2012/09: Should Australia legalise gay marriage?
What they said...
'Gay people do not regard same-sex marriage as a priority, and show no more enthusiasm for it than for civil partnerships, which give the same legal advantages'
Dr Austen Ivereigh, director of the British media advocacy group Catholic Voices
'The message currently being sent by our federal law is that...lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered...relationships are inferior'
Australian Marriage Equality
The issue at a glance
On May 9, 2012, the United States president, Barack Obama, announced his personal support for same-sex marriage. The announcement has served to further invigorate demands for the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Australia.
On December 3, 2011, the Australian Labor Party's National Conference voted to allow its Parliamentary representatives to follow their conscience on the issue.
On February 13, 2012, New South Wales Labor backbencher Stephen Jones and Greens MP Adam Bandt each introduced private member's bills into the House of Representatives to allow same-sex marriage under law in Australia.
With Labor MPs allowed a conscience vote on the issue, the twin bills appear likely to be voted down by the combined numbers of their Labor opponents - including Prime Minister Julia Gillard - and the Coalition.
The debate has continued in the Parliament and the media.
Background
(The following information is an edited version of the Wikipedia entry titled 'Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia'. The full text of the entry can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Same-sex_marriage')
The history of Same-Sex Marriage Bills in Australia
Since 2004, the Marriage Act 1961 has been amended explicitly to define 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. Thus same-sex marriages are currently not permitted under Australian federal law.
In 2004, amendments to the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act allow tax free payment of superannuation benefits to be made to the surviving partner of an interdependent relationship that included same sex couples, or a relationship where one person was financially dependent on another person.
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.
The Labor Party no longer opposes same-sex marriage, though Prime Minister Julia Gillard has maintained her opposition. The Liberal opposition remain opposed to same-sex marriage. The Labor Party now allows a conscience vote on the issue; the Coalition does not.
.
Same-Sex Marriages Bill 2006
In June 2006, Senator Stott Despoja introduced into Federal Parliament the Same-Sex Marriages Bill 2006, a private member's bill. The bill aimed to reverse the changes that were made in the Marriage Amendment Act 2004. It would have provided equal status, recognition, treatment and eliminated all legislative discrimination between same-sex and heterosexual couples. The bill has stalled indefinitely, but remains on the Parliament's current bills list.
Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2008 (Tasmania)
Greens MP Nick McKim introduced the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2008 into Tasmania's House of Assembly in July 2008. McKim introduced a similar bill to the House in April 2005. Neither bill has progressed to a Second Reading.
Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009
In June 2009 Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young introduced the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 to legislate for marriage rights for same-sex couples. It would amend the Marriage Act 1961 to remove all discriminatory references based on sexuality and gender identity and allow marriage regardless of sex, sexuality and gender. The inquiry reported negatively by 26 November.[104] A "National Year of Action for Equal Marriage Rights" started a few days later, on 28 November by mass demonstrations. On 25 February 2010 the bill was rejected by the Senate. Previously in 2007, former Greens Senator Kerry Nettle, introduced a similar bill, the Marriage (Relationships Equality) Amendment Bill 2007.
2011 conscience vote
Despite Julia Gillard's personal opposition to gay marriage, Labor voted in favour of same-sex marriage. The motion on the conscience vote was carried 208 votes to 184.
Internet Information
Religious Tolerance Org has an extensive section of its ethical debate sit given over to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions. Though the site presents both sides of the debate its bias is in favour of same-sex marriage.
The index to this section of its site can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marwhy.htm
Australian Marriage Equality supports same-sex marriage. The arguments the group puts in favour of same-sex marriage can be found at http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/case.htm
In June 2010 The California Law Review published an opinion piece by Martha Nussbaum titled 'A Right to Marry?' The piece defends the rights of same-sex couples to marry from a basic human rights perspective and from the point of view of the United States Constitution.
The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.californialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/98-3/Nussbaum.FINAL.pdf
On August 4, 2011, the ABC's Religion and Ethics site posted an opinion piece by Reverend Rod Benson titled 'Ethical arguments against same-sex marriage laws'.
The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/05/20/3222067.htm
On August 5, 2011, the ABC's Religion and Ethics site posted an opinion piece by theologian David Novak titled 'No right to marriage for same-sex couples'. The piece opposes same-sex marriage. Novak seeks to counter the arguments put by Martha Nussbaum.
