Right: cartoonist John Spooner takes a poke at the conservative view of gay marriage.
 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 in favour of legalising same sex marriage in Australia
1. Refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry is discriminatory and promotes inequality
It has been claimed that excluding same-sex couples from being able to form a marriage as currently defined and recognised under the Marriage Act is an act of discrimination which denies the equal value of same-sex unions.
In September 2012 the Australian Human Rights Commission issued a position paper on marriage equality. The lead statement of the Commission's paper claims 'the fundamental human rights principle of equality means that civil marriage should be available, without discrimination, to all couples, regardless of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.'
The position paper went on to state, 'The principle of equality requires that any formal relationship recognition available under law to opposite-sex couples should also be available to same-sex couples. This includes civil marriage.'
It has been claimed that denying access to marriage to same-sex couples is discriminatory as the sexual orientation of the partners does not determine the worth of their relationship.
In an article published in The Guardian on July 2, 2015, the leader of the federal Opposition, Bill Shorten, stated of legalising same-sex marriage 'It is a chance for us to say, as a nation, to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians: your love is equal under the law...
To say to young people who identify as gay: we are proud of you for who you are. You have a right to the same hopes, dreams and opportunities as every Australian, including the right to marry the person you love.
To say to same-sex couples: you deserve the right to celebrate your love with a public measure of devotion.'
It has also been noted that denying same-sex couples the right to marry encourages other forms of discrimination against them. Australian Marriage Equality states as one of its twelve reasons why same-sex couples should be able to marry, 'The negative message sent out by discrimination in marriage fosters prejudice, discrimination and unequal treatment against same-sex relationships in the wider community.'
Australian Marriage Equality goes on to note, '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.'
2. Same-sex couples are equally capable of raising children well
It has claimed that children raised in same-sex families demonstrate no adverse effects when compared to children raised by heterosexual couples.
In December 2013, the Australian Institute of Family Studies released a research paper titled 'Same-sex parented families in Australia'. The paper indicates 'About 11% of Australian gay men and 33% of lesbians have children. [These] Children may have been conceived in the context of previous heterosexual relationships, or raised from birth by a co-parenting gay or lesbian couple or single parent.'
The paper surveys a range of studies on the effects of same-sex households on the children reared within them. It concludes, 'Overall, research to date considerably challenges the point of view that same-sex parented families are harmful to children. Children in such families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers from heterosexual couple families.'
The paper further notes 'Some researchers have concluded there are benefits for children raised by lesbian couples in that they experience higher quality parenting, sons display greater gender flexibility, and sons and daughters display more open-mindedness towards sexual, gender and family diversity.'
On June 27, 2015, United States Quartz magazine published an article titled 'The science is clear: Children raised by same-sex parents are at no disadvantage". The article notes 'In January, researchers from the Columbia Law School examined 76 studies published after 1985 and found that only four of them concluded that children raised by gay couples faced additional adversity as a result of having same-sex parents.'
The magazine later noted 'More recently, researchers from the University of Colorado Denver and the University of Oregon used the tool Web of Science to examine the ways in which scientific papers analysed children of same-sex parents over time, and how each paper cited others to back its analysis. They found that over time, more and more papers cited other research that highlighted that there are "no differences" in the outcomes for children based solely on whether they were raised by same-sex, heterosexual, or single parents.'
3. Restrictions on marriage have changed over time
Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that there is nothing immutable, time-honoured or unchangeable about the institution of marriage. As an example, it has been noted that the age at which Australians could marry have varied over time and according to jurisdiction.
Prior to 1961, marriage laws were the province of the different Australia states and territories with regulations varying from one jurisdiction to another. For example, from 1901 on the marriageable age in Australian states and territories was the same as the age of consent: 14 for men and 12 for women. However, in 1942, Tasmania raised the marriageable age for men to 18 and for women to 16; Western Australia followed suit in 1956 and South Australia in 1957.
There have also been varying restrictions placed on Aboriginal Australians right to marry.
Victoria's Aborigines Protection Act 1869 (Vic) gave the Board for the Protection of Aborigines the power to refuse marriage applications from Indigenous Victorians. In Queensland, the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) prohibited Indigenous woman from marrying anyone other than an Indigenous man without the permission of an Aboriginal Protector.
