same sex rights
6 Oct 2008
Why Can't We Be Married?
Same-sex marriage is still banned because Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd are afraid of the Christian Right. But they should just relax, as Rodney Croome explains
"Why?" — that's the question thousands of same-sex partners ask whenever they hear one of our national leaders declare that marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman.
Malcolm Turnbull is the most recent to enter the debate. Echoing Kevin Rudd almost word for word, Turnbull recently declared on a Sydney radio station, "I believe marriage is a permanent union between a man and a woman...That doesn't mean [a same-sex] relationship is second class, it just isn't marriage. I think that marriage is a special institution, I think it's fundamental and I think it's a permanent union between a man and a woman. [It] has a special status in our society and our culture and it is between a man and a woman."
But why?
Turnbull and Rudd would never consider gender a qualification for entry into any other "fundamental institution".
They would never judge (or admit to judging) the quality of a relationship on the basis of whether children can be naturally born to it, or whether it conforms to Biblical proscriptions.
Sometimes they say marriage is exclusively heterosexual because this is how the institution is understood traditionally, or by a majority of people. But they would never cite such reasons to justify other forms of discrimination.
If we rightly put gender, children, the Bible and tradition to one side, why is a committed same-sex relationship not a marriage? It can be in Holland, Belgium, Canada, South Africa and Spain. Is marriage in Australia so exceptional that it is an intrinsically different institution?
The answer to these questions is, of course, entirely political.
Australia's conservative Christian lobbyists have convinced both major parties that same-sex marriage is the evangelical line in the sand and neither can win government if they cross that line.
With the aid of graphs, charts and exit-polling from the most recent federal election, these lobbyists have tried to make the case that mega-churches are so deeply interwoven in the social and economic fabric of key marginal seats that to alienate their pastors and congregations is to lose these marginal seats and hence government. At the same time, they refer to past church-based letter-writing campaigns to show that nothing antagonises conservative church goers more than the sin of homosexuality linked to the holy sacrament of matrimony.
This analysis is selective and incorrect, because it fails to take into account the impact of a shift of gay and lesbian people to key suburban and regional marginal seats, a shift which more than counteracts the voting impact of evangelical churches in the same places.
Across the western world demographers have documented dramatically increasing numbers of same-sex couples moving to, or staying in outer suburban, regional and rural areas.
In Australia we can see evidence for this in a massive increase in gay social groups in such areas, in the decline of inner-city gay institutions like the Sydney Mardi Gras, and most startlingly of all in the Census. It reveals that the most dramatic growth in the number of same-sex couples is not in Darlinghurst or Prahan but Tasmania, rural Victoria, north Queensland and south west WA.
What's more, we're seeing the rapid and deep integration of same-sex couples into suburban and regional life, as employers, as community leaders, or simply as friends and neighbours. This integration is driving an equally profound shift in attitudes, including much more support for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships than existed only a few years ago.
Signs of this change can be found in the fact that traditionally conservative political parties like the WA Nationals or the Tasmanian Liberals have led the way in supporting same-sex civil unions. But what's most telling are polls showing young evangelicals do not share their elders' views. While younger Christian conservatives remain strongly opposed to, say, abortion, the recognition of same-sex unions poses much less of a problem for them, chiefly because they know gay couples personally.
In short, the graphs and charts of the Christian lobby are little more than conjuring tricks designed to camouflage social reality. But, sadly, it is currently these tricks which determine major-party policy on same-sex marriage.
So, with perceived electoral death stalking them on one side, and outmoded prejudices waiting to tarnish their image on the other, what is a mainstream politician to do?
The simple answer, as Turnbull and Rudd have shown, is to oppose change but never to explain why.
The equally simple response of the media and the general public should be to demand either a satisfactory explanation, or an end to groundless opposition.
Frustratingly, this is something which rarely if ever occurs in Australia, either because journalists aren't sufficiently versed in the issue to systematically dismantle the defences of political leaders, or because they simply don't believe same-sex marriage is important enough to waste time on.
In fairness, proponents of reform have a duty to explain themselves too. It is necessary — but not sufficient — to justify change on the basis of "equal treatment".
We must also explain how discrimination stigmatises same-sex couples and their children, and how it distorts the hopes and expectations of young gays and lesbians and their parents.
