Right: Gay rights activist Rodney Croome has pointed out that "the Marriage Act ... does not require marrying partners to be able or willing to conceive children." Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Further implications
Acceptance of homosexuality has grown within Australia. Homosexual acts are no longer illegal and there have been significant changes in the law to secure the rights of same-sex couples.
The legalisation of same-sex marriage appears to have a primarily symbolic value for some homosexual couples. It is a marker that there is no longer any difference in the level of social and legal acknowledgement offered homosexual and heterosexual couples.
For opponents of same-sex marriage, the sticking point appears to be precisely this symbolic value. The central problem appears to be that marriage symbolises the primacy of heterosexual couples as the generative unit in society, that is, the unit which produces and nurtures children.
Historically, marriage has served to protect the property rights of fathers, with the demand of fidelity meant to ensure that the father could be sure his progeny were his own. For women and children marriage was meant to ensure their protection by making it harder for husbands and fathers to neglect their obligations.
Opponents of homosexual marriage appear to fear that same-sex couples are not interested in the generative role central to marriage and that they do not place the same importance on fidelity. They argue that the homosexual lifestyle is fundamentally different, valuing fidelity less and personal autonomy more and often not desiring children. They also argue that where homosexual couples do desire children, these couples form a less suitable unit within which to rear children. (There is no research evidence to support this claim.)
The argument appears to grow out of a sort of biological determinism, whereby because most children are born to a heterosexual couple, this mating pair is believed to provide the best environment within which to rear the children it has produced.
There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this argument. Were the biological parents always the most desirable unit to rear children it should not be necessary to bolster their bond with the legal and social sanctions implied by marriage.
It is difficult to say what the exact value of marriage is for homosexual couples. Recent research suggests that many homosexuals do not want to marry. Perhaps they are not yet seeking an enduring partnership. Perhaps they believe that the current legal protections available to them are sufficient. Perhaps they reject the very symbolism of marriage as an institution hedged about with property rights and obligations. They may also reject an institution that has rejected them for so long. However, for those homosexual couples who do want to marry it is becoming increasingly more difficult to justify denying them access to this institution.
Marriage has become a far more diverse institution than was traditionally the case. Women's growing financial independence has reduced the significance of the father as sole provider. The general availability of effective contraception has meant that families are smaller. No fault divorce and sole supporting parent benefits have made it possible and common for single parent families to survive.
While all of these developments have occurred at a cost to both the individuals involved and society at large, the idealised view of the Australian nuclear family built around a heterosexual couple seems far too simple to reflect our current reality.