<- Back

 Let There Be Light: Why Australia Should Introduce Equal Marriage Rights for All

by Ruby Haynes | 14-Dec-2009 | Comments (1) Tags: Civil Unions, Marriage Rights, Religion, Same-Sex Marriage, Gay Marriage  9 ratings. Please log in to rate and comment

It seems hard to believe that Australia – a nation so often at the forefront of global change – would have policies that directly limit the rights of its citizens. But we do. When we do not afford equal rights to one in ten of our citizens, we are a nation with problems. When we treat it as an issue that can be left at the bottom of the priority list, we are a nation in denial.

The lobby groups holding back changes to current same-sex marriage laws are almost always religious, or have religious affiliations. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, and one that I believe all should be afforded, but it is a right that is too often prioritised over others, when we need not compromise one for the other. We cannot allow the ‘sacred cow’ status of religion to get in the way of progress. We cannot create our laws based on religion, particularly not when those laws limit the fundamental human rights of others.

The legalization of same-sex marriage is one of those issues… it’s brought up occasionally, some bigoted remarks are thrown about, a lot of angry letters are written, a few changes may be made, and then it’s promptly returned to the back of our collective social conscience.  It is not good enough, and the time is ripe for change.

At present, in four of our states and territories, changes have been made to pre-existing legislation allowing same-sex couples to be recognised through civil unions. These changes have been significant, and a definite step in the right direction. We should not ignore the fact that positive progress has been made, but should not forget the fact that it is not good enough. All the states and territories should be united in their recognition of same-sex relationships, and civil unions are not sufficient.

We must not confuse positive change with equality. I certainly understand the ‘one step at a time’ approach to political change, but the fact that legalising same-sex marriage still seems radical is an issue in and of itself. At some point we need to address and redress this issue, whose significance is too often underappreciated.

Civil unions can correct the legal inequalities which are, of course, the most pressing issue in this debate. But people are often confused as to why civil unions are not enough; why that doesn’t mean that we’re all on a level playing field now. We can compare this to some extent to segregationist policies seen around the world into last century… think of a civil union as ‘you can drink from a drinking fountain, just not ours’.

It may fulfill the same criteria in terms of the legal benefits, but it is still excluding this minority from what should be a fundamental right.

To adopt a strategy rarely used in this debate, let us use our faculty of reason.

If the laws remain unchanged, around 10% of the population have their rights limited and are not given the same recognition as the other 90%. If we do amend legislation, those 10% will be given the rights that they deserve, and will be seen as equal in the eyes of the law. In the latter scenario, no-one is negatively impacted in any practical sense. So what is stopping change? Invented theories about damaging children? Or perhaps arguments similar to the disturbing hate-speech heard in the US post-Hurricane Katrina – that God will punish us all for a society that accepts ‘sin’.

Arguments that same-sex marriage will somehow diminish the integrity of the institution are absurd. If this were a legitimate concern, then one would imagine that people would be more interested in the questionable reasons for heterosexual couples marrying, rather than concerning themselves with stopping loving (homosexual) couples from being recognised equally. What could strengthen the institution more than allowing all devoted couples to marry, regardless of how they were born?

There are a vast number of arguments presented by the anti-gay marriage activists, and an analysis of all would be time-consuming and irrelevant, as they all really come down to one idea: that being gay is somehow immoral.

Do we let gay people vote? Yes. Do we consider them to be full-fledged Australian citizens? Of course! Can they marry? Well now… calm down there… you see, that’s a different thing entirely.

Arguments claiming that children will be exposed to ‘immorality’ are downright offensive, as are the distasteful ‘slippery slope’ arguments: allowing gay marriage between two loving people is hardly likely to give rise to people walking down the aisle with a particularly nice-looking goat, or a robot, or a photo-copier. People are born gay. American scientist Dr Dean Hamer discovered the gay gene that occurs naturally in humans. Telling people that they are not equal to others because of sexual orientation is equivalent to stopping all people with blue eyes from getting married.

This leads to really the most fundamental reason for the change not just to civil unions, but to equal marriage rights for all. We can no longer accept the so-called morality often pushed upon us by religious groups if it means not allowing all citizens equality under the law. We cannot continue to use religion as a way of justifying discrimination. A happy, loving, lesbian couple getting married in Sydney will not affect a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim in Melbourne. It won’t even affect the life of a theist who lives a block away from them. I am in no way advocating limiting the right to freedom of religion, but what I suggest is that we don’t have to have one or the other. If we wish to still call ourselves a nation that believes in ‘a fair go’ – pardon the cliché – then our laws should reflect that.

Things to Do

 More Entries

 17 ratings.

 8 ratings.

 16 ratings.