth that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman is woven deeply into the human spirit. The Church's teaching on marriage expresses a truth, therefore, that can be perceived first and foremost by human reason. This truth has been confirmed by divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture.'
Behind this statement is the belief that God's purpose is to create human beings who can be brought to knowledge and union with Him. Christian religions maintain that men and women cooperate in that divine purpose when they produce children. It is primarily for this reason that the Catholic Church, for example, sanctifies marriage as a sacrament.
The Life, Marriage and Family section of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne's Internet site goes on to explain why from a Catholic perspective a marriage between same-sex couples would be both impossible and not what the Catholic Church believes God to have ordained. 'A same-sex union contradicts the nature and purposes of marriage. It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female. It cannot achieve the natural purpose of sexual union, that is, to cooperate with God to create new life. Because persons in a same-sex union cannot enter into a true conjugal union, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.'
Christian denominations not only maintain that no same-sex couple can achieve a marriage union; they also reject the practice of homosexuality. Dr Adam, the principal of Ridley College, an Anglican theological college, has stated that the Bible's book of Leviticus was the main source of his beliefs that God did not accept homosexuality.
Dr Adam has further stated, ''I believe that God's teaching in Scripture, as held by the vast majority of Christians from all traditions for the past 2000 years, is that we should refrain from homosexual practice.'
Further implications
It is clear that the issue of whether same-sex marriage should be legalised will not disappear from the Australian political scene.
The Gillard Labor government relies on the support of the Greens since the hung parliament that resulted from the August 2010 elections. This puts the Greens in a powerful position to continue to promote their policy of legalising same-sex marriage. When parliament resumes in 2011, members of the House of Representatives will be required to gauge their constituents' opinion on the issue.
A number of recent opinion polls have indicated that a clear majority of the electorate supports gay marriage. If the MPs' discussions within their electorates confirm this, it will be difficult for the Labor Party to continue to deny its members a conscience vote on the issue.
The issue has the capacity to be highly divisive for the Labor Party. There are a significant number of key members of the party who support gay marriage and appear to have only remained quiet on the issue in the name of maintaining an appearance of unity. This is obviously true of openly gay Finance Minister Penny Wong who in October, 2010, publicly expressed support for same-sex marriage and a change in the Party's policy. However, there are others within the Party who are vocally opposed.
In recognition of the strength of opinion within the Party on the issue Julia Gillard has moved the date of the Labor Party's national convention forward six months so that the policy position on the question can be resolved in 2011.
It appears likely that the result of that Party debate will be that the issue of whether to legalise same-sex marriage becomes a conscience vote for Labor MPS and Senators. It has been estimated that there are some twenty Labor MPs who would vote in favour of legalising same-sex marriage were they allowed a conscience vote. This would still be insufficient to see the proposal become law; however, it would put pressure on the Liberal Opposition to allow its members a conscience vote.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Age: September 12, page 7, news item by Maris Beck, `Court allows gay man to adopt child' (with photo of gay partners and child and related item, `Negotiating fatherhood off the straight and narrow').
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/court-allows-gay-man-to-adopt-child-20100911-15622.html
The Age: September 30, page 6, news item by Jewel Topsfield, `Gillard rules out conscience vote on gay marriage'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/gillard-rules-out-conscience-vote-on-gay-marriage-20100929-15xgj.html
The Australian: October 11, page 14, comment by Niki Savva, `Same-sex marriage off Labor agenda'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/same-sex-marriage-off-labor-agenda/story-e6frg6zo-1225936847926
The Herald-Sun: October 26, page 25, comment by Steve Price, `Gay reform package is a vote grab'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/gay-reform-package-a-vote-grabber/story-e6frfhqf-1225943440339
The Age: October 26, page 6, news item by Michelle Grattan, `Greens pursue gay wedding debate'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/greens-pursue-gay-wedding-debate-20101025-170y8.html
The Age: October 25, page 2, news item by Michelle Grattan, `Legalised gay marriage is inevitable, says Labor's Left'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/legalised-gay-marriage-is-inevitable-says-labors-left-20101024-16z6y.html
The Age: November 4, page 13, comment (ref to adoption laws, adopting children) by Giuliana Fuscaldo, Sarah Russell, `Potential parents put through the wringer in their attempt to adopt a child'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/potential-parents-put-through-wringer-in-attempt-to-adopt-a-child-20101103-17dz7.html
The Age: November 9, page 4, news item by Michelle Grattan, `Liberals join gay marriage conscience vote call'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/liberals-join-gay-marriage-conscience-vote-call-20101108-17klf.html
The Australian: November 8, page 9, news item by Karvelas and Barrett, `(Queensland Premier Anna) Bligh comes out for same-sex marriage'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bligh-comes-out-for-same-sex-marriage/story-fn59niix-1225949101356
The Australian: November 8, page 9, comment by Peter van Onselen, `Hockey keeps Libs out of it'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/hockey-keeps-libs-out-of-it/story-e6frg6zo-1225949070354
The Age: November 5, page 15, comment by Jacqueline Tomlins, `Gay couples on marriage roundabout'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/gay-couples-on-marriage-roundabout-20101104-17fpq.html
The Age: November 15, page 13, comment by Annie Stevens, `In modern weddings anything goes, but same-sex ban stays'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/in-modern-weddings-anything-goes-but-samesex-ban-stays-20101114-17sma.html
The Age: November 13, Insight section, page 5, analysis (photos) by Carol Nader, `Making a vow for change'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/making-a-vow-for-change-20101112-17r8s.html
The Age: November 24, page 17, comment by Farrah Tomazin, `Equality fight puts the ALP under strain'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/equality-fight-puts-the-alp-under-strain-20101123-185l2.html
The Age: November 22, page 1, news item by Michelle Grattan, `Most support gay marriage'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/most-support-gay-marriage-change-20101121-182ka.html
The Australian: November 20, page 14, comment by Christopher Pearson, `Gay marriage demands should be left on the shelf'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gay-marriage-demands-should-be-left-on-shelf/story-e6frg6zo-1225956787304
The Australian: November 19, page 13, editorial, `Don't get hung up in the politics of same-sex union'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/dont-get-hung-up-on-the-politics-of-same-sex-union/story-e6frg71x-1225955924810
The Age: November 19, page 20, editorial, `Allow a free vote on gay marriage'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/allow-a-free-vote-on-gay-marriage-20101118-17z7d.html
The Age: November 19, page 21, comment (with cartoon) by Michelle Grattan, `Conscience vote PM's best option'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/conscience-vote-pms-best-option-20101118-17z7m.html
The Australian: November 29, page 1, news item (photo of Penny Wong with partner) by Owen and Maiden, `Wong gay push "will hurt ALP"'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/penny-wongs-gay-push-will-hurt-alp/story-fn59niix-1225962415008