Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I shared the joy of many people in Australia when New Zealand followed Britain and passed legislation enabling same-sex marriages in that country. I can imagine that if this legislation, the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013, were to be passed we would see a whole new tourism industry develop. I am not sure what New Zealand's residency requirements are for getting married in New Zealand, but I am sure that a lot of people would set out to try to meet those requirements should we get this legislation through.

I am not normally in favour of backdoor ways of doing things, which is what this bill is—it is a backdoor way to try to increase the pressure for same-sex marriage in Australia. As I said, I am not normally in favour of that, but I think that in this circumstance, and given what Senator Wong said earlier about attempts of this house on a number of occasions to enable same-sex marriage in Australia, there is a valid reason to support this legislation. I would also point out a rather long list, which I will read into Hansard, of countries and provinces that allow same-sex marriage and the date on which they first allowed same-sex marriages to be performed. It is a very long list and it starts in 2001 with the Netherlands. Then came Belgium in 2003 and Canada also in 2003 for some provinces and 2005 nationally. Massachusetts in 2004 was the first American state to allow same-sex marriage. Spain allowed same-sex marriage in 2005; South Africa in 2006; California in 2007; Norway and Sweden, and Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Washington and Oregon in 2009; Mexico City, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, New Hampshire in 2010; New York state, Quintana Roo in Mexico and the Squamish Indian Nation in Washington all in 2011; and Maine, Maryland, Uruguay, New Zealand, Delaware, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians in Michigan, Rhode Island, Minnesota and France in 2013. It is a very comprehensive list of countries and states that support same-sex marriage and allow same-sex marriage to occur.

Countries that recognise same-sex marriage, although it is not performed there, include Israel, which has recognised same-sex marriage since 2006, and Mexico, all states of which recognised same-sex marriage in 2010. As well, some states of Mexico perform same-sex marriage. The list of countries that are currently looking at the situation goes on. I note that South Australia may well be the first Australian state to legalise same-sex marriage. I think that would be a good move.

I am appalled to see that, at the same time, it is being suggested that our Constitution should be changed to enshrine the idea of marriage as being between a man and a woman. I would have thought that in 2013 enough people would have understood sexual orientation and sexual identity to know that it is no longer acceptable to talk about a binary state of man or woman. One in 200 people in Australia is born with both male and female attributes. Some of those people, who are now referred to as having intersex status, will know from birth that they have male and female attributes. Some may not discover it until they have an unusual puberty. Some may not discover it except inadvertently through a blood test or some other medical procedure they undertake. There is an example given of a South Australian man—he is a married man with children—who almost died of ovarian cancer because no-one thought to check his ovaries. That is not an unreasonable thing, of course, but it is something that we now know is a possibility in medical terms. It means that we know we should not be looking medically at people simply as a man or a woman. It is possible for people to have, unbeknownst to them or to anyone else, male or female characteristics. So even in terms of physical health and safety we need to get past the idea of a binary view of male and female. That is just on the medical-physical side.

Let us talk about the moral side. Surely in 2013 we are past the homophobic, scared-of-difference, scared-of-diversity view that would be implied by any sort of attempt to put into the Constitution the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman only. My only hope is that the appalling record of referenda in Australia—their complete lack of success—means that that would go down. But it would not go down just because we are not very good at passing referenda; it would go down because in 2013 it is a disgusting and immoral idea to want to take that point.

I know that my view on this topic differs somewhat from that of the coalition, which quite reasonably has made the point that the commitment of the coalition is to the idea of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, although it is open to rediscussion and redefinition after the election. I look forward to that time, but in the interim I am pleased that I have the option within the Liberal Party to exercise a free vote, an option that, I would point out, is not available to those in the Labor Party or the Greens unless a conscience vote is agreed to by the party. Within the Liberal Party, one always has the option of exercising a free vote. If we are to vote on this legislation, I will be voting for this bill, because I think it advances the cause of same-sex marriage in Australia.

I do not know what we can do, other than something like this, to try to persuade others that same-sex marriage is not going to be the end of the world for anybody, especially not for children or couples in Australia. I concur with these thoughts of Dr Andrew Sullivan:

The truth is I'm not at all indifferent to the fate of marriage as a whole, but I cannot for the life of me see what terrible damage same-sex marriage would actually do to it. Would it accelerate divorce rates? I cannot see how. The only country with anything like comparable legal protections for gay couples, Denmark, has actually seen lower divorce rates among same-sex couples than among heterosexual ones. In many ways, I think, the inclusion of more people into the institution might actually have the opposite effect, sending a message about matrimonial responsibility and mutual caring to the entire society, rather than to merely 97 percent of it. Would it harm children? Why on earth should it? Are the kids of a heterosexual family going to be harmed by meeting other kids who are the legitimate children of a gay couple down the street?

…   …   …

These aren't appeals to sympathy; they're arguments that same-sex marriage would be good for all of us--and for conservative reasons to boot.

Those reasons are the same reasons that those who support marriage as the union between a man and a woman espouse for their marriages. A marriage is a special commitment. A marriage provides more security for those in it, including the children who would be in it. There is no reason not to allow same-sex marriage in Australia. I believe that this bill will assist us in moving towards that. If we are to vote on this bill, I will be supporting it.