Right: YES campaign rallies like this one proliferated across the country, but the fact of the postal vote being non-compulsory made the outcome uncertain.
 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
1. Prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying denies them equality and challenges the validity of their relationships
Supporters of same-sex marriage claim that, without access to marriage, same-sex couples are being denied equality before the law. They further argue that preventing same-sex couples from marrying denies them the symbol of public acceptance that marriage provides for heterosexual couples. Relatedly, they argue that being precluded from marrying suggests that same-sex relationships are deficit or inferior and places an artificial barrier between same-sex couples and the rest of the Australian community.
Labor Senator Penny Wong, a prominent homosexual politician, has stated, 'One of the things that make liberal democratic societies both liberal and democratic is the equal treatment of people: granting the same rights, imposing the same responsibilities and giving access to the same opportunities. Discriminating against people on the basis of an innate characteristic, like sexual orientation, is anti-liberal and anti-democratic.'
Senator Wong further argues, 'Most people recognise what our marriage laws don't: gay and lesbian Australians are just like everybody else... Our relationships are like other relationships. Our desire to make a public and lasting commitment to the woman or man we love is the same, too.'
On May 29, 2017, Renai Warner posted the following comment on PoliticsMeansPolitics.com, 'People in same-sex relationships are being denied the chance to legally marry the most significant person in their lives. Their family and friends are being denied the opportunity to see them have a wedding day like everyone else, where their love is shared and accepted for what it simply is. Love. These people are being denied equality!'
The lobby group Australian Marriage Equality argues, 'Marriage is about the commitment shared between two people who love each other and want a secure future together. LGBTI Australians should have the same opportunities for love, commitment and happiness as everyone else.'
The same position is adopted by Amnesty International Australia which has given over a section of its Internet site to support same-sex marriage. The site states, 'Marriage matters to Australians. For many people it is the way they choose to express their love and commitment to their partner.
At the moment loving LGBTQI couples do not have the freedom to express their love and commitment to one another through marriage... Everyone should be treated equally under the law.'
2. Same-sex couples do not have the same rights as married heterosexual couples
De facto couples, whether same-sex or heterosexual, do not enjoy all the rights that apply to a married couple.
One of the key differences is that a married couple does not have to prove the existence or validity of their relationship, whereas a de facto homosexual or heterosexual couple does.
In an analysis and opinion piece published in The Conversation on September 21, 2017 Hannah Robert and Fran Kelly noted, 'In all contexts, de facto relationships require significant proof, which means partners may have to provide evidence about their living and child care arrangements, sexual relationship, finances, ownership of property, commitment to a shared life and how they present as a couple in public.'
In a background and opinion piece published on the SBS News site on September 21, 2017, Liam Elphick stated, 'Married couples do not have to go through such a process: there is no need to prove a commitment to each other. Once a couple has a valid marriage certificate, that is game over and they have all the legal rights that attach to marriage. Furthermore, marriage is covered by uniform federal laws that mean it is irrelevant which state or territory you reside in, unlike the piecemeal de facto relationship laws that apply differently in each state and territory.'
There are numerous circumstances where a partner in a de facto homosexual relationship is required to prove the existence of their relationship. One of these is if their partner is very ill, in order to make decisions about their care and treatment. Another is if their partner has died, in order to be listed as their spouse on a death certificate or to be involved in funeral planning. Thus, in crucial situations, often provoking extreme distress, a same-sex partner can be effectively closed out of the process.
Further, even with this proof of relationship, there are many examples of a same-sex couple's de facto status being challenged by one partner's family of origin. Such challenges cannot occur if the couple is married. Unmarried de facto couples also often experience difficulties attaining residency and/or working rights overseas.
Same-sex couples are uniquely affected by these disadvantages associated with being in a de facto relationship. Firstly, unlike a heterosexual couple in a de facto relationship, the same-sex couple has no choice. The heterosexual couple has the option to marry, the same-sex couple does not. Secondly, the same-sex couple has to deal with the prejudice that sometimes exists against their sexual orientation which can compound the difficulties they face as a consequence of having to prove the validity of their relationship.
