Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House agrees that should the Marriage Act 1961 be amended to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples, any such amendment should ensure that the Act imposes no obligation on any church or religious minister to perform such a marriage.

My support for marriage equality is well known. However, for me this issue is not simply to do with same-sex marriage. It is about equality that everyone, regardless of their gender, race, sexual preference or faith, should be treated the same under Australian law: in other words, that all people are equal and should be treated as such. It is no wonder then I believe that the current provision of the Marriage Act, that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is in fact legislated discrimination.

While at all times I have tried to be very clear in my position, hopefully I have also been just as careful to respect the strong views of the many people who disagree with me, because it is a fact that time and time again I have spoken to people I have disagreed with and time and time again people have disagreed with me. That is fair enough, because marriage equality is indeed a polarising issue, for all sorts of reasons. This motion is not about telling people who are against same-sex marriage that they are wrong. Rather, it is about acknowledging that people have many and varied views on this topic and that the Australian parliament should respect those views.

To that end, this parliament should formally recognise again that in Australia the churches are private institutions and that consequently they and their officials must forever retain their right to refuse to marry anyone whom they do not wish to marry. There is nothing remarkable about this proposition, if only because throughout history churches have had differing views on whom they allow to marry. For instance, some churches would not allow a Catholic to marry a Protestant. Others would not allow divorcees to marry again. Some would even refuse a ceremony to those of different creeds or nationalities. While some such refusals would seem out of place in our modern society, the right was protected and churches were not forced to adhere to one rule of eligibility. In other words, their status as a private institution was protected—and rightly so.

It is my firm belief that as a parliament it is not our place to impinge upon free religious practices and beliefs. But as a parliament it is our responsibility to make laws in the best interests of our country and, in the second decade of the 21st century, it is simply not acceptable that as a parliament we are prepared to restrict marriage rights from a section of the population based only on their sexual preference.

When the parliament does tackle this great reform, I do not wish it to be hindered by an argument that we might be seeking to force churches to solemnise marriages they do not agree with. Therefore I am pleased to present this motion to the House. It is my hope that it articulates widespread public sentiment and will help progress the move to marriage equality, a move which is supported by over 60 per cent of the community, according to today's Galaxy poll.

Some people might be concerned that this motion deals with a hypothetical. In response I say that marriage equality is patently inevitable, as it should be, so the public interest is best served by us in this place ensuring that the legislation enacting such reform is carefully crafted to respect the rights and sensitivities of those who oppose it. This motion is simply to that end and I suggest it would be counterproductive for those who oppose marriage equality to oppose this motion.

To the Leader of the Opposition in particular, I say: please respect your party's rule giving all parliamentary members the right to follow their conscience every time they vote in this place. Even if the opposition opposes this motion, there is no reason whatsoever why any number of its members cannot still follow their conscience and support it. This should also be the case when Liberal Party members eventually pass judgment on the bills coming before parliament this week which seek to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage. I commend this motion to the House and strongly urge all of my parliamentary colleagues to lend it their support.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for this motion?

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This private member's motion relating to the Marriage Act is interesting, to say the least, because it is not just a hypothetical, as the mover has suggested, but also a contradiction. It asks us as a parliament to consider, in changed legislation, a guarantee that such and such an act will not be enforced. We have legislation which describes the contract of marriage—it is between a man and a woman, entered into voluntarily, to the exclusion of all others, for life. By definition, that does not include the marriage of same-sex couples.

But we are being told that we need to move into the 21st century and get out there with other nations around the world which have changed their legislation. We have legislation. If our legislation is not sacrosanct—to be changed only if necessary for the betterment of good government—then what is the qualification of legislation? Why should we take any notice of any legislation if we can, at the whim of a minority group, seek to change it? There seems to me to be something dreadfully illogical about referring to the sanctity of legislation and then, at the drop of a hat, wanting to change it. It just does not make sense.

We are all embracing modernity today and GetUp! is considered to be one of the great modern institutions we should all be aware of the significance of. Yet they rate the importance of same-sex marriage and equality in marriage as 11th out of 12 issues. About 14 per cent of the population strongly support changing the Marriage Act while 18 per cent strongly oppose changing the Marriage Act. But what about that vast silent majority for whom this is not even on the radar? Why on earth must we rush headlong to change things simply for the sake of change?