The full text of this piece can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/01/18/3115445.htm
On August 12, 2011, the ABC's opinion site The Drum published an opinion piece titled 'Same-sex marriage: Australia's policy of discrimination without borders' by Elizabeth O'Shea and Simone L Petersen. The piece argues in favour of same-sex marriage and looks at the implications for homosexual couples who travel overseas of Australia's refusal to allow them to marry.
The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2835500.html
On September 14, 2011, the ABC's opinion site The Drum published an opinion piece by Rodney Croome titled, 'Parkinson report an argument for same-sex marriage'. The piece looks at the damaging psychological effect that a lack of wide-spread social acceptance has on the mental health of homosexuals.
The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2897380.html
On September 21, 2011, the ABC's opinion site The Drum published an opinion piece by practising Christian, Andrew Tiedt, titled 'Legalise gay marriage, what's the harm?'
The author argues that the religious convictions of some within the Australian electorate should not be able to shape the country's laws.
The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2909800.html
On November 23, 2011, The Punch ran an opinion piece by evangelical Christian pastor and theologian, Nathan Nettleton, titled 'Why I changed my mind about same-sex marriage'. The pastor argues in favour of same-sex marriage from the point of view of respecting freedom of conscience.
The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-same-sex-marriage/
On November 25, 2011, The Sydney Morning Herald ran a an opinion piece analysing recent survey data and arguing that the Australian public has significant reservations about gay marriage and is not ready for a change of law.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/australia-is-not-ready-to-say-we-do-to-gay-marriage-20111124-1nwy2.html
On December 2, 2011, The Punch ran an opinion by David Penberthy in which he examines the wide diversity of attitudes within Australian electorates toward the issue of gay marriage.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/gay-marriage-theres-nothing-easy-about-saying-i-do/
On February 15, 2012, The Sydney Morning Herald published opposing opinion pieces on the issue of gay marriage. The first is written by Stephen Jones, MP for Throsby (Labor, New South Wales) who supports the legalisation of same-sex marriage. The second is written by Kevin Andrews, Coalition spokesman for families, housing and human services, and MP for Menzies (Victoria) who opposes same-sex marriage.
The full text of these opinion pieces can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/the-party-line/should-samesex-marriage-be-legalised-in-australia-and-why-20120215-1t51l.html
On February 20, 2012, the Family Council of Victoria published an opinion piece by Bill Muehlenberg titled 'The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage'.
The full text of the opinion piece can be found at http://www.fcv.org.au/the-case-against-same-sex-marriage
On March 13, 2012 the ABC's Religion and Ethics site published an opinion piece by John Milbank, Research Professor of Politics, Religion and Ethics at the University of Nottingham, Director of the Centre of Theology and Philosophy. Milbank argues for the primacy of heterosexual unions in terms of the perpetuation of the species.
The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/03/13/3452229.htm
Arguments against the legalisation of gay marriage
1. Gay couples already have their legal rights protected
It has been claimed that the legal rights of gay couples are already protected under Australian law and thus there is no need to guarantee them further by making marriage available to homosexual partners.
In an opinion piece posted on the ABC's Religion and Ethics site on August 4, 2011, the Reverend Rod Benson stated, 'It is important to note that the federal law in Australia has already been changed to give same-sex partners the same legal rights as those who are married and in an increasing number of states to register their unions.'
Since December 2008, in all Australian 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 reforms were chiefly adopted through two Acts of Parliament introduced by the Rudd Labor Government: the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws-Superannuation) Act 2008 which received assent on 4 December 2008 and the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws-General Law Reform) Act 2008 which received assent on 9 December 2008.
These "omnibus" pieces of legislation amended a wide variety of existing laws to include same-sex couples. They received support not only from the governing Australian Labor Party, but also from the opposition Liberal Party, the Australian Greens and independent members.
In more than 100 areas of law, 'de facto partner' is now defined to include both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The rights extended to same-sex couples include, among others: joint social security and veterans' entitlements, employment entitlements, superannuation, workers' compensation, joint access to the Medicare Safety Net, hospital visitation, immigration, inheritance rights, and the ability to file a joint tax return and gain the same tax rebates as married couples.
Same-sex couples also have access to domestic partnership registries in New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria. Civil partnerships are performed in the Australian Capital Territory. On 30 November 2011 the Queensland State Parliament successfully passed the Civil Partnerships Act 2011 which allows for same sex couples who are Queensland residents to enter into a civil partnership.
