kesearch Same Sex Marr|ages

Def|ne and Cut||ne the |ssue

1he common law deflnlLlon for marrlage ls Lhe unlon of a man and a women Lo Lhe excluslon of all
oLhers volunLarlly enLered lnLo for llfe and was lncorporaLed lnLo Lhe Marrlage AcL 1961 (CLh) on
May 27
Lh
2004 1hls was Lhe resulL of conslderable debaLe aL Lhe Llme as Lo wheLher marrlages
beLween same sex couples should be allowed Slnce Lhe change of governmenL ln 2007 Lhere has
been no lnLenLlons ouLllned by Lhe governlng parLy Lo change Lhe leglslaLlon Lo allow for same sex
couples Lo be marrled
Powever slnce 2007 Lhere has been changes Lo Lhe rlghLs of same sex couples glvlng Lhem equal
rlghL Lo Lhose who are ln a defacLo relaLlonshlp ln relaLlon Lo LaxaLlon superannuaLlon and soclal
securlLy and so on 1hese changes however wlll noL provlde concluslve proof of an lnLlmaLe
relaLlonshlp for all purposes aL all Llmes 1o achleve recognlLlon some AusLrallan [urlsdlcLlons have
adopLed a reglsLraLlon model
Marrlage ls a deslrable goal for many ln Lhe Cay Lesblan 8lsexual 1ransgender and lnLersex
communlLy because lL noL only creaLes an across Lhe board recognlLlon of same sex lnLlmaLe
relaLlonshlps buL lL can also be seen as creaLlng quallLy beLween all people regardless of sexual
ldenLlLy
Who are the stakeho|ders?
1he Church and oLher rellglous denomlnaLlons who belleve LhaL marrlage should only be
solemnlzed beLween one man and one woman and who do noL belleve ln Lhe value of same sex
relaLlons aL all Many wesLern values are drawn from Lhe prlnclples of ChrlsLlanlLy and LhaL ls why
Lhere ls such a llnk
1he CovernmenL Pas Lo creaLe laws Lo promoLe equallLy and freedom whlch are Lhe plllars of our
democracy AL Lhe same Llme Lhey do noL wlsh Lo embroll Lhemselves or undermlne Lhe values
whlch socleLy holds and Lhe unlL on whlch socleLy ls prlmarlly bullL around
Same Sex Couples WanL equal recognlLlon and equal rlghLs on Lhe maLLer because Lhey belleve Lhe
foundlng concepL of marrlage ls when Lwo people love each oLher regardless of Lhe sex
Current Leg|s|at|on
1he Marrlage AcL 1961 ouLllnes LhaL marrlage ls Lhe unlon of a man and a woman Lo Lhe excluslon of
all oLhers volunLarlly enLered lnLo for llfe 1hls ls a naLlonal leglslaLlon as marrlage ls a consLlLuLlonal
power of Lhe commonwealLh
lndlvldual sLaLes and LerrlLorles have made aLLempLs Lo puL same sex couples ln Lhe same poslLlon as
marrled or de facL couples ln 1asmanla slnce !anuary 2004 Lhe relaLlonshlps acL 2003 (1as) allows
for same sex couples Lo reglsLer Lhelr unlon wlLh Lhe reglsLer of 8lrLhs ueaLhs and marrlages
ln Cueensland Lhe properLy Law acL 1974 (CLu) was amended by Lhe lnserLlon of secLlon 19 Slnce
Lhe 21
sL
of uecember 1999 a de facLo parLner aL Lhe end of Lhelr relaLlonshlp can make an
appllcaLlon Lo Lhe sLaLe courLs for a dlvlslon of properLy beLween Lhe de facLo parLners ue facLo
couples are noL resLrlcLed Lo Lhe same sex as marrled couples are
AusLralla currenLly has clvll unlons ln Lhe AusLrallan CaplLal 1errlLory 1asmanla and vlcLorla and 1he
clLy of Sydney has reglsLraLlon sysLem open Lo all clLlzens of Lhe sLaLe Lo reglsLer Lhelr same sex
relaLlonshlp CLher sLaLe LhaL do noL have clvll unlons wlll noL recognlse Lhe clvll unlons from oLher
