There’s no inequality for the Greens’s Marriage Equality Amendment Bill to address
Posted by Mathew | August 10, 2009 | 18 Comments
On 25 June 2009, Australian Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young lodged the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill in the Australian Senate.
This Bill seeks to repeal the definition outlined in the Marriage Act 1961, redefining the definition of “marriage” as meaning:
the union of two people, regardless of their sex, sexuality or gender identity, voluntarily entered into for life.
The current definition of “marriage” reads, and ought to remain, as meaning:
the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
All Australians concerned about retaining the natural definition of marriage ought to consider writing a brief letter to the Senate, requesting them to reject the Bill. You need to make your submissions before Friday 28 August 2009 – but don’t wait until then, act now to ensure that your submission gets read by the Inquiry Board setup to review the Bill!
I have just submitted my own letter, which you may use as an example for the writing of your own (see below for the contact details of the Australian Senate).
Senate
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600Dear Senate,
Re: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009
I write to request that the Senate reject the Bill on the grounds that full marriage equality already exists for all peoples within the Australian constituency.
The proscriptions set out in law already equally apply the same restrictions to all Australians with regards to marriage, irrespective of their sexual preference. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike are prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex. Likewise both groups are unable to marry multiple partners, close relatives and their own children. However, both heterosexuals and homosexuals are free to marry whomever they choose, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
There is no inequality of rights here; if anything, there is only an inequality of desire, but desire ought not concern the Government. After all, the Government does not require that love between a man and woman is necessary in order to license a marriage; the Government is only concerned with forming a legal bond between husband and wife because, as a rule, as a group and by nature, these unions produce the next generation and it is these unions that again, as a rule, as a group and by nature, provide a stable and balanced environment within which to raise children – which is a key concern of the Government.
Marriage ought to remain as the union between one man and one woman for life. It is this union that all cultures throughout the history of the world have recognised as the fundamental building block of their society, and it is a union that the Government of Australia has recognised and protected – and later defined – as critical to the continued longevity and prosperity of its own society.
The Senate ought to reject any amendments to redefine the definition of marriage, outlined in the Marriage Act 1961, for the well-being of Australia’s future generations.
Yours sincerely,
Mathew Hamilton
Submissions are being received up until Friday 28 August 2009 and can be submitted either by email (legcon.sen@aph.gov.au) or by post:
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
I would invite you to seriously consider taking some time to write your own submission if you, as I firmly do, believe that keeping marriage between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all else, will continue to benefit all citizens – despite whatever their sexual preferences may be.
References:
- Australian Marriage Act 1961
- Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009
- Family Voice Australia
- Australian Christian Lobby
Related Thoughts out !oud posts
Tags: culture > family > Greens > homosexuality > marriage > same-sex marriage
Comments
18 Responses to “There’s no inequality for the Greens’s Marriage Equality Amendment Bill to address”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to my thoughts!
August 24th, 2009 @ 3:31 am
[...] As per my post last week, the Australian Greens Party have submitted the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 to the Senate. This Bill seeks to alter the definition of marriage, from that defined within the Marriage Act 1961, to: “the union of two people, regardless of their sex, sexuality or gender identity, voluntarily entered into for life.” [...]
August 25th, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
“as a rule, as a group and by nature, these unions produce the next generation”
- so straight people unable to marry are just 'lucky' to slip through the requirement here?
“these unions that again, as a rule, as a group and by nature, provide a stable and balanced environment within which to raise children”
- I've seen no evidence that same-sex couples who raise children provide any less stable or balanced family environments. What are you basing this on if not a bigoted view of people different than you?
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
James – there are two key points in my letter to our Senate regarding this issue.
The first: strictly speaking, there really is no inequality of law. I can't see how that can ever be argued in the affirmative. All restrictions enforced by law are equally enforced on all those who fall within the jurisdiction of the law.
My letter does not address the topic of unmarried, heterosexual parenting; it doesn't need to in order to address the “inequality” argument of the proposed Bill. That would the topic of another post entirely.