2. Legalising gay marriage could lead to the legal recognition of other non-conventional unions
Critics of the legalisation of gay marriage have argued that this would be the first step toward a more general liberalisation of legally sanctioned unions. They claim that legalising gay marriage will ultimately lead to the acceptance of polygamous marriages and perhaps even incestuous unions.
In an article published in The Australian, Ean Higgins notes, 'The agenda now is to seek recognition and the removal of prejudice against multiple-partner relationships, perhaps legislation to grant them civil unions and even legalised polyamorous marriage.'
In an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on December 5, 2011, Andrew Bolt stated, 'When you destroy the traditional idea of a marriage being between a man and a woman, in favour of a union between any two consenting adults, you invite more changes.
Why stop at two? Why not also "respect" unions between a man and two women? After all, polygamy has what same sex marriage does not - religious backing in Islam, and historical precedents everywhere.'
Bolt further expressed the view, 'I do not trust the dismantling of marriage to stop at same-sex unions, just as I do not trust the gay marriage push to stop at letting priests object. Once you start smashing, where do you stop?'
NSW upper house MP Fred Nile has similarly stated, 'I warned people this would be the next stage. You'd get threesomes, foursomes, fivesomes, wanting the same rights. Some people even say they want to marry their pet animal.'
On February 17, 2007, The Free Republic opinion site of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, posted a piece by Adam Kolasinksi in which he explained what he believes is the rationale behind this argument. 'The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognise a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five?'
3. Legalising gay marriage would help to normalise an unsafe lifestyle
There are those who claim that the homosexual lifestyle is a health risk and that by sanctioning gay marriages Australia would be promoting a hazardous mode of living.
In an opinion piece published in The Australian on December 3, 2011, Jim Wallace, the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, stated, 'A homosexual man has a life expectancy some 20 years less than the average male.'
Wallace further cites a Canadian gay activists group which had acknowledged 'lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV-AIDS ... all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community'. Looking at the Australian situation, Wallace claims that a homosexual male has '25-26 times the chance of contracting HIV compared with a heterosexual man'.
Wallace concludes, 'If our schools are concerned about discouraging smoking for its 7-10 year shortening of life, how can we in all honesty encourage a lifestyle for men that shortens it on average by double that?'
On February 20, 2012, The Family Council of Victoria posted the following statement on its Internet site: 'Countless studies have documented the high-risk and unhealthy nature of the homosexual lifestyle. So why should governments be endorsing and promoting such activity? Various studies show that homosexuals account for the majority of new cases of sexually transmitted diseases.
For example, a male homosexual is 14 times more likely to have syphilis than a male heterosexual, and eight times more likely to have hepatitis. And of course HIV/AIDS remains an overwhelmingly homosexual disease in Australia, with the overwhelming number of cases due to male homosexual activity, or intravenous drug use.'
4. There is no clear, popular attitude in relation to gay marriage
In an opinion piece published in The Australian on November 30, 2011, Paul Kelly, the newspaper's editor-at-large, argued that popular support for gay marriage is not as clear-cut as its proponents claim.
Mr Kelly explained that a recent and sophisticated polling survey, sample 1200, conducted by the Sexton Group for the Ambrose Centre for Religious Liberty, found a 49-40 per cent majority for changing the Marriage Act. Despite this apparently clear index of significant popular support for gay marriage, Kelly claims that when the survey results are examined in detail they reveal a more complex picture.
The survey found, for example, that only 14 per cent 'strongly' wanted to change the Marriage Act. It also found that opinion is sharply split along party lines, with Labor voters backing change 57-33 per cent and Coalition voters backing the marriage status quo 56-34 per cent.
It also found that support for gay marriage does not equate with opposition to the current institution of marriage. Thus, 69 per cent of those surveyed agreed that man-woman marriage should be upheld for its traditional meaning and as an important social institution. Opponents of gay marriage argue that many of its supporters would be likely to change their position if they believed that the legalisation of gay marriage would weaken the current institution or have other negative social effects.
A similar point was made by David Penberthy in The Punch on December 2, 2011. Mr Penberthy has stated, 'The polling which has been done on the issue is relatively limited and, despite what both sides of the debate claim, has failed to provide any clear sense of mass support or opposition for making the change.'