sLaLes
CounLrles LhaL allow same sex marrlage
ArgenLlna Legal slnce Lhe 3
Lh
May 2010
8elglum 30 !anuary 2003
Canada 20 !uly 2003 admlnlsLered by Lhe dlfferenL sLaLes and provlnces
lceland assed on Lhe 11 !une 2009 wlLh 49 voLes ln favour and no voLes agalsnL
Mexlco 21 uecember 2009
neLherlands Legallsed 1
sL
Aprll 2001 Cnly opposed by ChrlsLlan parLles now rullng parLy buL show
no lncllnaLlon Lo reverL Lhe leglslaLlon
norway 1
sL
!anuary 2009
orLugal 17 May 2010
SouLh Afrlca 1
sL
uecember 2003
Spaln 3
rd
!uly 2003
Sweden 1
sL
of May 2009
unlLed SLaLes of Amerlca Legal ln Lhe sLaLes of ConnecLlcuL lowa MassachuseLLs (17 May 2004)
new Pampshlre vermonL and ln Lhe ulsLrlcL of Columbla
ow the current |aw |mpacts on the stakeho|ders
Commun|ty
rovldlng samesex couples wl Lh Lhe same legal and soclal recognl Llon of Lhelr
relaLlonshlps ln no way lnfrl nges upon Lhe rlghLs of oLhers Allowl ng samesex
marrl age ls abouL exLendlng Lhe prl vlleges al ready en[oyed by Lhe ma[orlLy Lo an
excluded ml norlLy who dl ffer sl mply ln Lerms of Lhe sex of Lhe person wlLh whom Lhey
are ln a commlLLed relaLlonshl p lurLher and very lmporLanLl y llfLlng Lhe ban on
samesex marrlage ls noL only abouL addresslng Lhe rlghLs of Lhl s mlnorlLy group lL ls
abouL proLecLl ng Lhe rl ghLs of people ln general lf we say exclusl on Lo cerLal n basl c
prl vlleges ls okay for some Lhen we are openlng up Lhe doors Lo lnLroduclng laws as
we see flL Lo exclude oLhers ln a dlfferenL space and Llme lL may be your rlghLs or
Lhose of your l oved ones LhaL are affecLed Lquall Ly respecL dlgnlLy and a sense of
belonglng are ldeals and val ues endorsed by AusLrallan socl eLy When Lhese values
are noL upheld for some lL has Lhe poLenLlal Lo affecL us all
Iam||y
1he lack of opporLunlLy for Lhe gay and lesblan communlLy Lo legally and soclally
valldaLe Lhelr commlLLed relaLlonshlps noL onl y affecLs Lhe couples lnvolved buL also
Lhelr famllles Samesex aLLracLed lndlvlduals do noL exlsL on Lhe frlnge of socleLy or
ln lsolaLlon 1hey are someone's son daughLer moLher faLher broLher slsLer aunL
uncle nlece nephew grandparenL or grandchlld Pavlng a famlly member LreaLed
dlfferenLl y by Lhe communlLy aL large can negaLlvely l mpacL Lhe famll y as a whole
1hose who argue agalnsL samesex marrlage ln Lhe name of 'Lhe famlly' seem Lo
overlook Lhe many heLerosexual famlly members LhaL are adversely affecLed by Lhe
soclal excluslon of one of Lhelr own
nd|v|dua|
1he lack of opporLunlLy for samesex couples Lo formallse Lhelr relaLlonshlps as do
dlfferenLsex couples sends Lhe message LhaL Lhelr relaLlonshlps are noL of equlvalenL
sLandard and LhaL Lhey are second class cl Llzens As samesex sexuallLy ls no more a
cholce Lhan heLerosexuallLy resLrlcLlng marrl age Lo dlfferenLsex couples wlll noL sLop
commlLLed relaLlonshlps beLween members of Lhe same sex WhaL lL wlll do ls
conLlnue Lo promoLe pre[udlce and lnLol erance Lowards a selecL group of lndlvlduals
who noneLheless pay Lhe same Laxes flghL Lhe same wars and ablde by all oLher
clLlzenry responslblllLles as an AusLrallan
Responding to Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage Rights

