House debates
Wednesday, 6 December 2017
Bills
Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Second Reading
9:50 pm
Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source
I support the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I voted yes in the voluntary postal survey. I love Darwin and Palmerston, the electorate of Solomon that I represent. It is a welcoming, open and tolerant place. This marriage equality survey has mostly shown us at our best: civil and loving. As the Labor leader, Bill Shorten, said in this House in this debate:
… young Australians have shown Australia the sort of nation we want to see in the mirror—a generous, inclusive and tolerant Australia.
Of the eligible voters in Solomon, 65.3 per cent voted yes and 34.7 per cent voted no. I saw this issue as a matter of equality and of human rights, of the rights of two people who love each other to marry. I respect the deeply held beliefs of those who voted no, of those who oppose marriage equality. Indeed, some members of my own Catholic Church congregation have told me they oppose marriage equality or same-sex marriage, and I respect their views.
But this bill does not in any way change the importance and significance of marriage between a man and a woman or indeed of the sacrament of marriage. The church's laws will remain. This change is not in any way disrespectful of their loving and enduring marriages; instead, this change extends to other loving couples, same-sex couples, the same opportunity, the same respect, the same recognition for them to commit to each other through marriage. My friend, Dave Taylor, who I worked with at St Vincent De Paul Society, summed it up to me in this way:
I am excited to be on the verge of having the same rights as every other Australian with regards to marriage.
It will be comforting to know that the sanctity of my 20 year partnership will finally be legally recognised. Glenn and I will soon be able relax in the knowledge that our wishes will be honoured on our passing and that hateful family members will no longer be able to override our wills and advanced care plans.
We both work hard in and out of our jobs to give people a chance at a happy and productive life.
Passing this bill will also validate the lives of young Australians who will be able to live happy fulfilling lives knowing that their love and commitment to their partner is just as real and just as meaningful.
We are not asking for special treatment or extra rights. We just want the same as everyone else.
Thanks again for standing with us to make the difference.
This reform has been painfully achieved for many same-sex couples through this unnecessary postal survey. It told us what we already knew—that most Australians support marriage equality, equality before the law. Despite the government saying it gave all Australians a chance to have their say, what it did was force many Australians to feel that they had to justify their sexuality, their relationships and indeed their existence. This was painful and ultimately unnecessary. The sense of anxiety and then relief at Hotel Oaks in Darwin, where I was with many of the yes supporters when the result was announced, was so palpable that it made me even more acutely aware of how anxious many of our LGBTQI brothers and sisters were about the outcome. To have their sexuality and their very humanity questioned, and their relationships the subject of public debate, was very painful for them.
Up in Darwin, in my electorate, I want to acknowledge the leadership shown by the NT News in support of the 'yes' campaign. In Darwin and Palmerston the debate was mostly civil and respectful, but there were some hurtful actions and words and we need to acknowledge that. The debate about freedoms and protections will continue, and that is healthy in a democracy. But, having said that, there are already protections for religious freedoms and freedom of speech and I am worried about further harm being caused.
These amendments are mostly an attempt by those who have opposed equality every step of the way to frustrate it further. I personally will not vote to replace one form of discrimination with other forms of discrimination and will not be supporting amendments to this bill. Australians did not vote for the intent of these amendments—they voted for the straightforward question: 'Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?' The 'no' campaign tried to convince people that the postal survey was about other things, such as the education of children or discrimination against those who believe in only marriage between men and women. Most Australians saw that the 'yes' campaign was about equality, about love and about human rights.
To all of those who kept up the fight over the years, well done—I am so proud of you all. I want to mention just a few from my electorate: the Darwin Pride committee—Daniel Alderman, Jill Pope and James Emery; Jane Black and Rainbow Territory; the Yes Campaign NT convenor Pat Honan; the Palmerston 'yes' convener Seranna Shutt; Crystal Love and the Sister Girls of the Tiwi Islands; Tiana Hokins and her partner Mel; Sandra Smiles; Jo from Viva La Body; Jenny Smith; Dave Cotton; Rosemary Jacobs; Sara Scrutton; Throb Nightclub; the NT News; Darwin City Council; Palmerston City Council; and all of the other individuals, organisations and businesses that supported a respectful debate in the community.
Finally, I want to invite all couples to come on an adventure to the Top End of Australia—bring your family and friends. You'll have fun and you'll find Territorians wonderfully welcoming. The law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, and I support the bill.
No comments