3. Legalising same-sex marriage would reduce social and psychological pressures on homosexual youth
Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that amending the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry would be a significant step toward reducing the sense of isolation and discrimination that prompts mental health problems especially among homosexual youth.
In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on August 24, 2017, it was noted, 'Young same-sex attracted people, in particular, already experience feelings of social discrimination, which could increase if same-sex marriage is not legalised. Same-sex-attracted young people are roughly twice as likely to be diagnosed with a mental health disorder, more than six times more likely to have thoughts of suicide, and five times more likely to make a suicide attempt than their heterosexual peers.'
Such feelings of alienation and rejection as young homosexuals, in particular, often feel can be reduced by societal acceptance of same-sex marriage. The same Conversation opinion piece observed, 'In Denmark same-sex married men experienced a reduction in rates of premature death after the implementation of a registered partnerships law in 1989. Similarly, in the United States, implementation of same-sex marriage policies has been associated with a 7% relative reduction in the proportion of high school students attempting suicide.'
Numerous peer reviewed studies have shown the negative health impacts caused by discrimination against LGBTQI people. Five of Australia's most prominent mental health groups - Black Dog Institute, headspace, ReachOut, the Brain and Mind Centre at University of Sydney and Orygen - have drawn on these studies to argue that a 'yes' vote on marriage equality could reduce youth suicide attempts in Australia by up to 3000 per year.
A spokesperson for the Blackdog Institute, Dr Fiona Shand, has stated, 'If you legalise same-sex marriage then you are very likely to see a reduction in those suicide attempts and suicide deaths.'
Dr Shand has further stated, 'We don't get involved in anything to do with politics or anything like that. But in this case, the evidence is fairly clear: this could be really beneficial for our young people, for our school aged people in particular.
It's actually sending a very powerful message to our young people who are struggling with their sexual orientation and identity that they are accepted, and they do belong.'
Jono Nicholas, CEO of ReachOut, has similarly stated, 'This confronting statistic highlights both the human impacts of the current discrimination against LGBTQI relationships, and the positive future that marriage equality can achieve for Australia.
As Australia's leading youth mental health organisations, we see, hear and feel the real and devastating link between LGBTQI discrimination and youth suicide rates and mental illness every day.'
4. Child rearing issues are not relevant to the same-sex marriage debate
Opponents of same-sex marriage often claim that they are concerned about the welfare of children raised by same-sex parents. Those who support same-sex marriage argue that the children of same-sex couples suffer no disadvantage.
Though there is some inconsistency in results, a majority of studies seeking to demonstrate the impact on child welfare of being raised by same-sex parents indicate there is no significant difference between children raised in these circumstances and those raised in a family with heterosexual parents.
The evidence most commonly used to justify this claim comes from a meta-analysis of 33 studies published in 2010. This wide-ranging analysis, published in The Journal of Marriage and Family, concluded 'The gender of parents...has minor significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.'
A further discussion of the evidence around the effect of same-sex parenting published in The Conversation on March 26, 2016, noted, 'Several subsequent studies, including a large Australian study, have replicated these (2010) findings.'
In an analysis and opinion piece published in Medium on August 18, 2017, epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz further argued that the often-made claim that same-sex parenting is detrimental to the development of children is based on flawed science.
Meyerowitz-Katz examined a 2012 study frequently used to justify the assertion that same-sex couples harm children and demonstrated that it failed adequately to define what a same-sex couple was or what it meant to be 'raised' by one. The 2012 study included as 'same-sex parents' anyone who had ever had a same-sex relationship, irrespective of whether this was the one within which that person had reared children. Further, the data was gathered through an online survey and the researchers do not appear to have filtered out disingenuous responses.
Opponents of the disparaging claims made about same-sex couples as parents also note that these claims should have little bearing on the same-sex marriage debate. According to this line of argument, children will continue to be raised in non-traditional family groupings irrespective of whether same-sex couples are allowed to marry.
