Right: Opposition leader Bill Shorten in a pensive mood in Parliament. Was he pondering the implications of the speech he was to make shortly at the ALP national conference?.
 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. |
Arguments against legalising same-sex marriage in Australia
1. Marriage is traditionally a union between a man and a woman
Those who support the proposition that marriage as a legal entity should remain exclusively a union between a man and a woman claim that this is the form of union traditionally and historically sanctioned within Western culture.
In October, 2013, the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, declared, 'From time immemorial, in every culture that's been known, marriage or that kind of solemnised relationship has been between a man and a woman.'
Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard has also endorsed 'marriage' as a term best reserved for the traditional union of a man and a woman. She has further stated that there should be other ways of acknowledging different sorts of enduring personal partnerships. In an interview with Ann Summers in 2013, Gillard stated, 'I think that marriage in our society could play its traditional role and we could come up with other institutions which value partnerships, value love, value lifetime commitment.'
On July 2, 2015, former Prime Minister John Howard gave an interview in which he defended his government's action in reforming the Marriage Act so that it stipulated that marriage was exclusively a union between a man and a woman.
Mr Howard said his government in 2004 updated the Marriage Act so any changes to the 'centuries-old' approach should never be left to the courts. Mr Howard's emphasis on the length of time for which marriage has been regarded as a union between a man and a woman indicates the extent to which he believes it is important to protect what he considers the traditional nature of marriage. Mr Howard described the belief that 'marriage' described the formal recognition of a union between a man and a woman as a 'bedrock understanding of our society',
2. A majority of other nations have not legalised same-sex marriage
Opponents of same-sex marriage note that a majority of nations around the world do not term same-sex unions marriages under the law.
This point was made at some length in a letter written to the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, on June 5, 2015. The letter was written by a cross-denominational representation of 38 church leaders. It states, 'Because of the crucial role marriage plays as the nursery for the future of the community, and its responsibility always to act in the best interests of children, governments everywhere recognise and regulate marriage. Far from being unusual in the international community for not supporting 'same-sex marriage', Australia's definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman is consistent with that of the vast majority of world nations, who represent over 91 per cent of the global population. To date, only 21 of the 193 member states of the United Nations have changed their legal definition of marriage to incorporate same-sex unions.'
In addition to the wide-spread opposition to same-sex marriage in other nations, it has been claimed that legalising same-sex marriage would put Australia out of step with Asia and may jeopardise Australia's relations with other countries in our region.
On July 2, 2015, Eric Abetz, the government leader in the Senate stated during an ABC Radio interview, 'The Labor Party and other journalists tell us time and time again that we are living in the Asian century, tell me how many Asian countries have redefined marriage?'
Those who hold this view claim that the increasing significance of Asia to Australia from an economic and a diplomatic point of view makes it important that Australia not introduce legislative and social changes that would needlessly antagonise our Asian neighbours.
Developing this point further, Senator Abetz continued, 'Are we in the Asian century or not? It's amazing how certain people try to pick and choose in relation to debates.'
The federal Agriculture Minister, Barnaby Joyce has similarly claimed that legalising same-sex marriage could damage Australia's relations with Asia.
Mr Joyce stated, 'I think that what we have to understand is that when we go there [Asia], there are judgments, whether you like it or not, that are made about us and they see in how we negotiate with them whether they see us as - whether they see us as decadent.'
When asked specifically whether legalising same-sex marriage would lead to Asian nations viewing Australia as 'decadent', Mr Joyce stated, 'I think in some instances they would, yes.'
3. Heterosexual marriages are the best environment within which to raise children
Some opponents of same-sex marriage claim that such unions are not the most suitable environment within which to rear children. They express concern that endorsing same-sex unions by classifying them legally as marriages may be seen as an encouragement for same-sex couples to rear children.
In his Sunday sermon delivered on June 14, 2015, Pope Francis praised heterosexual marriage, stressing the complementary natures of the different genders. He then stressed the value that importance of heterosexual couples in the rearing of children. Pope Francis stated, 'Children mature seeing their father and mother like this; their identity matures being confronted with the love their father and mother have, confronted with this difference.' Similarly, in a letter written to the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, on June 5, 2015, by a cross-denominational representation of 38 church leaders, it was stated, '[A] stable, loving marriage provides the best conditions for raising children. Marriage between a man and a woman gives children the best chance of being loved and raised by their biological mother and father. This is the family structure most consistent with a child's right to know who they are and where they have come from. It is the family structure associated most strongly with positive child outcomes. Any adult person can love and care for a child. But, as a couple, two persons of the same sex are not able to provide a child with the experience of both mothering and fathering. Only the institution of marriage between a man and a woman has this inherent capacity to provide children with both of these relationships that are so foundational to our human identity and development.'