The second, while there may not ample study-cases of same-sex parenting, we have volumes of study-cases that prove unequivocally that children do best when they are brought up by their biological, married (heterosexual) parents. Further studies show that the only alternate family type that comes close to providing the same positive outcomes for children are where children have been adopted by married (heterosexual) couples. The question, then, is clear: knowing that these are the best two environments within which to raise children, why would we knowingly and intentionally design other alternate family types (ie. same-sex parenting)? Shouldn't all children have the very best opportunity to be raised in the most optimal household?
You may wish to read some of the other resources that I've provided on my subsequent post, “It's not fair: homosexuals can't marry who they love”.
Given the above two points I make, do you still consider my view / reasons as bigoted? If so, please explain how.
August 25th, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
Apologies. That should have read unable to procreate.
My point being a view of marriage as in some way being limited to those capable of physically capable of together producing their own children unassisted would limit the institution from being accessible to even more couples.
Using this argument to exclude same sex couples falls down at this point.
I say the experiences of children brought up in any of the diverse alternatives to biological nucleur families would be heavily impacted by those who place prescriptive and narrow expectations of how things 'should' be.
I think all too often 'different' is labelled unnatural by those it threatens.
I think your implying homosexuality is a threat or unnatural, harmful to any part of society or in any way reduces a persons ability to be loving partners or parents is wrong.
What criteria determines whether children go on to “do best”? Can you compare it to say, the figures on the number of children from low socio-economic areas with married parents who don't, or a persons race … Should Indigenous Australians be discouraged from marrying because of the high incarceration rates?
I really think the two arguments show a narrow view of what marriage is and make false assumptions about same sex couples who may choose to be parents.
August 25th, 2009 @ 11:27 pm
That's a thoughtful response, James.
With regards to the comment re: infertile married couples or married couples who choose not to procreate, David Benkof from over at Gays Defend Marriage makes a valid point in his post “But we let infertile couples marry!”:
“But for me, at least, the ability to reproduce is not at the center of my (secular) argument against same-sex marriage. It’s that opposite-sex couples form the kind of family format that I believe is best-suited for the welfare of children … Some infertile and post-reproductive age couples adopt; others plan to never have children but find that a relative dies and they are raising a child to their surprise. The point is that any opposite-sex couple is going to be a part of that ideal format. (Again, if you’re new, I’m not saying all opposite-sex couples are better than all same-sex couples; they’re not. We’re dealing with the ideal here.)”
Back to your comments, it seems to me that you believe marriage is adult-centred and that it just so happens that marriages also produce children – but since they don't have to (or can't), why oughtn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry?
My perspective, and the perspective of many (traditional) marriage advocates, is that marriage is not at all about the adults; it is about children and about what is best for children and marriage between opposite-sex couples provides that – as a group, as a rule and by nature.
As same-sex coupling isn't about children, why include such relationships in the definition of marriage?
August 26th, 2009 @ 12:41 am
An interesting aside: The Australian government WILL recognise polygamous marriages legally entered into in other countries whilst it refuses to recognise married same-sex couples who've legally wed oversees.
For many people marriage is adult-centered, for some people it's not. That's their choice and not mine (or the states) but I don't see how the ability or desire has anything to do with it.
The idea that a child's welfare is harmed (or not as well protected) by their having married same-sex instead of opposite parents is one I have the greatest issue with. I can imagine certain hardships facing children with same-sex parents, just as I can imagine others with multicultural backgrounds etc. . A lot of this has to do with how others treat those who are different, and not the abilities of parents in committed and loving relationships to provide a stable environment for their children. (straight people are just as capable of committed and loving relationships and I'm sure increasing divorce rates are no indication of any failure on heterosexual's part here
)
I'm not convinced having two opposite-sex parents will result in a better upbringing for any kid. I'm not even convinced it's the 'ideal' though I think it's probably the norm.