Q. Will same-sex marriage result in the demise of heterosexual
marriage?
Several arguments have been put forward in favour of retaining marriage as
an exclusi vely heterosexual institution. One of these is that providing equal
marriage rights to same-sex couples will somehow undermine heterosexual
marriage. This view seems to overlook recent evidence from several
European countries whi ch provide marriage or marriage-like rights to couples
of the same-sex. For example, research providing data from the
Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland (which are the
countri es where such rights have been in existence the longest) reveal no
decline in the rate of different-sex marriage rates or non-marital birth rates,
since the introduction of rights to same-sex couples (Badgett, 2004). In
fact, more recent data from the department of statistics from within these
countri es suggests that heterosexual marriage rates are, if anything, on the
increase (Eskridge & Spedale, 2006).
709:7394945

Q. Will allowing same-sex marriage spoil the character of the

institution of marriage?
Some people are of the opinion that by allowing same-sex marriage the
institution will be 'watered down. For example, ex-Prime Minister John
Howard stated It is a question of preserving as an insti tution in our society,
marriage as having a special character. Statements such as this are
particularly offensive. It suggests that the inclusion of same-sex couples
into the institution of marriage will somehow tarnish or spoil its i mage. To
the contrary, we believe that elevating the status of same-sex relationships
to those of different-sex relationships will, if anything, strengthen marriage
as a social norm. As such, people who are concerned about the preservation
of marriage may do best to focus on ways to increase its appeal amongst the
current population, rather than direct their energies towards the exclusion of
a select group of indi vidual s from its privileges.
709:7394945

Q. Isn't marriage traditionally about love between a man and a

woman?
According to historians, the one thing that is consistent about marri age over
time is that it has never been consistent. On the issue of traditional
marriage, American historian Stephanie Coontz states that if we can l earn
anything from the past, it i s how few precedents are now relevant in the
changed marital l andscape in which we operate today (p. 11, Coontz,
2005). Therefore, if marriage i s to survive as an institution it needs to keep
abreast with the social conditions of its time. If we look at
Western civilisation alone, few would argue that marriage would have
survived this long if people were still denied the right to marry for love (i.e.,
arranged marriages), needed to divorce if they couldnt bear children, could
only marry someone of their own race, and wives continued to be denied all
rights to property. Yet, all of these conditions at different stages in history
were argued for in the name of tradition.
709:7394945

Q. Shouldn't marriage be about procreation?

It has been suggested that the purpose of marriage i s to establish an
appropriate family environment in whi ch children will be conceived and
raised, and that as such there is no place for same-sex relationships in
marriage. This view conflicts wi th the fact that different-sex couples who
choose not to have children, or who form relationships in non-childbearing
years, are still enti tled to marry or re-marry. Further, and very importantly,
it discounts the substantial number of children who are currently being
raised in a same-sex couple family.
709:7394945

Q. If same-sex marriage was to promote same-sex parenting, then

what about the impact on children?
Another argument relates to the impact of same-sex parenting on raising
children and how the effects of this are still unknown. This clearly dismi sses
the number of same-sex couples who have raised or who are currently
raising their children successfully relative to their heterosexual
counterparts. A summary of findings from empirical research conducted
over the last few decades, shows that data comparing gay and lesbi an
parents to heterosexual parents and chil dren of gay and l esbian parents to
children of heterosexual parents are quite uniform: common stereotypes are
not supported by the data (American Psychological Association, 2005).
More specifically, it shows that studies comparing groups of children raised
by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental
differences between the two groups of children in their intelligence,
psychological adjustment, social adjustment, popularity with friends,
development of social sex role identity or development of sexual ori entation
(APA, 2005). It therefore seems quite ironic that those purporting that the
rights of children are paramount, are those denying access by the parents to
the one institution that would ensure their childrens rights. In addi tion,
opposition to same-sex marriage based on issues of parenting send a
negati ve and very hurtful message to the number of children who are
currentl y being raised in a same-sex couple household. If people who argue
against same-sex marriage do this on the premise of the well-being of
children, then they need to stop and consider the negative impact of such an
argument on these children. It may well pay to ask ourselves how we
would feel if the people we reli ed on for love and protection were depi cted by
society as somehow being less than capable of delivering such.
What |s the best |ega| outcome?
asslng leglslaLlon on any conLroverslal Loplc can cause dlvlslons ln our socleLy buL LhaL equals noL
passlng Lhe law 1here ls already evldenL dlvlslon on Lhe Loplc AlLhough passlng leglslaLlon LhaL
alLered Lhe currenL marrlage acL Lo allow same sex marrlage could ln Lhe long Lerm creaLe soclal
harmony and lncluslon Marrlage ls really only a man made symbol of love eople wlll sLlll love
regardless of marrlage people wlll sLlll have sex people wlll sLlll bear or adopL chlldren and people
wlll sLlll fall ln love wlLh Lhe person of Lhe same sex Allowlng Lhem Lhe same rlghLs Lo marry ls noL
golng Lo change Lhe overall plcLure because currenLly Lhey are second class clLlzens because pasL
generaLlons have seen flL Lo lL