On top of this, we need to make the case that marriage will benefit from change by being made more socially relevant, and having its core values reinforced by an influx of couples who cherish those values.
Why do Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd oppose equal marriage, and why do same-sex couples want it? Only when the nation begins seriously asking and answering these two key questions, will the Australian same-sex marriage debate truly begin in earnest.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Unfortunately, "explaining why" is something frowned upon in public life.
My partner Andreas and I have been together for twenty-one years, and even though we’ve never felt the need to formalise our partnership in marriage, among our family and friends, ours is up there with the most stable relationships.
Still, we completely understand the desire of many gay couples to marry. On Saturday we attended the wedding of my niece. It was a wonderful occasion, combining all the traditional wedding festivities with a (civil) bushland ceremony. The shared joy at their obvious love for each other, and the communal welcoming of their relationship into the framework of family structures was touching and infectious. It was easy to understand how many more couples would wish this for themselves.
For us, there was one dark spot in the ceremony. Since 2005 the celebrant is required to read the following words at every civil wedding: "Marriage according to Australian law, is defined as the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." In the midst of the shared joy, in the presence of extended family and friends, when I heard these words I felt quite sick. For me, they most definitely read as Rodney predicted they would:
I absolutely agree that our politicians need to be challenged more often on their rationale for continuing this prejudice.
There are pitfalls that have to be considered as well.
My sister got busted by the then SS for claiming the dole while in a defacto relationship but when last year, I went through a long period of unemployment, Centrelink did not ask me about sharing a house with the same man for over a decade. I’m not gay and would not appreciate having to prove we weren’t a sexual couple. If gay marriage comes in it would be another tool government agencies could use it against you. No split income for taxation purposes or rebates for solar etc. He still needed to help me through but I wasn’t a total liability to him, that would have probably destroyed our friendship and I could have ended up on the street. You can’t pay rent and bills and still eat on the dole with Sydney prices.
Be careful what you ask for, or don’t admit it unless you are financially independent.
asaridis, even if marriage were a christian institution, that would be no justification for excluding same-sex couples. Indeed, since the beginning of christianity, church-sanctioned same-sex marriages have been taking place, as detailed in John Boswell’s excellent book, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century.
Also, "christian" does not mean "fixed in time." Religious institutions have shown themselves to be very adaptable when social or political conditions change. Modern christian marriage bears little resemblance to how it used to be: an institution reserved for the upper classes, where divorce was forbidden and women had no role in the choice of partner. Today even the catholic church grants an annulment to 80% of divorced catholics who apply and pay for one - and the majority of annulment refusals follow the church’s refusal to regard the first marriage as valid (i.e. by refusing to recognise a previous civil marriage, the church finds the divorced catholic free to re-marry).
Neither does "christian" mean "monolithic," or even "consistent." In four weeks Californians will be asked if they want to "change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." That state’s most senior
anglicanepiscopal bishops have urged their flock to vote against the proposition. There are many more examples of religious groups opposing the ban on same-sex marriage here. There is significant division among christians on this issue - it is simply not possible to make claims about "certain Christian doctrine."Aside from these considerations, marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one. The religious arguments apply solely to those who choose to solemnise their relationship in a religious context. For the rest of the population, arguments about religion and tradition are completely irrelevant. Yes, let’s leave the sacrament out of the debate, and stick to simply talking about marriage.
Hear hear Woulfe.
At my marriage God was not invited to the ceremony and it was certainly not performed within a Christian framework.
Does this mean my husband and I are also not ‘truly’ married?
While many of our laws have evolved from Christian tradition it is insulting to suggest that laws pertaining to our current society can only be enacted with that tradition in mind.
Civil - of or relating to the state or its citizenry.
Why a civil ceremony should cause such offence is beyond me.
People forget (or do not know) that the person who officiates at weddings be they ministers, imans, priests or whomever … must be licensed by the Australian government for the marriage to be valid.
The marriage certificate given out by churches is not a legal document for recognition of a marriage, only the one provided by the state’s registries are.
No one arguing for same-sex marriage is insisting that churches be forced in marrying any couple they do not want to.
And any argument for using the phrase civil unions as opposed to marriage is just playing a game of semantics.
You brought god into this discussion, asaridis. The only one "implicating God in the inequities of man" is you.