To answer, Why do I think the right for same-sex couples to marry should be legally protected in Australia if their doing so isn't about children? :
I think marriage as an institution has changed considerable throughout the centuries, it used to be that a wife was considered the property of her husband, something many (western) religious/socially-conservative people would find as unpalatable as I do. A wide range of religions co-opted the practice in modern times, giving us what's typically been practiced. Then it became a civil institution*, part of our societies practices regardless of the religion (more recently race) and most recently gender of those being wed.
I agree marriage plays a primary role in what's seen as 'the ideal' family unit. But I think it's because the act of getting married is a sign of commitment.
I'd extend that logic to “Having married same-sex parents is probably going to be better for their children than parents who aren't married”. Because of the security, stability, full legal protection and greater social acceptance marriage brings.
Saying that two opposite sex parents is the union *all cultures* *throughout the history of the world* have had as their fundamental building block does a disservice to your argument, but I can see how having this as a basis for your view can lead to some of the other things you've claimed.
Different cultures have all sorts of family units and approaches to raising children, and acceptable expressions of sexuality.
I don't understand how so many westerners think the way it is for us now is how it is for everyone (often how it should be for everyone).
Marriage can and does change with time. Heterosexuals aren't automatically more capable parents than anyone else, and I think there's often a lot of subtext/assumptions behind the idea that other structures is not as ideal.
Just because something's been done the same way for X number of years doesn't mean it's right for us now. If it did we'd still see Blacks and Whites not able to marry (I'm sure one of the arguments back then was that an interracial couple would not provide as ideal a family situation for their children, or that it was unnatural etc.)
I don't think marriage is just about adults, but it's not always about children either (straight couple or otherwise).
I also don't think a heterosexual is automatically equipped to be a better parent.
That the problem is with there being two parents of the one gender confuses me. If they're both excellent parents, and have a stable loving relationship (let's pretend it's a year from now and they're married) then what harm would become their child?
Realistically there will be same-sex couples who are just as bad at raising children as some of the married couples in our society in abusive households.
The posturing and reasoning doesn't make sense … If it's the sexuality of the individuals that makes them unworthy to raise children then it's a whole other … need for rebuttal, if it's that a mum and a dad is a recipe for a good family then I'll point to the huge number of families where this is just not true.
You say yourself that the law doesn't require straight people to love each other when they're marrying. Why deny the right of two people of the same gender who do love each other, who have children and want to formally declare that union?
I'd more readily recognise the latter.
*Around 60% of marriages in Australia each year are entirely civil.
August 26th, 2009 @ 10:26 am
James misses the obvious: No one says gays can't commit their lives to one another and have oxymoronic marriages in pagan churches and such. What is being debated is gov't recognition, and there is no good reason for the gov't to provide such and many reasons not to.
August 26th, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
I'm with you Mathew.
The challenge is a legal one and it deserves a legal response, comparable with similar challenges in the USA. Opposition to this Bill does not deny equality, as you have demonstrated. It merely witholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviours that homosexuals already have complete freedom to pursue without such approval. In fact one of the objectives of the Bill is, “to promote acceptance and the celebration of diversity”.
As is patently obvious to anyone who has studied this phenomena at little more than a cursory level, it's not about equality, it's about acceptance. In a nutshell, the agenda of the homosexual lobby and those who support it is to effectively legislate acceptance. This has some potentially dangerous ramifications when considered in light of “hate speech” legislation, such as Victoria's Anti Villification Law.
The Greens on the other hand think that we can carry out social experiments like this with no ill side effects. So did the Netherlands. I suppose some people just have to learn the hard way?
August 26th, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
Neil if these marriages aren't accepted by your (non-pagan) church that's fine by me.
The government denies secular, civil marriages (& recognition of existing marriages) between same-sex partners – based on a religious definition of the term.
Duane, it's loathe to see the 'homosexuality is a sickness/lifestyle choice/behavioural trait' argument used. Do some thinking about your own sexuality … were you born 'straight'? When did you know? Do you 'choose' to be straight?