I find it dreadfully offensive that we are, as though we were all Independents, supposed to rush around plumbing the depths of public opinion to find another point of minority interest so that we can drag that minority group under our clutches. It does not make sense for good, honest, upright members of this chamber to be dragged into such a debate simply because the government of the day wishes to embrace these minorities in order to maintain their support in votes in this House. It is not only a contradiction; it is an affront to good government. We do not need to rush around willy-nilly, heading in different directions and plucking at things to support, when there are so many shameful goings-on being driven by this government as policy today.

I deplore this whole process of embracing and accepting these motions in this place today—and they are numerous. We have the one from the member for Melbourne, another one from the member for Denison and a contribution from the member for Throsby. I do not quite know—maybe he is just formally condoning this relationship between minority groups and the government of the day. Maybe they wish to add this contradiction to their long list of failures. There seems little sense to this other than change for the sake of change—change perhaps to take the scrutiny, the public heat, away from the government's failed policy and their untruths. Maybe that is the basis of the government having all these bills brought to the House by Independents.

I do not believe that the population of this country want further nonsense from this government—they want a change of government. This would probably be one of the least important issues ever brought this House for the majority—and don't we aspire to govern for the majority? Don't we want good governance that will lead this nation forward to a brighter future, setting good, solid role models for the future of our children? This ought to be an honourable place and a place of permanence. It ought to have good legislation brought before it for good reasons. There is no good reason for the introduction of any of these bills and they ought to be voted down.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the third time I have spoken publicly on same-sex marriage. In August 2011, I reported back to parliament on the views of my constituents for and against same-sex marriage. Within Labor Party forums I have also spoken out in favour of changing our party platform. But this is the first time I have spoken in parliament since the Labor Party changed its national platform. That platform now reads:

Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life.

The Labor Party platform also states that on this issue 'any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party'.

I hope that over the coming months many members on both sides of this place will support a change to the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is not about gay versus straight, conservative versus progressive, left versus right. It is about social justice, equality for individuals and the recognition and protection of fundamental political and civil rights. Throughout this great country, people watch Ellen DeGeneres and Erik van der Woodsen, Matt Lucas and John Barrowman, Jodie Foster and Stephen Fry; we listen to Elton John and KD Lang. Equality for same-sex couples is not unfamiliar to everyday Australians. Ce Ce of Hawker told me:

I have just heard you "come out" in support of marriage equality and I wanted to express my gratitude. My partner and I registered a civil partnership earlier this year—our society needs more civilisation—I still wait for the day that we might be married. There is something lacking in referring to my civil partner rather than to my wife. Please do not underestimate how much it means.

Warren and Grant of Aranda have been together for 27 years and believe marriage would be the ultimate legitimation of the equality of their relationship. As they told me:

Our marriage would not undermine heterosexual marriage—quite the opposite—our desire to be married reflects our deep respect for the institution of marriage.

Many of the opponents of same-sex marriage are devoutly religious. I respect their faith, but I say to them that it is possible to support marriage equality without undermining marriage, family or religion. Today, two-thirds of marriages in Australia are conducted by civil celebrants—a figure that is steadily rising. Same-sex marriage is supported by many religious leaders, including Lin Hatfield-Dodds, Reverend Bill Crews, Reverend Rowland Croucher, Reverend Matt Glover, Reverend Roger Munson and Father Dave Smith.

I say to my colleagues on the other side of the parliament that there is nothing in same-sex marriage that should offend Liberals and conservatives. Libertarians are among the most prominent advocates of same-sex marriage and, as British Prime Minister David Cameron has said:

Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I do not support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.

In 1967, my parents were married in New York. They celebrated their 45th wedding anniversary last Saturday. But if they had been of different races, there are 16 US states that would not have allowed them to get married in February 1967. It was not until June 1967 that the Supreme Court case of Loving v Virginia outlawed bans on miscegenation. These bans were thought natural—and some argued that they were supported by scripture. That matters today because, in the words of Mildred Loving in 2007:

… not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.