Apparently you’d like to claim that the rings, the vows and the rest belong to christianity, but these rituals go back a lot further than two thousand years. Also, your claim won’t go far with the increasing numbers of (opposite-sex) couples who choose a civil wedding. Already in 1991 one-third of Australia’s weddings were civil ones. In 2006 the proportion was up to 60%. The fact that one minority chooses to solemnise their relationships in a religious context is no basis for withholding a civil right from another minority.
So in response to your questions ("Why the rings? Why the vows??") I say why not? Same-sex couples are already spread throughout Australia. Many of their relationships, like mine, are just as stable and committed: like mine, many last significantly longer than the average marriage.
Twenty percent of lesbian couples, and five percent of male homosexual couples are raising children, and because of the continuing discrimination in the tax, social security, health and aged care systems, every same-sex couple currently makes a greater financial contribution to society than their opposite-sex peers. Same-sex couples have earnt the right to be treated equally.
If a same-sex couple wishes to formalise their relationship, telling them they must do so under "a system similar to driver’s licenses" simply states to them, their children and their families that their relationship is of less worth than others.
It’s cruel and mindless discrimination.
asardis, you raise some interesting points.
"Sadly for those people who do not agree with certain Christian doctrine about homosexuality do not get to partake in this sacrament and will be never be ‘truly’ married - in the spiritual sense."
perhaps you might have said that they aren’t truly married - in the Christian sense, rather than in the spiritual sense.
I don’t know what happened to ‘marriage’ in atheist Russia after the revolution, but as we live in world of divergent cultural influences it seems strange to ask everyone to comply with the Christian model.
asardis, I didn’t realize that the term ‘marriage’ was strictly a Christian term, so perhaps as a multi-cultural society we should find a replacement.
Wolfe you are right there are many cases of same sex unions being more stable and loving that many hetro equivalents. But I really don’t understand why you would want a Christian wedding. I mean their position is quite clear on the subject, which makes me wonder if you don’t want a Christian marriage so much as you want to bend the Christian tradition to your world view.
Why no mention of the gay and lesbian rights organisations which merrily sold us all out by agreeing from the outset to a weaker version of relationship recognition? I recently sat in a room with some of those odious people and they were bemoaning the fact that they had mysteriously overlooked the fact that by asking for something far less than equality we have ended up with not much at all. In fact, for gay and lesbian couples on some government benefits, ‘equality’ is going to mean that they will become severely, economically disadvantaged. So by all means continue to hassle Rudd and Turnbull over their dodgy, fear of Christian fundamentalists logic but also, we need to stop relying on the gay and lesbian elite to determine our future on our behalf.
Let me start by requesting that you take your own advice. I believe I carefully read, understood and noted every word you’ve written here, asaridis. If you had done the same, you would have found it impossible to write:
I haven’t suggested that christians are closed-minded, prejudiced or even narrow - they’re your words. Like the line above about associating inequities with god, you simultaneously introduced them into this dialogue while ascribing them to me. At best this is sloppy; at worst it’s dishonest, and, ahem, unchristian.
Because it’s impossible to prove a negative, you’ll simply have to take my word that I don’t have any prejudices against christians. However I do find myself getting very annoyed at avowed christians like yourself who behave as though their beliefs excuse them of any obligation to observe the standards they demand from others.
And I maintain that in the domain of civil rights, your christian perspective is irrelevant. Sure marriage is important to christians - that doesn’t mean they own it. Water is important to christians too, but they don’t claim the right to tell non-christians how to drink.
The marriage issue is not about material advantage. It’s about the perception of same-sex relationships in society. Separate-but-equal is another term for unequal, and just like skin colour, gender or handedness, sexual orientation is not a valid basis for denying civil rights. As the Chief Justice of California’s Supreme Court wrote in that court’s recent judgement upholding the right of gay Californians to marry, "An individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
I disagree. You are arguing that on the grounds of your religion my rights should be curtailed, that a specific way of life should be withheld from me.
To flip your argument around, no-one is saying that you have to enter into a same-sex marriage. The existence of same-sex marriage will not restrict your choices, religious or civil. You are arguing that your religious activities should restrict my civil activities, while the civil aspirations of same-sex couples will have no effect whatsoever on your religious ones.