60% of Australians accept the idea that marriage should include same-sex couples. With that small majority on MY side I'll turn your claim back on you.
In a nutshell, the agenda of the (socially-conservative?/) religious-right is to lobby for the social acceptance existing in the community for same-sex marriages from being legally effected.
The acceptance is there. It's just a stubborn, prejudiced minority using inaccurate and unfounded claims to try to prevent equality for these couples and their families.
August 26th, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
Sorry James, I'm trying to figure out what part of my comment prompted your response pertaining to the ''homosexuality is a sickness/lifestyle choice/behavioural trait” argument?
You are sidetracking the issue. The issue is not whether I was “born that way”. Although to advance that argument you are clearly not familiar with the work presented on the NARTH website or other related studies. Nor is the issue about what alleged percentage of Australians accept same-sex couple “marriages”. Argument ad populum does not convince me. But if the majority really are in favour of same-sex “marriage” then on your logic this Bill stands a good chance of passing, right?
Re your attempted turntable, James, please! The religious right are not after social acceptance. Do they have practical and moral concerns? Sure. And they certainly are interested in lobbying government to enforce their moral point of view, as everyone who lobby's government clearly is. But to say they're after “social acceptance” is incoherent and completely misses the point … again.
Now conversely, there has been a longstanding debate amongst homosexuals over the question of homosexual marriage. Some are in favour, some are opposed, and there are many options in between. Bill Muehlenberg has followed this phenomena for quite some time on his Culture Watch site and it's clear that not all homosexuals are interested in legislating acceptance:
An Australian homosexual activist put it in even stronger terms: “I think gay marriage is an absolute non-starter as an issue. We have spent the last 40 years trying to get the state out of our bedrooms. Why are we now demanding recognition from John Howard? … Another Australian homosexual said much the same: “Whether we like it or not, marriage is, as John Howard memorably said, a bedrock cultural institution for heterosexuals; and most gay men seek different rules for their relationships.” And activist Dennis Altman even said that homosexual marriage was “a great deal of self-indulgent crap”
I hope I am mistaken, but I feel that your last paragraph is simply disingenuous elephant hurling that demonstrate your unwillingness to discuss this topic without the hyperbole.
August 27th, 2009 @ 1:26 am
Some people may view marriage as adult-centred but such people mistake that society had constructed the institution – they may see it as adult-centred, but that is not its function. Marriage is not a social construct; it has been undertaken by all civilisations throughout history as it is recognised as the most stable means by which to propagate society. Culture did not define it; they acknowledged it and gave it a name. Marriage logically precedes society, for it is the basis on which societies are built. You cannot have a society before marriage.
So marriage has always been about children, and about attaching the adults to the children and to each other – for the good of society and all those in that society.
With respect to the belief that marriage has changed over time, it has not. There may have been various iterations, but the heart of marriage has remained constant: it is the union between the sexes. Even in ancient Greece where homosexuality was widely practiced, a man was still expected to marry, who? A woman! Why? To propagate society. After all, two men having intercourse with each other does not create babies and a society that does not create babies won't last very long.
Neither did anything change with the abolition against interracial marriage – black men could marry white women, or vice versa. It's in society's best interests that they do so – happy healthy marriages as a group, as a rule and by nature produce happy healthy families; happy healthy families, as a group, create happy healthy societies.
If marriage advocates say that marriage is best for children, why then not allow gays to marry and give them children? Because study after study after study shows that children benefit by having both opposite-sex parents; the sexes compliment each other; same-sex parents can offer love to children but they cannot offer the complimentary natures of both sexes that is evidently important to the well-being of children.
Note: it's not the sexuality of the same-sex parents that make them bad parents – they just aren't complimentary halves and never can be. Men and women are different. Period. To argue otherwise is to argue that men and women are interchangeable and, ultimately, that there is no such thing as maleness or femaleness at all. Tell me how that's not absurd.