5. A majority of gays do not want marriage
It has been claimed that a majority of homosexuals do not want to marry and thus it is not necessary to alter the marriage contract in order to accommodate them.
In a set of arguments posted on the website of the Family Council of Victoria on February 20, 2012, it was stated, 'Consider the Netherlands where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2001. Studies have shown that only around four per cent of Dutch homosexuals have gotten married during the first five years of legalisation.'
In Britain the situation is apparently similar. On June 7, 2012, The Daily Mail reported the findings of a recent survey among 541 gay, lesbian or bisexual adults regarding their attitudes to marriage. 27 per cent indicated they would marry if the law permitted it; however, 26 per cent indicated they would prefer a civil partnership. The remaining 47 per cent were apparently not seeking any form of permanent, legally recognised union. The poll found that fewer than half believe the argument put forward by many gay rights campaign groups that a legal distinction between civil partnerships and same sex marriage perpetuates discrimination.
Dr Austen Ivereigh, director of the British media advocacy group Catholic Voices, which commissioned the poll, has stated, 'What it shows is that for gay people this is very far from being an important issue of human rights, equality and discrimination. Gay people do not regard same-sex marriage as a priority, and show no more enthusiasm for it than for civil partnerships, which give the same legal advantages.'
Arguments in favour of the legalisation of gay marriage
1. Denying gay couples the opportunity to marry fosters discrimination
It has been claimed that exclusion of same-sex attracted people from marriage sends out the message that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is acceptable.
Critics of the current Marriage Act argue that this negative message is amplified by the fact that, since 85 federal laws were amended to recognise same-sex de facto partners in 2008, this Act is the only remaining federal law which still discriminates.
It has been suggested that the negative message sent out by discrimination in marriage promotes prejudice, discrimination and unequal treatment against same-sex relationships in the wider community.
There is a substantial body of Australian social research which shows the vulnerability of same-sex attracted people to prejudice, discrimination and unequal treatment. These surveys have consistently found that same-sex attracted people experience unacceptably high levels discrimination in the workplace, discrimination in other aspects of their lives including at school and in their families, and hate-motivated assault. Studies have also directly linked bans on same-sex marriages to higher levels of discrimination.
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 lobby group Australian Marriage Equality states, 'Instead of sending a message that all Australians are to be treated fairly and equally, regardless of their sexual orientation, the message currently being sent by our federal law is that it is acceptable to exclude lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons from a central social institution and that our relationships are 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. The institution of marriage will not be undermined by legalising same sex 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.
The lobby group Australian Marriage Equality states, 'Some opponents of equal marriage have suggested that marriage as an institution would be weakened, even tainted, by our presence. Such people are, of course, free to hold whatever views they wish in respect of homosexuality and the treatment of same sex couples, but Australian law should not be based upon such degrading and offensive notions.'
Chris Berg, writing in The Age on November 21, 2010, has claimed, '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.'
It has further been noted that religious ministers who did not wish to officiate at gay marriages would not be compelled to do so and that gay marriage would not weaken the religious belief of others.
The lobby group Australian Marriage Equality has further stated, 'Providing same sex couples with the equal right to marry will not harm religious institutions in any way. Each religion will still have the right to choose whether or not to perform marriages for same-sex couples. Religions that wish to perform marriages for same-sex couples should also have the freedom to do so.
3. There is no fundamental difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage
It has been argued that all the features usually considered to typify a marriage union can be displayed by same sex couples.
Alex Greenwich, the national convener of Australian Marriage Equality, has stated that his lobby group's concept of marriage was 'what it's always been' of 'two people who rely on each other in a relationship to the exclusion of all others'.
Australian Marriage Equality states, 'Many same-sex couples wish to marry. They want to do so for the same reasons as their opposite-sex counterparts - to publicly proclaim and celebrate their love and commitment...'
Author and gay rights advocate, Rodney 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.'
Australian Marriage Equality states, '"Companionate" marriages between elderly heterosexuals past the age of child-bearing are celebrated and affirmed in our society, not banned under law.'
However, there are those who argue that even the capacity to have children can be part of a same-sex union. Surrogacy and artificial insemination allow same sex couples to be parents. Australian Marriage Equality states, 'Same-sex couples have and raise children. Allowing these couples to legally marry affords their children the same protections and benefits as children raised by opposite sex parents.
