Right: Senator Cory Bernardi threw the resources of his new Conservative party behind the NO campaign.
Arguments against legalising same sex marriage
1. Marriage is a heterosexual union Many opponents of same-sex marriage claim that the institution of marriage exists to endorse heterosexual unions, particularly those intended for procreation and child-rearing. They argue that marriage brings together two distinct and biologically different individuals, whose biological difference enables them to produce children. This position was put by former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in an opinion piece published in The Sydney Morning Herald on September 13, 2017. Mr Abbott stated that Australia should 'continue to reserve the term "marriage" for the relationship of one man with one woman, ideally for life and usually dedicated to children.'  Stressing the unique nature of a heterosexual union, the Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, has stated, 'There's only one form of love that is marriage, and that is between a man and a woman.' The Archbishop went on to acknowledge that other forms of love, including homosexual love, may have equal value, but that they were not the form of love that is being sanctioned in a marriage. Referring to same-sex love, Archbishop Coleridge concluded, 'like the love of friends ... it is valuable, but it's not, and it can't be, the kind of love that we call marriage.' A similar insistence on the unique nature of the heterosexual union and thus its sole right to be termed a 'marriage' has been made by the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davis. The Archbishop has stated, 'No one denies that loving relationships can exist between two persons of the same sex. However, men and women are not the same. It is the very differences between the sexes that enhance the marriage union and create the opportunity of the bearing of children.' The same view has been put by Australian Baptist Ministries which issued a media release on August 18, 2017, stating, 'There are compelling cultural and heritage reasons for rejecting this proposed radical social reform... A strong society needs a strong commitment to marriage and family. Marriage is best understood as the union of a man and a woman.' Mr Abbott has similarly defended the long-standing distinction made when dealing with heterosexual love. He stated, 'We shouldn't lightly change what's been the foundation of our society for generations.' 2. Same-sex marriage will increase the number of children denied access to their biological mother or father Opponents of same-sex marriage frequently question the impact on children in same-sex partnerships of being separated from one or both of their biological parents. On September 8, 2017, former Prime Minister, John Howard, placed a central emphasis on the rights of children within the marriage debate. Howard stated, 'I believe there is a conflict here between those seeking the right for same-sex marriage and the rights of the child, and I believe the right of the child to have a mother and father should be preserved.' Howard further stated, 'I recognise that there are homosexual couples who are caring and conscientious parents who do a good job and there are plenty of neglectful heterosexual parents. But the clear evidence is that you have outcomes that are superior for children in the longer term if they have a mother and a father.' A reader comment published in The Australian on September 11 extended this argument. The commentator, 'Leigh', argued, 'For me the issue is more about what do we think defines a family. Marriage is the cornerstone of a family. SSM institutionalises the removal of at least one biological parent. Is that fair for the child? When a parent dies or divorces, we call that a tragedy, but now we want to institutionally validate this as a new normal. For this reason I don't think SSM can ever be equal to traditional marriage.' The following day 'Leigh' further noted, 'Marriage... is a protective environment to create and raise children. Now gay couples can raise children: but they can never create children within the "contract" of marriage. Thus for me, the core purpose of marriage is now altered and to the significant disadvantage of the child.' Opponents of same-sex marriage have argued that sanctioning same-sex unions through marriage will create larger numbers of children who have little or no access to at least one of their biological parents. This situation has been compared to that of Indigenous children separated from their parents, and to that of adopted children or to children who have been separated from a parent through divorce. In all of these cases the child can feel very strongly the loss of one or more biological parent. Critics of same-sex marriage claim that this change would simply increase the number of children suffering under this emotional burden. This argument has been put by Lyle Shelton, Coalition for Marriage spokesman and Australian Christian Lobby head. Shelton has stated, 'Any public policy which requires a child to miss out on their mum and dad...is not a good thing. It doesn't mean that gay people can't love children - of course they can. And it didn't mean that the people who took indigenous children into their homes didn't love them. Love is not the issue. The issue was whether it was right for government policy to cause a child to miss out on the love of their mum and their dad.' 3. Same sex couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples Opponents of legalising same-sex marriage argue this change to the law is not necessary as same-sex couples already enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. On September 14, 2017, SBS published a comment by Liam Elphick which included the observation, 'In 2008... the federal Labor government passed a reform package that removed discrimination against same-sex de facto couples in areas such as taxation, superannuation, aged care, citizenship, and family law. In theory, this meant that "de facto" same-sex couples should enjoy most of the legal rights that attach to marriage.' FindLaw Australia states, 'A couple who is in a same-sex relationship for all intents and purposes have the same rights as those who are in a legally recognised marriage. Whether it is property, parental or estate rights, individuals who are in a committed, intimate relationship are protected in Australian law.' FindLaw Australia notes the provisions that the Commonwealth Family Law Act considers when deciding on the rights that attach to partners in a de facto religion. These include: the length of the relationship; the nature and extent of common residence; the existence of a sexual relationship; the dependence, interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support; the ownership, acquisition, and use of property; the degree of a mutual commitment to a shared life; the care and support of children the performance of household duties; and the reputation and public aspects of the relationship. In an opinion piece published in The Sydney Morning Herald on September 13, 2017. Mr Abbott stated, 'Already, indeed, same