Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the fourth occasion on which I have risen in this place to speak on the topic of same-sex marriage so I do not intend to recite the arguments and the cases that I have spoken about in previous speeches nor my respect for those who have a different viewpoint on this. What I do want to do in the short time available to me is to broaden the philosophical basis for same-sex marriage. The case has, I believe, been made on the basis of equality—a value which many Australians hold dear and which is fundamental to our unique Antipodean notion of egalitarianism. People have spoken about same-sex marriage in the context of social justice and the recognition and protection of fundamental political and civil rights. But in my view the equality case is equally matched by a small 'l' liberal case for same-sex marriage and by a conservative case for same-sex marriage. Recently, conservative leaders in the United Kingdom and New Zealand have moved to allow conscience votes on the floors of their parliaments to take place on same-sex marriage—a marker as to how quickly attitudes are changing on this critical issue.

Prime Minister Cameron has said that he supports same-sex marriage not in spite of his conservatism but because of it. He says:

I think marriage is a great institution - I think it helps people to commit, it helps people to say that they're going to care and love for another person.

'It helps people to put aside their selfish interests and think of the union that they're forming.

'It's something I feel passionately about and I think if its good enough for straight people like me, its good enough for everybody and that’s why we should have gay marriage and we will.'

New Zealand conservative Prime Minister John Key said: 'My view has been that if two gay people want to get married then I can't see why it would undermine my marriage'. In New Zealand's parliamentary debate over the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill earlier this year, conservative MP Maurice Williamson delivered a rousing speech that went viral on the internet. He spoke from what I would regard as a small 'l' liberal perspective when he said:

… all we are doing with this bill is allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage. That is all we are doing.

We are not declaring nuclear war on a foreign state. We are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our agricultural sector for ever.

We are allowing two people who love each other to have that recognised, and I cannot see what is wrong with that for neither love nor money. I just cannot. I cannot understand why someone would be opposed.

I understand why people do not like what it is that others do. That is fine. We are all in that category.

But I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill right now. I give you a watertight guaranteed promise.

The sun will still rise tomorrow.

Your teenage daughter will still argue back to you as if she knows everything.

Your mortgage will not grow.

You will not have skin diseases or rashes, or toads in your bed.

The world will just carry on.

This bill is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.

So do not make this into a big deal.

This bill is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.

That is a beautiful exposition of the small 'l' liberal case for same-sex marriage.

I want to speak briefly about the personal experience of Reverend Janis R Huggett, a constituent of mine who wrote to me last year and said:

I am a retired Uniting Church ordained minister who would certainly have experienced both personal joy and legal benefit from being able to marry my partner before she died three years ago. Instead, I had to cope with her brother challenging her will and being forced to continue to declare my legal as 'never married' rather than 'widowed'. After all our years together, that is so unjust. The church has been much more supportive than the government, in case you are wondering about Christian views on this subject.

I would like to recognise many of those on the other side of the house who would like to vote for same-sex marriage if a conscience vote were allowed, including the member for Longman, the member for Higgins, the member for Wentworth, Senator Sue Boyce, Senator Simon Birmingham, and New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell.

I come to this from a perspective of equality. I acknowledge the hard work of Rainbow Labor, of activists such as Matthew Donovan, who worked as an intern in my office and helped prepare these remarks. But I hope that others will recognise that there are many good philosophical bases on which to ground same-sex marriage. It is not a battle between gay and straight, conservative and progressive, or left and right. It is an issue which ought to allow all of us to speak for our own electorates, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will allow his party to do just that—a value that is in the spirit of his party.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013, is an attack on marriage. Marriage is not just a word but an institution, and institutions exist because there is a common need for them and they serve a common purpose. The bearing and rearing of children is the fundamental purpose of marriage. There are those that see marriage as a simple expression of love. It is that, but far more, and the far more is the reason that same-sex marriage does not make sense. There are many avenues that people can and do use to express love, devotion and commitment to each other. Marriage is one of those, but it is far more than that. Marriage is about family. To those that attempt Orwellian doublespeak in calling this 'marriage equality', I say: you already have marriage equality. Anyone—gay, bi, heterosexual—can marry a partner of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination here.

This bill is a piece of enabling legislation: it enables the dismantling of society as we know it. In essence, this bill is the apotheosis of a movement bent on legislating a social experiment. Gay marriage is a social experiment. Social experiments have poor results when viewed historically. One need only think of phrenology and eugenics, both of which, thankfully, have been consigned to the dustbins of history but not before having damaging social consequences. We have not yet seen the fallout from this social experiment where it has been undertaken in other jurisdictions. There simply has not been the time. Let us make haste slowly.

The poison of this bill is that it replaces absolutism with relativism. This leads to crises of confidence and moral drift. Moral drift has social and economic consequences. Certainty is the most precarious and most precious commodity in the world. The social experiment proposed here today is too risky. The biggest risk is the unknown effect of normalising and legalising these types of microsocial compacts. It all pivots on the unknown and unintended consequences.