Some commentators maintain that the discussion around the welfare of children with same-sex parents is fuelled by prejudice. Opponents of same-sex marriage are accused of bigotry because they do not similarly condemn single-parent families or call for more rigorous grounds for divorce.
Meyerowitz-Katz has condemned what he sees as the bigotry of the supposed 'concern for children' position in his critique of the evidence upon which it is based. He stated, 'Marriage law has nothing whatsoever to do with children?-?it has been legal for quite some time for same-sex couples to have kids?-?the anti-equality campaign has to focus on something. If they admitted this was about, say, denying people basic rights because of centuries of religious bigotry, no one would listen.'
5. Legalising same-sex marriage will benefit the institution of marriage
Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that the reform of the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry will benefit rather than harm the institution.
The Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull has referred to the 23 other countries that have legalised same-sex marriage, including many culturally similar to Australia, and argued, 'In any one of those nations, has the sky fallen in? Has life as we know it ground to a halt? Has traditional marriage been undermined? And the answer is plainly no.'
Rather than weaken either marriage or the societies that value it, supporters of same-sex marriage argue that having more people publicly pledging their loving commitment to each other is advantageous.
Prime Minister Turnbull has stated, 'I am very firmly of the view that families are the foundation of our society and we would be a stronger society if more people were married and fewer were divorced...If the threat to marriage today is lack of commitment then surely other couples making and maintaining a commitment sets a good rather than a bad example.'
Turnbull directly addressed the potential harm same-sex marriage might do existing marriages and stated, 'I am utterly unpersuaded by the proposition that my marriage to Lucy - 38 years long next March - or indeed any marriage is undermined by two gay men or two gay women setting up house down the road, whether it is called a marriage or not.'
Labor Senator Penny Wong has similarly stated, 'In 2012, John Key, New Zealand's conservative prime minister, spoke for many when he said, "if two gay people want to get married, then I can't see why it would undermine my marriage to Bronagh". Likewise, I have never understood how my commitment to Sophie could threaten anyone else's marriage.'
Penny Wong has also quoted another overseas political leader, then Britain's Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has similarly argued that gay marriage would strengthen both society and marriage. Wong quotes, 'David Cameron, the conservative prime minister of the United Kingdom, has observed, "Society is stronger when we make vows to each other and we support each other. So I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative."'
6. Anyone with religious or other conscientious objections to same sex marriage need not attend or officiate at such services
Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that those with conscientious objections to the reform will not be disadvantaged.
Federal Cabinet minister, Christopher Pyne, has stated that any same-sex marriage legislation presented to Parliament will include provisions to protect those in the community with conscientious objections.
Pyne has referred approvingly to a private members Bill already drafted by Coalition MP Dean Smith. He has stated, 'The bill that Dean Smith had drafted, which has gone through an exhaustive committee process last year and earlier this year, I believe has the sufficient protections. Because nobody is trying to make religious institutions or conscientious objectors do anything that they don't want to do.'
A similar point has been made by federal treasurer Scott Morrison who has stated, 'If the survey were to return a yes, well any bill that would then come forward...would...ensure religious freedoms were protected and I can assure Australians this would be at the top of my list for that particular bill and how it went through.'
Labor Senator Penny Wong has argued that Australia's respect for religious freedoms and its Constitutional separation of Church and State will ensure that no same-sex marriage legislation would ever require clerics to act against their conscience. She has stated, 'For this reason, no marriage equality bill passed by the national parliament would require churches to conduct same-sex weddings.'
On more mundane commercial questions of whether those opposed to same-sex marriages should be compelled to supply goods or services to such marriages, Wong believes that common sense is likely to supply a solution in most situations. She implies that there are likely to be service providers who indicate that they specialise in catering for same-sex marriage services and that a same-sex couple would be likely to use such services.
Wong notes, 'It seems to me that dragooning a hostile caterer or a disapproving photographer into being part of your special day would be a recipe for overcooked main courses or blurry photographs. In the real world, I suspect market forces and common sense will prevail.'