On April 1, 2015, The Sunshine Coast Daily published a comment by Wendy Francis, Queensland state director for the Australian Christian Lobby in which she states, 'The undeniable truth is that redefining marriage will result in yet another group of children being deliberately removed from their parents as a result of government legislation.
Same-sex marriage advocates believe motherless children to be a desirable outcome. They are lobbying for boys to be raised without their fathers and for girls to be raised without their mothers.
Life throws lemons sometimes, and it's not always possible for children to be with their mother and father, but we must learn from past mistakes and refuse to make laws that will deliberately deprive children of their mother or their father.'
A similar view was expressed by former Prime Minister John Howard in 2013 when he stated, '[A]nything we can do to preserve current notions of marriage are more likely on balance to provide the best environment for raising children.'
4. Same-sex unions are not legally discriminated against
It has been claimed that same-sex couples receive the same rights and entitlements as heterosexual couples.
The Internet site of the Australian Government's Attorney General's Department states, 'The Australian Government believes that people are entitled to respect, dignity and the opportunity to participate in society and receive the protection of the law regardless of their sexual orientation.
Following the Australian Human Rights Commission's report Same-Sex: Same Entitlements and an audit of Commonwealth legislation in 2009, 85 Commonwealth laws were amended to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples and their children.
These amendments aimed to remove discrimination to enable same-sex couples and their children to be recognised by Commonwealth law and enjoy the same entitlements as opposite-sex de facto couples and their children.'
The Australian Government's Department of Social Services site states, 'Same-sex de facto couples and their families have the same entitlements as opposite-sex de facto couples and their families.'
It goes on to list a range of entitlements which 'some' same-sex couples enjoy in the same manner as heterosexual couples. These include partner concession card benefits; bereavement benefits if a partner dies; exemption of the family home from the assets test when one partner enters nursing home care and the other partner continues to reside there; recognition as independent for Youth Allowance if in a same-sex relationship for over 12 months; lesbian relationships recognised as a qualifying relationship for Widow Allowance; War Widow or widowers pension; access to the Child Support Scheme; access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Medicare safety nets as a family; allowing private sector superannuation trustees to make same-sex couples and their children eligible for reversionary benefits; enabling reversionary benefits from Commonwealth (defined benefit) superannuation schemes to be conferred on same-sex partners and the children of same-sex relationships and tax concessions.
Opponents of same-sex marriage claim the issue is not one of equal rights but one of accuracy. According to this argument, same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights and benefits as other couples, they are simply unable to describe their union as a marriage because according to the traditional definition of 'marriage', same-sex unions do not qualify.
5. Legalising same-sex marriage could lead to pressure to legalise polygamy
Opponents of legalising same-sex marriage argue that if the conventional definition of marriage is altered this could lead to further alterations of a type which a majority of Australians would find unacceptable.
The key change referred to in this context is polygamy. It is claimed that the arguments that are used to justify same-sex marriage could also be used to justify marriage between multiple partners.
In June, 2015, the federal government's leader in the Senate, Eric Abetz, stated, 'It is an institution that, if you change its definition, you simply open a Pandora's box and we are witnessing that in some of the European countries.'
Senator Abetz went on to explain that activists in the Netherlands, Scandinavia and the United States had 'commented on and pursued' the cause of 'polyamorous' marriages of groups of people.
In September, 2012, Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi made similar claims. Senator Bernardi argued with regard to same-sex marriage, 'It is another chip in the fabric of our social mores...The time has come to ask, when will it end? If we are prepared to redefine marriage ... what is the next step?'
Senator Bernardi went on to suggest, 'The next step ... is having three people that love each other...able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society, or four people. There are even some creepy people out there, who say that it's OK to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?'
In June, 2011, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, stated, 'This claim for a right to be married could open the way for other forms, such as polygamous marriages or perhaps even marriage between immediate family members.'