In closing, let me quote the words of former Washington state representative Betty Sue Morris. Washington is shortly to become the seventh US state to permit gay marriage. Ms Morris spoke of a vote she cast against same-sex marriage in 1996. She said that in December 1998 her daughter, Annie, had come home for Christmas and told her she was gay. In the days that followed Ms Morris said she remembered her vote and 'felt like she had denied her something. A wholeness. A freedom.' Former representative Morris told Frank Bruni of the New York Times:

Whenever someone opposes this, I always counsel: you never know. You never know when it will be your child or your grandchild. And you will eat your words.

I hope members of the House will support legislation to put in place same-sex marriage.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose this motion about amendments to the Marriage Act. A series of irrational and highly emotional arguments have been put forward on what is loosely termed same-sex marriage. I think that is a misnomer. Marriage is defined, in Australian law, as being between a man and a woman. That was set out in 2004 to clarify a situation that had been in existence in Australian law since 1961. This was done with the full support of the Labor Party, and this understanding has always existed in human history.

Today we have had this clash of Dead Poets Society with Pulp Fiction from the member for Melbourne, the member for Canberra and other members. They have tried to pretend there is unanimity of view that same-sex marriage is universal, supported and inevitable. It used to be death and taxes but now it is inevitable that there will be death, taxes and gay marriage. I do not think it is inevitable in our society. It has never been the case; it is a new and radical proposition. Instead of recognising that it is a new and radical proposition and coming to this place with an approach that is reasonable and measured and that brings the population along with it, the Greens and various Labor members, who are now free to express their views, are proposing something that is highly divisive and ignorant of the majority view around the world today.

We have heard that a procession of countries have enacted legislation in relation to gay marriage. In my research, I can only find 10 out of 200 countries that have enacted such legislation. We have heard about states in the United States, but let us be clear about this: in 30 out of 50 United States states where a referendum on this question has been held, the people said no. They said no in every single one of those 30 referendums where the question was put to the people. And that is the case in the more progressive California, which has been cited today in this place. The legislature there initially passed the laws granting same-sex marriage but then overturned them. In recent months, the French parliament rejected legislation for same-sex marriage. Indeed, in 2010 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that its member states were not obliged to recognise same-sex marriage on human rights grounds. It is a misnomer to suggest that there is a human rights issue.

There is an issue here in this motion before the House. As a liberal, I believe in the freedom of individuals in society. Individuals are the building blocks of society. We are fundamentally built as a group of families—individuals structure themselves into families. I believe that people have the right to associate with whomever they want. I believe civil unions should be recognised at law. I am perfectly willing to consider legislation in relation to civil unions; perfectly willing to consider removing any remaining discrimination. However, I am advised that in federal law there are no such examples, or very limited examples, of any discrimination against same-sex relationships or same-sex couples.

What are we talking about here? We are talking about a radical proposal to undermine a fundamental social institution that has been the basis of our society for thousands of years, an institution between a man and a woman for the reproduction of children which has formed the basic unit of our society. Why can't we recognise civil unions in our society today? Why can't we recognise that they should develop their own traditions and their own customs because they are a new institution? Why don't we retain the successful institution of marriage, which has been the bedrock of our society for so long and done so well for us? We should retain it, encourage it and promote it, as we always have, and of course allow at law the same situation to exist for same-sex couples, which is inevitably what we do at the moment.

Many states now have relationship registers. These could be expanded and I would support that. It would be a step in the right direction. Of course we should clarify any situation where there is discrimination against people, but marriage has been a particular societal institution and convention that has produced so much good and will continue to produce so much good.

This is an attack on the rights of all those who support marriage, and I believe they are a majority. I believe that a majority of Australians voted in the 2004, 2007 and 2010 elections for the position of both major political parties that there be no amendment to the Marriage Act. If the Labor Party is now proposing to change its position, of course it must put it to the people—something we know that it does not like to do. On this side of the House, the coalition have always had the right to exercise our conscience. We should exercise our conscience, and conscience tells us that the majority of Australians today do not support amending the Marriage Act and do support removing any remaining discrimination against same-sex couples.

Debate adjourned.