sex couples in a settled domestic relationship have exactly the same rights as people who are married.' Very much the same point was made by Rowan Dean in an opinion piece published in The Courier Mail on September 18, 2017. Dean stated, 'Gay couples already have virtually all the same legal rights in Australia as heterosexual couples, thanks to our generous de facto marriage laws.' 4. Legalising same-sex marriage would undermine the rights of those opposed on religious or conscientious grounds Critics of legalising same-sex marriage argue that such a law could result in discrimination against people who are unable to support or help implement the newly established legal right of same-sex couples to marry. It is claimed that in overseas jurisdictions where people have refused, on the basis of conscience, to involve themselves with same-sex marriages they have been either legally or financially penalised and in some instances forced out of business. Former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has stated, 'In Britain, Catholic adoption agencies (have) had to close down right around the country because they refused to toe the line on same-sex marriage (and allow same-sex couples to adopt).' Former Prime Minister John Howard has argued that before the same-sex marriage debate proceeds further, the government must draft legislation that would protect the rights of those with religious or conscientious objections to same-sex marriage. Liberal MP Dean Smith has already proposed a private members bill which would include some of the protections Howard is seeking. Such legislation exists in some other jurisdictions, including the United States state of Mississippi, where religious organisations, such as churches, cannot be forced to use their facilities to celebrate or solemnise weddings that violate their beliefs; religious adoption agencies can continue to operate requiring that every child should be placed with a married mother and father; and bakers, photographers, florists and similar wedding-specific vendors cannot be forced to use their talents to celebrate same-sex weddings if they cannot do so in good conscience. In the absence of such legislation in Australia, there are those who fear that legalising same-sex marriage would lead to discrimination against those who remain opposed to it. It has been further claimed that since the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Britain, the climate of support for the rights of homosexuals was impinging on the former rights of those opposed to homosexuality in areas that do not relate to same-sex marriage. In an opinion piece published in The Spectator on September 7, 2017, Australian commentator David Sergeant noted that Britain's High Court had recently ruled that a 'Pentecostal couple were ineligible to be adoptive parents. While the court recognised their successful and loving record of adoption, they decreed that above all else: "The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence".' Thus a couple or an individual's attitude to homosexuality could preclude them from accessing rights or services they had previously enjoyed. 5. Legalising same-sex marriage could led to pressure to legalise polygamy It has been claimed that relaxing the definition of marriage to include a union between two people of the same sex could lead to other changes that many within the Australian community would oppose. The most frequently mentioned further modification by those opposed to any changes to the Marriage Act is that once same-sex marriage was accepted this might lead to a push to have polygamy accepted within Australia. Emeritus professor of law, David Flint, has stated, 'Politicians could subsequently approve new forms of marriage or measures to punish supporters of traditional marriage. We have no idea what these could be. Some European politicians and clergymen have seriously proposed that sharia law be introduced to ðlegitimise polygamous marriages, demeaning seriously women's rights. This could subsequently lead to the recognition of other practices, including underage and arranged marriages.' A similar argument has been put by Herald Sun commentator Andrew Bolt. On September 5, 2016, Bolt stated, 'I warned Malcolm Turnbull and others of the Left that saying yes to same-sex marriage would make it hard to say no to polygamy. How could we say no to any three adults marrying once we've agreed to any two?' Bolt went on to claim that some within the Greens already accept polygamy. He cites a prominent (unnamed) party official claiming senator Sarah Hanson-Young's has insisted that limiting marriage to two consenting adults discriminates against others in the gay community, including polyamorists. Bolt argues that the increasing number of immigrants within Australia whose original cultures endorse polygamy means there may well be a growing pressure to legalise this form of marriage. 6. Legalising same-sex marriage is part of a more general challenge to heterosexual marriage and to traditional gender identity Some opponents of same-sex marriage see such a change to the Marriage Act as part of a larger campaign against heterosexual marriage and traditional gender identity. They claim same-sex marriage derives from a worldview which denies that gender is fixed and binary and which seeks to promote the concept of gender fluidity. Among those who hold this view is Guy Barnett, the Tasmanian Minister for Resources, Building and Construction. Mr Barnett has stated, 'If the law of the land is changed to legalise same sex marriage, schools will be obliged to teach gay and lesbian sexual activity in the classroom.' Barnett further argued that the concept of fixed gender would also be open to challenge. He stated, 'Once gender is removed from our marriage laws it will quickly be removed from our classrooms.' He was particularly critical of what he referred to as Victoria's 'so-called Safe Schools program...where they promote gender fluidity.' Karen Dixon, from Coalition for Marriage, has similarly stated that the consequences of legalised same sex marriage would be 'diabolical'. Ms Dixon has claimed, 'It's not just a simple matter of can two people of the same gender get married...Once you make changes to marriage you're changing the way that a family unit is structured ... once you legalise something, then you make it okay, you make it right, you make it good. It follows that the education in our school system should reflect the laws of our nation.' On Monday, August 29, 2017, former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, stated on Sydney radio station 2GB, 'This isn't just about marriage. Sure, marriage is the immediate focus but there are lots and lots of implications here and we've got to think them through before we take this big leap into what I think is the dark. How, for instance, can we legitimately say no to gender fluidity programs like so-called Safe Schools if we've de-gendered marriage? If we've officially sanctioned de-gendering marriage, it's very hard not to see de-gendering come in in so many other areas as well.' |
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.