It has also been claimed that same-sex couples are less inclined to monogamy and so should not be allowed access to an institution which promotes exclusivity within a relationship. 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. 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.
On September 21, 2011, the ABC's The Drum posted an opinion piece by Andrew Tiedt, a Christian, husband and lawyer. Tiedt states, 'I'm a Christian. I go to church, I lead a Bible Study once a week, and I believe in the Bible and what it says. Consequently, I believe that homosexual sex is sinful.
While we're on the topic, I also believe the following things are sinful: gossip, deceitfulness, hatred, and prejudice.'
Tiedt goes on to argue, 'But you notice something about all the sins in the above paragraph. Every single one of them is 100 per cent legal.
Not everything that I think is sinful is illegal. And neither should it be. Even if something is seen by the entire community as sinful (or immoral, depending on your term of reference) that is not sufficient in and of itself to mean something should be illegal.'
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.
5. 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.
On April 1, 2001 The Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage. The Dutch law includes a gay couple's right to adoption. Homosexual couples in Belgium won the right to marry in June 2003 and in April 2006 parliament voted into law a bill allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. In July 2005 Spain became the third member of the European Union to pass a law to allow same-sex marriages. Gay couples in Spain are also able to adopt children. The Canadian law allowing gay couples to marry and adopt children also came into force in July 2005. In November 2006 South Africa became the first African country to legalise same-sex marriage. A January 2009 law in Norway allowed homosexuals to marry and adopt children and permitted lesbians to be artificially inseminated. Sweden's homosexuals have been allowed to wed in religious or civil ceremonies since May 2009. Under a June 1, 2010 law Portugal legalised gay marriage, while excluding the right to adoption. Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir married her long-time partner in June 2010 as a new law legalising homosexual marriages in Iceland came into force. On July 15, 2010 a bill that legalises same-sex marriage came into force in Argentina - a Latin American first. Homosexual couples can adopt children in Argentina.
Two countries allow gay marriage on part of their territory: the United States, in the states of Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and the capital Washington DC; and Mexico in the federal capital.
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.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Australian: May 8, 2012, page 9, news item (photo of USA / American vice-President Joe Biden), `VP puts gay marriage on the election table'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-vice-president-joe-biden-puts-gay-marriage-on-the-election-table/story-e6frg6so-1226349276379
The Age: May 8, 2012, page 8, news item (photo of USA / American vice-President Joe Biden), `Biden sparks gay angst'.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/biden-sparks-gay-angst-20120507-1y91c.html
The Age: May 4, 2012, page 3, news item by Carolyn Webb, `(Jeff) Kennett calls for respect for gays'.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/kennett-calls-for-respect-for-gays-20120503-1y1v0.html
The Age: May 16, 2012, page 13, comment by George Monbiot, `Truth is the forgotten family value'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/truth-is-the-forgotten-family-value-20120515-1youb.html
Age: May 11, 2012, page 4, news item (with cartoon) by D Harrison, `"My view's not changing," says Gillard on gay marriage'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/my-views-not-changing-says-gillard-on-gay-marriage-20120510-1yfod.html
Herald-Sun: May 17, 2012, page 15, comment by Andrew Bolt, `Hypocrites harm gays'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/hypocrites-harm-gays/story-e6frfhqf-1226358214545
The Age: May 19, 2012, page 12, news item (photo), `Mickey Mouse backs gay weddings'.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/mickey-mouse-backs-gay-weddings-20120518-1yw2m.html
The Australian: May 30, page 14, comment by David van Gend, `Will incestuous couples want marriage rights?'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/will-incestuous-couples-want-marriage-rights/story-e6frgd0x-1226372990649
The Australian: May 28, 2012, page 14, comment by Rodney Croome, `Defenders of marriage risk jumping at shadows'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/defenders-of-marriage-risk-jumping-at-shadows/story-e6frgd0x-1226368648235
The Australian: May 26, 2012, page 21, comment by Frank Furedi, `Let's do away with demonology on both sides of the gay marriage question'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/lets-do-away-with-demonology-on-both-sides-of-the-gay-marriage-question/story-e6frgd0x-1226367278058
The Australian: May 26, 2012, page 13, comment by Angela Shanahan, `Speak out against gay marriage at your peril'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/speak-out-against-gay-marriage-at-your-peril/story-fn562txd-1226367263831