How can a child be brought into such a union? Certainly not as a natural result of that union. Is it not difficult enough to educate our children on reproduction facts without the added complication of a child with two mothers or two fathers? Yes, there are marriages where the relationship between the parents does damage the children. Yes, there are loving same-sex and single parents, just as with heterosexuals. But, just because bad parenting by natural parents can be pointed to, is that any reason to accept suboptimal parenting more generally? Clearly, all things being equal, it is preferable for a child to be raised by its natural parents, followed by a heterosexual adoptive couple. I can state, having my own children, that children need role models of both sexes, and it is far better that those role models are parents.

I now put forward the voices of the vast majority of the people of Tangney on the record for posterity. The following are arguments I have heard from my electors back in Perth: same-sex couples are not the optimal environment in which to raise children; gay marriage violates the sacred institution of marriage; same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage; we shouldn't alter heterosexual marriage, which is a traditional institution that goes back to the dawn of time. What will we be debating next? It is incumbent on all members of this place to step back and seek the counsel of time and good sense. We must not cave in to popular trends or fancies. Are we leaders or followers?

Only two decades ago or less, the same groups of people pushing for gay marriage today were decrying the institution of marriage as obsolete. So what has changed? There is no discrimination in the area of superannuation or life insurance for gay couples. Where would the next cut-off point be if this bill were to get up? These are the questions that gay marriage advocates cannot answer. Until such answers can be given to married people as to why they should accept such a fundamental change to their current status, I cannot as a representative of the people of Tangney support the member for Melbourne's bill.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the member for Melbourne's bill, the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, having previously spoken in favour of the member for Throsby's bill in relation to same-sex marriage. I start by saying that this issue represents the first conscience vote in which I have participated as a member of parliament, and I want to place on record, as I did previously, the wonderful way in which I believe this debate has been carried out in this parliament but also within my electorate. I have tried to make myself as available as possible to everyone, of all views, in relation to this issue—views which are deeply held. Really the way in which those views have been expressed to me, with a deep respect for people who hold different positions, stands in my view as a model for how debate should be conducted in this place. I want to make that very clear. I particularly want to say to those people who hold a different view to me in relation to this that the way in which they have engaged with me has always been with the utmost respectfulness and politeness.

An argument has been put to me—one that I have empathy for—that a number of churches in my electorate feel a concern that pressure will be created by virtue of the passage of this legislation, were it to occur, that would require them to conduct services in relation to same-sex couples, which they do not want to do. So in supporting same-sex marriage, as I do tonight, I do so very much with a renewed expression of the importance of the freedom of religious expression and the need for us all to defend that right. For me, this has been something of an unexpected journey in the course of this debate. There are many who feel that their rights to express their religious beliefs need defending within our community. So I very much say that for me, in supporting same-sex marriage in the context of this bill, the other side of that coin is a renewed commitment to defend the right of freedom of expression of churches, including those churches that would see marriage as being only between a man and a woman and would conduct marriage ceremonies only on that basis.

There has also been an argument put to me that allowing same-sex marriages represents the beginning of a slippery slope which will see other forms of relationship given legal sanction under our civil law. I do not agree with that argument. I do not see that we are putting ourselves on a slippery slope. In any event, all we can do in assessing this piece of legislation is to look at the proposition which is before us, which is about allowing the union of same-sex couples. In that sense, for me the arguments are very clear.

There were 85 separate pieces of legislation in the last parliament which were amended to remove discrimination against same-sex couples in the areas of property, superannuation and life insurance. This was a non-controversial step to take, and it removed discrimination across the board and was rightly regarded as an unambiguous good. I understand that for some marriage is seen as being deeply connected to the issue of faith, but for many others it is not. Marriage is first and foremost a statement between a couple of their commitment to each other and then a statement by that couple to their community and their friends about their commitment to each other. The ability to convey that to their community is part of the commitment that they make to each other. In my view, to deny a couple the opportunity to make that statement of their love to their community is for them a denial of a human right, and to remove the denial of that right is, in my view, just another removal of an act of discrimination, which we did without controversy in the last parliament.

So it is for that reason that I think it is very important that we provide for same-sex marriage to be a part of our civil law so that people are able to make that commitment to themselves, to their friends, to their society and ultimately to their country and so that it can be recognised as such. In doing so, I very much defend the right of individual churches to conduct marriages as they see fit as an expression of their freedom of religion.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am opposed to this private member's bill. As you would expect, I canvass the views of the Riverina electorate, which I serve, on a daily basis. I receive feedback on a variety of issues. I have received an enormous amount of correspondence on the issue of same-sex marriage, almost all of it from outside the electorate. The correspondence I have received, most of it in email form, has presented a range of different positions.