Honestly, get over it. In these days of live-and-let-live, it’s clear that the trend on this issue is definitely going my way. Here’s a nice list of christian values on which you could more usefully spend your energy.
"It is a term that is sacred to christians of all denominations."
Oh, that’s OK. I’m not a Christian, so I can use it however I like.
"By using any other terminology for these unions there is no material disadvantage to same sex couples."
By using the same terminology, what material disadvantage would there be for Christians?
Which majority might that be? The 57% majority which thinks that gay Australians should be allowed to marry? Or maybe the 60% majority who choose a civil wedding ceremony over a religious one?
The Howard government (you know, the one that lost its majority last year) changed the definition in the Marriage Act in 2004. This was the first piece of legislation in Australia’s history that actually denies a civil right to a group of Australian citizens. The irony is that since then, it has become clear that the majority of Australians don’t agree. Maybe among the people you hang around with, asaridis, the majority view is against same-sex marriage. However in the Australian population there simply isn’t a clear majority in favour of quarantining marriage for male-female couples.
Not that this is relevant, anyway. Democracy does not mean that the majority gets to ride roughshod over minorities. While minorities have no constitutional protection in Australia (as they do in most other parliamentary democracies), the principle that majorities may not override minorities is embedded in our bi-cameral system of parliament, and in judicial oversight. Just because the majority says so doesn’t make it right - not in Australia, not anywhere.
All over the world, courts, parliaments and populations are recognising that the denial of civil rights based on sexuality is a gross injustice. Here too, the drift is toward full equality for same-sex-attracted Australians. Get used to it.
I am completely against same-sex marriages and don’t shoot the messenger, I’m going to have my say.
Call me old fashioned but marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. They take their vows in a church as a rule in the presence of a Higher Power. Or they take them wherever they like but one is male and the other female.
It is pre ordained that male and female co habitate, that’s why we are built differently. Of course being anatomically different raises another issue: we are made this way to enable to reproduce NATURALLY and not by any artificial means. Man + woman = baby. Bottom line.
Let’s get back to that word ‘naturally’.
It is natural for one man and one woman to be together.
It is natural for man and woman to procreate.
It is natural for a child of this union to have one female and one male parent.
It is natural for a child to learn guidance and direction in life from one female and one male parent. Whether married or not. As long as the stability and security is there and he/she does not grow up thinking that two mummies or two daddies is normal.
Sex education in schools teaches our kids that heterosexual marriages are normal. That when a man and a woman love each other they want to live in a house and have babies together. Normal. Accepted.
Now they have two role models. They learn adult behaviour by watching their parents. They learn that mummies have a role for this and daddies have a role for that. Normal Accepted.
They learn these basic life lessons at home and take them to school, where the class teacher takes up the slack.
So when they start learning at a very early age that it is okay for two men or two ladies to marry each other, naturally the next question is going to be, ‘well, how do they have babies’?
See where I’m coming from?
Total confusion. It is a completely selfish and hypocritical enterprise for same sex couples to want babies when they are fully equipped to reproduce in the normal way. They have a contempt for that. So they are artificially inseminated (like horse and cows) by using sperm donors or IVF. They think they can just walk in to a sperm bank or a hospital and demand artificial impregnation and it will be granted.
Tell me this then: what are you going to tell this unnatural child of yours when he/she starts asking questions about where they came from?
Starts feeling shame when they are teased at school about having two lesbian And this is where all their screwed up behaviour in later life will take root. I have seen it happen.
I am not a homophobe. I have nothing against homosexuals or lesbians unless they try to hide it. I am no prude either and realise that one has to move with the times. But this is where I draw the line. But same sex marriage is SICK.
My issue is with the supreme selfishness of same sex couples who think that because they are in love, that not only should everybody accept it but also that we should sanction an unnatural union that will start a domino effect if they decide they want children.
Infertility should be the only reason people opt to have children by other means, not because they are gay and want to cement their loving union by acquiring a baby. If you want babies marry someone of the opposite sex. Don’t use someone else to fulfill your selfish desires.
The responsibility is too great.
I am totally against the law being changed for same sex marriages. John Howard vetoed it and so I hope, will the Rudd government.
Men marry women. Women marry men.
Bottom line.