In the Northern Territory, which was governed by Commonwealth law, the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 restricted marriages between Indigenous women and non-Indigenous men. For example, the marriage of Indigenous or half-caste women to non-Indigenous men required legal permission.
Rodney Croome, the national director of Australian Marriage Equality has stated, 'some Aborigines resisted control. Women deliberately fell pregnant to their forbidden fiancs, couples escaped to states without marriage controls, and in 1935 the "half-caste women of Broome" petitioned the WA Parliament declaring:
"Sometimes we have the chance to marry a man of our own choice... therefore we ask for our Freedom so that when the chance comes along we can rule our lives and make ourselves true and good citizens."'
Rodney Croome has also noted that restrictions have been imposed limiting other mixed race marriages. 'Because of the White Australia Policy servicemen in occupied Japan were refused permission to marry local Japanese women or, if they married anyway, were unable to return to Australia with their Japanese wives.'
In other periods and cultures the right to marry has been limited by class and religious belief and women's rights within marriage were severely restricted with ownership of any property they brought to the marriage reverting to their husband. It was not until the late 1800s that the Married Women's Property Act enabled married women to hold property of their own. Victoria passed legislation in 1884, New South Wales in 1879, and the remaining states passed similar legislation between 1890 and 97.
All these limitations are now regarded as inappropriate. Supporters of same-sex marriage claim restrictions on lesbian and homosexual unions are equally inappropriate.
4. Those with religious objections would not be required to support or officiate at same-sex marriages
It has been claimed that religious objections to same-sex marriage should not be effected by ant change in law which allows same-sex civil unions.
Marriages can be conducted by either civil celebrants or ministers of religion. In an article published in The Australian on July 6, 2015, Australian Human Rights Commisioner, Tim Wilson, stated, 'The Marriage Act...recognise[s] civil marriages. A civil marriage is defined as a union between two people voluntarily entered into for life and can be solemnised by a licensed civil celebrant. The act...also recognise[s] religious marriages in different religious traditions ...
As things stand, a minister of a religious faith can solemnise a marriage based on their faith's prescription. So a priest could only solemnise a marriage between a man and a woman based on the prescriptions of that faith. The spirit of this tradition can already be found in other countries, such as Britain, with different religious communities.'
It has been argued that any minister of religion would be able to refuse to conduct a marriage service for a couple who did not meet the conditions for marriage required by the particular religious denomination which the minister represented. Therefore, if a particular religion is opposed to same-sex marriage no change in Australian law would require its members and ministers to endorse or officiate at such a marriage.
5. Other comparable countries have legalised same-sex marriage
Supporters of same-sex marriage being made legal in Australia note that it has been legalised in many comparable countries.
Since 2001, 21 countries have legalised same-sex marriage, affording full recognition and rights to couples entering into them.
In chronological order these are The Netherlands (April 1, 2001), Belgium (June 1, 2003), Spain (July 3, 2005), Canada (July 20, 2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (January 1, 2009), Sweden (May 1, 2009), Portugal (June 5, 2010), Iceland (June 27, 2010), Argentina (July 22, 2010), Denmark (15 June 2012),Uruguay (April 2, 2013), New Zealand (April 17, 2013), France (April 23, 2013), Brazil (May 14 2013), England and Wales (July 17, 2013), Luxembourg (June 18, 2014), Scotland (February 4, 2014), Finland (signed February 20, 2015, effective 2017), Ireland (May 23 , 2015) and the United States (June 26, 2015).
It has been noted that many countries with cultural backgrounds similar to Australia can be found within this list. Key among these are Canada, New Zealand, Ireland and the United States.
The recent addition of Ireland and the United States to the group of countries that have legalised same-sex marriage has increased the pressure for such marriages to be legalised in this country. The Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has stated that the US Supreme Court's landmark to allow same-sex marriage will 'clearly' influence Australia. Mr Turnbull has further stated 'All of the English-speaking countries that we are closest to, Britain, Ireland, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, South Africa, they all allow gay marriage.'