I recognise that there are passionately held views on both sides of this debate. I have met with members of the national Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays and a number of local advocates for same-sex marriages as well as with members of the community who staunchly oppose same-sex marriage. I should add that overwhelmingly in all of the Riverina correspondence I have received, as well as an electorate-wide survey mid-last year, the level of opinion has been in favour of the retention of the Marriage Act in its current form. Indeed, of the 1,700 respondents to the survey collated thus far, the results were: 78.3 per cent against same-sex marriage; 17.7 percentage favour; and 3.9 per cent uncertain. On September 19 last year the lower House of the Australian parliament voted down the member for Throsby's private member's bill regarding sex same-sex marriage, 98 to 42.

Whilst obviously I always consider the views of Riverina constituents expressed in letters, conversations and many other forms of communication, it is my personal view that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. As it stands today, I do not support any change to Commonwealth law which would diminish this institution. I believe that people are entitled to freedom of religion, respect, dignity, and the opportunity to participate in society and receive the protection of the law regardless of their sexuality. I remain committed to the Australian tradition of tolerance and respect. I therefore support the recognition of legal rights within same-sex relationships.

In the past, the coalition has supported the passage of the government's same sex reform legislation, which has provided equality to all relationships on the condition that nothing in its terms affected the status and centrality of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. I intend to continue to participate in the public debate in a moderate and respectful manner and I am hopeful that issue will not become unnecessarily divisive in the community. I am certainly not opposed to having a conscience vote. I do feel that it is a pity this issue is not being dealt with by way of a referendum.

I will conclude my remarks with comments by Bill Muehlenberg, who is a commentator of contemporary issues and who lectures on ethics and philosophy. He has reviewed a book by William B May called Getting the Marriage Conversation Right in the National Civic Council's News Weekly edition of 25 May. He writes:

He shows us what the real nature of marriage is, why it is so important for children, and how it fundamentally differs from non-heterosexual relationships.

The most important aspect to this entire debate is to get a proper understanding of just what exactly marriage is. A faulty understanding of marriage will simply provide fodder to those who seek to deconstruct it for their radical purposes.

Marriage is not the mere public recognition of adults who are in a relationship for the sake of personal fulfilment. Any number of combinations could be called marriage if that were the only definition.

He continues:

Marriage, properly understood, has always been about that which unites a man and a woman with each other and any children who may come from this union.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last year I was proud to vote in support of the member for Throsby's private member's bill on marriage equality along with 37 of my Labor colleagues in the House of Representatives, three Independents and the member for Melbourne. I speak in support of his bill, the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 today.

Since last year's third we have seen the pace of change continue to quicken as laws reflect the aspiration for equality in our community. Maine, Maryland and Washington became the first US states to legalise marriage equality through a popular vote. The New Zealand parliament passed marriage equality in April this year, with observers and MPs breaking into a traditional Maori love song. France's National Assembly passed their 'marriage for all' bill despite death threats being sent to parliamentary supporters in a divisive national debate.

As fast as laws across the world change, in Australia our parliament lags behind the community we represent. Many Australians remember a time when homosexuality was illegal and formal discrimination provided shelter for so many other acts of violence and bigotry against gay men and lesbians. The path to greater equality has been difficult, and at times has been halting as successive governments have worked to reduce the shadow cast by this kind of discrimination: from decriminalisation to protections against workplace discrimination to de facto relationship rights.

I am proud of the role that the Labor Party has played in that journey, and the 85 laws which we changed in 2008 to remove discrimination against same-sex de facto couples. As complex as the task of removing discrimination can be, at its heart is one simple idea: that we should all be equal under the law. The conviction which drove us to amend those 85 laws discriminating against same-sex de facto couples should energise us now to complete the task ahead. Once we accept that heterosexual and same-sex couples should be equal before the law, how can we reserve marriage for one group and deny it to the other?

Marriage is both a religious and a civil institution. Other speakers have said that they would not expect churches to be forced to undertake marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, and I agree that. Churches should not be forced to do that. But we are all members of a civil society as well. Many people enter the institution of marriage with no particular religious beliefs, but they still enjoy the rights and responsibilities that go with marriage. People often speak about the role of children in marriage, and as a married mother of three I know that marriage is a wonderful institution. But I have to say that I have gay and lesbian friends who have children too, and they would like to offer their children the security that marriage might bring to their relationship.

There are also many couples who marry without ever intending to have children or, indeed, without being able to have children. They may marry later in life for the second or a third time, with no ability or intention to have children. Do we say that their marriages are worth less because they enter with no intention or ability to have children?

All Australians should have the right to legal recognition of their relationships and the advantages and responsibilities that such legal recognition brings with it. All Australians deserve the full social acceptance that removing discrimination symbolises. Often our attention is drawn by the battles in courts and parliaments around the world, but the measure of what is at stake is found in those places where marriage equality has been introduced. On those days when marriage equality becomes real you see men and women who have loved each other for decades surrounded by their friends and family making a declaration of their commitment to one another. You see the truth that same-sex couples are no less loving and their commitment to one another is no less moving or affirming. All they have been waiting for is for the law to acknowledge that.

I look forward to seeing those same scenes of love celebrated here in Australia.

Debate adjourned.