James – you've been called out on your accusations that to defend opposite-sex marriage to the exclusion of all other relationships is an act of prejudice, by a minority, utilising unfounded claims.
While I'm not silly enough to believe that either me or others can change your mind on that, I would be most interested in hearing how you believe the claims are unfounded given the empirical evidence that concludes that kids do best when reared by married, heterosexual parents.
I am also interested to hear to what benefit is marriage to gays? What will marriage bring them that they do not already have?
These questions at least are related to the blog topic – I'd like to stick to that and not bandy around with what the polls indicate because the polls do not address the alleged issue of inequality in the current marriage law. And the polls certainly do not address why marriage is what it is in the first place: a union between one man and one woman, for life.
Might I also recommend these three resources before commenting further:
<ul>
<li>The Case for the Two Parent Family by Bill Muehlenberg </li>
<li>21 Reasons Why Gender Matters by Fatherhood Foundation Australia</li>
<li>Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses by Greg Koukl</li>
<ul>
August 27th, 2009 @ 1:41 am
How is the current definition the “religious” definition when marriage between the sexes predates the world's major religions?
August 27th, 2009 @ 2:58 am
I believe a person should be allowed to marry another partner of the same gender, that masculine and feminine traits exist in everyone and that the development of children benefits most from a stable, secure home.
Many same-sex couples have children. The studies you cite mention single parent and divorced parent situations are detrimental to a child's development. How does formally recognising a same-sex union not strengthen these family situations?
A lot of reaction in opposition to same-sex marriage is highly prejudiced (views that homosexuality is 'unnatural', 'an illness' etc.), I mentioned polls to demonstrate the minority, and I'm not convinced by the vast majority of claims that somehow a mother and father will be better parents.
Heterosexual couples simply do not automatically provide balanced, stable environments for their children. I don't see heterosexual marriages being disallowed because of their gross under-qualification for this task.
The way I see it you provide a number of tests for allowing marriage:
A couple must be able to reproduce.
Whether they're equipped to raise these children is irrelevant by virtue of the fact that they've been able to create them.
Failing the ability to reproduce, a couple must be able to provide the support of both feminine and masculine traits to children (should they somehow find themselves raising children) in the form of a father and a mother.
Your empirical evidence shows that children from single parent families or divorced families don't 'do as well' as from stable, two parent families.
I'll add to this with evidence that there are no 'reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment' of children raised by non-heterosexual parents.
http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_re...
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/high...
If we accept your view that marriage is primarily about children, add to this the evidence that same-sex parents are just as good at raising well adjusted children, then we've got a plausible case for providing the legal framework for greater stability to these families (and in turn giving their children even better environments in which to grow).
If you take my opinion that in addition to family, marriage is about an expression of commitment by both parties of a relationship then in a secular society (taking this point by itself) there's no reason to deny the right of consenting adults to marry whomever they choose/love.
Please have a read of the two sources I've posted.
In response to the post by Bill Muehlenberg, I simply state that I agree with the case for a two parent family and extend this to same-sex parents. I expect two same-sex parents will statistically produce the same results as a single non-heterosexual parent. I think the studies he mentions show we need to provide better support to single parents and as a society need to better protect children who's development is affected by divorce.
To the Fatherhood Foundation article. Put simply I find the whole gendermatters.org.au insulting. And grossly inaccurate, on a number of fronts it appears they've made claims which are derogatory and grossly inaccurate at best. For example regarding the sexual exploitation of children. It reads as though some incredibly biased writer has asserted … Just read this: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/fact.... That article was appalling in what it uses as its base assumptions on gender and sexuality, but also in its practices in referencing certain sources.
Greg Koukl, probably most relevant to the debate looks at how we define marriage. I continue to think that aspects of marriage have changed quite markedly. I believe the opposite-sex aspect is just another component which is experiencing the same change ideas of spouse-as-property, same-race-only, isn't-rape-if-you're-married. To me these three are much bigger shifts.
