Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, and I thank the member for Whitlam for being so generous. As I said earlier in the second reading debate on the Plebiscite (Same Sex Marriage) Bill 2016, gay and lesbian advocates have already told me about physical confrontations and death threats that they have experienced. Rainbow Families visited our parliament today to talk about how difficult it is to tell their children that there are people they have never met who think there is something wrong with their family. These families will not be created by marriage equality, despite what some of the most pernicious propaganda is already suggesting. These families exist now—and they have always existed—and they have a right to the same protections and responsibilities that other families enjoy. Why should the children of these families be told by complete strangers that their parents' relationship is second-rate and that it does not deserve the recognition that we accord other relationships?

The Liberals have said that our concerns are unwarranted and that we are somehow suggesting that Australians cannot have a civilised debate. There is nothing further from the truth. I absolutely know, firstly, that a vast majority of Australians support marriage equality and, secondly, that the vast majority of Australians can and will engage in this debate in a civilised way, if they engage at all. But such a debate will undoubtedly hand the megaphone to the extremists in any discussion and, in this instance, the government proposes to subsidise this to the tune of $15 million.

Of course I have also met with constituents who oppose marriage equality, including representatives of the Greek Orthodox community and the Catholic Church—a whole range of people across the community. I do truly want to reassure them once again that there is nothing in what Labor proposes that would require their churches to solemnise any relationship between a same-sex couple. There is nothing in this proposition that suggests that. They are completely entitled to live their lives and worship as they choose, but the simple fact is we live in a society that separates church and state. For many people, marriage is a religious sacrament, but not for everyone. For others, however, it is still an important legal and social recognition of deep love and commitment, and that is something that really most of us want in our lives.

I would like to say to my colleagues in this place too: none of us should assume that because someone has deeply held religious views they are automatically opposed to marriage equality. Indeed, there are many people of deep faith who make a strong Christian case in favour of marriage equality—great and compassionate leaders such as the Reverend Dr Keith Mascord, who I have known for decades now. I am surely not the only person in this place who comes from a devout family whose motto may as well be, 'Judge not, lest ye be judged,' or, my personal favourite, 'Take the splinter out of your own eye before you reach for the speck in your brother's eye.' When I asked my mum about this years ago, she said to me: 'It's just so simple. There is not enough love in the world, so why would we want to deny it to anyone who has found it?'

I want to finish with this: one of my favourite poems is a love poem by WH Auden from 1937, and it is called Lullaby. It is a poem written by a gay man in a time and from a country where his love was illegal, and it speaks of universal love and hope. Marriage equality is a fundamental recognition of the universal character of love—that the way each of us loves is not so very different. Our hopes and dreams for ourselves, for our families and for our children are not so very different, and our laws should not discriminate.