Recognising that two people can have a committed loving relationship and that two people can provide a nurturing and stable home for children, even if they're the same gender, isn't as fundamental.
Society is recognising this. And we're extending the rights to be formally and legal recognised and protected to couples in these relationships too (through welfare, taxation, family, healthcare, etc. legislation, but hopefully marriage soon too).
Please have an open mind to other peoples sexuality whether nature or nurture not 'unnatural' nor an illness or in any way wrong. Accept that people can love someone of their own gender, and that they can provide a stable nurturing upbringing for their children.
And please have a look at studies actually directly addressing the parenting abilities of same-sex parents, instead of making assumptions based on the results of studies into other situations, if you're going to use this as a claim for exclusion.
August 27th, 2009 @ 8:34 am
Mathew,
This is not directed solely at James; I am just speaking generally here for posterity. Can I suggest that if anyone who supports same-sex “marriage” can read Geg's piece on 'Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses' and be unperturbed, then there really is nothing more to discuss. You really need to leave them to delight in their own obstinance.
As for me, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion with James. It's clear we are not going to agree and I am certainly not in the business of repetition infinitum.
Thanks for your post and I join with you both in prayer and petition, that the institution of marriage will continue to be protected.
August 27th, 2009 @ 9:41 am
Whether or not you find the conclusions in the gender matters paper or the NARTH website offensive is irrelevant: you're not asked to like it. You're asked to consider the evidence and to consider if such evidence reasonably leads to the conclusions. Many people believe it does and their rationale cannot be simply labelled as prejudice because it draws conclusions different to your sensitivities.
Ought you not be opened minded to our point of view also? Especially as we have the studies and findings to back up our views.
The deductive reasoning stemming from Bill's article is also quite apparent: it is not, as you seem to suggest, that kids do best in households with two married parents – it is specifically that kids do best in households with two married heterosexual parents.
There are no reliable studies demonstrating the same for same-sex parenting. And on that basis there is no strong argument to convince that gays ought to be allowed to be married.
Finally, you seem to be ignoring the fact that others here are arguing for the ideal – this includes me as well as other gays, as I've quoted previously. We are not arguing that all heterosexual marriages produce children nor if they do that they “automatically” become great families.
BTW, well done on not directly answering any of my questions to you. Rather than exacerbate matters further and waste more of everyone's time I'll take Duane's cue to close the discussion at this point.
August 27th, 2009 @ 10:41 am
Whether or not you find the conclusions in the gender matters paper or the NARTH website offensive is irrelevant: you're not asked to like it. You're asked to consider the evidence and to consider if such evidence reasonably leads to the conclusions. Many people believe it does and their rationale cannot be simply labelled as prejudice because it draws conclusions different to your sensitivities.
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that you also, are open minded to our point of view. Especially as we have the studies and findings to back up our views.
The deductive reasoning stemming from Bill's article is also quite apparent: it is not, as you seem to suggest, that kids do best in households with two married parents – it is specifically that kids do best in households with two married heterosexual parents.
There are no reliable studies demonstrating the same for same-sex parenting. And on that basis there is no strong argument to convince that gays ought to be allowed to be married.
Finally, you seem to be ignoring the fact that others here are arguing for the ideal – this includes me as well as other gays, as I've quoted previously. We are not arguing that all heterosexual marriages produce children nor if they do that they “automatically” become great families.
BTW, well done on not directly answering any of my questions to you. Rather than exacerbate matters further and waste more of everyone's time I'll take Duane's cue to close the discussion at this point.
September 18th, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
[...] month, in Australia, the Senate ceased taking submissions on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, a Bill which seeks to redefine marriage as a union between “two persons” (but what if [...]
November 23rd, 2009 @ 6:42 am
[...] I had posted my own submission in opposition to the Bill and likewise published it on my blog, Why there’s no inequality in the Greens’s Marriage Equality Amendment Bill to address. The Senate Inquiry will deliver their findings re: the Bill to the Australian Senate on 26 [...]