Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak about an issue that is important to all Australians who value human rights and fairness: marriage equality. Being able to celebrate your love for your partner before people you care about and to have that love legally recognised by the state should be a right of every and each Australian. Yet that right is being denied to same-sex couples simply on the basis of their sexuality. While most Australians support same-sex marriage, our Prime Minister insists that it is in the too-hard basket. I am at a loss to understand why. In support of his position Mr Rudd offers the same tired arguments of his predecessor, Mr Howard, that marriage is between a man and a woman—period. That is correct in the current state of play, but that does not always mean that it is right and that it should remain so. Intrinsic to Mr Rudd’s argument is the idea that heterosexual marriage is somehow diminished or compromised by same-sex marriage, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this.

Surely, inclusion of new couples would strengthen the institution of marriage. If it is such a wonderful and important thing maintained by the state—and I am a firm believer that marriage is important—why would we not want to extend it to other couples to share in being able to celebrate their love legally in front of friends and family, and have that recognised by the government just like anybody else? Certainly, that is the experience from overseas where same-sex marriage has been legislated for without any adverse impact on marriage whatsoever. The sky has not fallen in in countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Spain and South Africa and many of the states in the United States who already legalise and recognise same-sex marriage. Why is it that Australia should lag behind?

I have seen some quite absurd and downright offensive comments that have been made in support of the status quo. There is the argument that marriage is simply an institution between man and woman and should be preserved exclusively for heterosexuals. Most of these arguments are deeply rooted in discrimination and in religious conviction that does not hold true to why marriage exists in the first place—as a symbol of love, as the ability to bind two people together strongly in the eyes of family, friends and the state. For instance, I have heard the claim many times that the purpose of marriage is simply procreation. I know that this is the view promoted by Cardinal George Pell among others. Does this mean that marriage between infertile couples or couples who choose not to have children is somehow illegitimate? Clearly, it does not. We do not have fertility tests before people sign their marriage certificate—it would be absurd. It is not the purpose of marriage. Sometimes it is a result, but it is not the purpose. The Marriage Act does not make any reference to parental status. I find the implication that childless marriage is somehow less than marriage with children absurd to mention. Unfortunately, it is insulting to listen to as well.

On Monday, in the daily paper in my home state, the Advertiser, Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby made comment that same-sex attraction is no different or worse than having a strong heterosexual urge that might cause you to be disloyal to your wife or something of that nature. Is Mr Wallace really implying that monogamous, committed same-sex relationships are the same as adultery in a heterosexual marriage—another outrageous and highly offensive claim? These are the arguments that are put forward by those who are too afraid to allow people, who want to celebrate their love, who are committed to each other and who want to share their lives together, to marry. They do not support that; they do not embrace that and these are the only arguments they can come up with. They are wildly inaccurate claims and clearly offensive.

I know that Mr Wallace’s views are certainly not representative of all Christians, clearly not. In fact the inquiry into my same-sex marriage bill, the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, indicated that there is strong support within the Christian community in Australia to rid the current discrimination from our federal Marriage Act. My office has been contacted by many Christians, some in same-sex relationships and some not, who respect the human rights of all Australians and see respect for these as being fundamental to Christian philosophy.

In fact, I recently read an article by Nathan Nettleton who describes himself as a married, evangelical Christian pastor where he talked about his support for same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, Jim Wallace, while presuming to speak for all, speaks for very few. Ultimately, this is not a religious issue, this is not a gay issue; this is an issue about human rights, human dignity and fairness. It is time that our Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, whoever they may be this afternoon, show some leadership and allow this issue to be openly discussed in this chamber and in the other place. We need to show leadership to move forward.

There is no consistent or legitimate argument as to why Australia must lag behind the rest of the world. Where other countries have adopted the idea of embracing same-sex marriage and marriage equality, the sky has not fallen in. In fact, the sun, I would argue, shines even brighter. The kind of thinking that has been promoted by an extreme ultraconservative minority that same-sex relationships are morally deficient in some way has no place in a modern democracy like Australia. Why should a state make judgments about loving relationships between two people? If we believe that marriage is an important institution, let us allow it to be embraced by others.

I am at a loss to understand why the viewpoint is being indulged by our own Prime Minister—an intelligent man, a fair man, a man who talks about the principles of democracy and fairness. Surely, the idea of discussing the issue of same-sex marriage and marriage equality in this chamber, in the other place, in the public realm, would not be so hard for him to harness, despite his own views being backward. This is a Prime Minister who promised fresh thinking and new ideas to shape the 21st century. His predecessor, John Howard, was often mocked for clinging to the 1950s—the image of the Australian nuclear family, two kids, white picket fences, meat and three veg. This is not the Kevin07 that he was elected to be. It seems that Mr Rudd is clinging onto the same antiquated vision as Mr Howard.

Mr Rudd, it is time to get real and to ensure that the laws of this country actually reflect the diversity of the country that you lead. Unfortunately, rather than showing leadership and moving Australia forward, Mr Rudd seems intent on pandering to the vocal, extreme minority. In recent days his government has signalled an intervention to ride roughshod over the ACT Legislative Assembly’s recent laws that allow same-sex couples to have civil union ceremonies.

Of course, this is an issue in relation not just to marriage but to the will of the people of the ACT. Issues regarding the sovereignty of the ACT aside, I am alarmed that the Prime Minister thinks it is appropriate for the federal government to step in and prevent a couple from having a civil ceremony. Is he seriously trying to argue that this is a priority for him and his government when he faces global economic and environmental catastrophe? He has spent time this week debating these issues. It is a slap in the face to the ACT government and, more importantly, it is a slap in the face to same-sex couples in the territory who were looking forward to some recognition. Again, there appears to be no clear rationale. I have said many times today that I consider the Prime Minister is showing a lack of leadership. He and his counterpart, the current Leader of the Opposition, have been lacklustre in their approach to discussing this issue rationally and fairly.

Those strongly opposed to same-sex marriage can no longer argue that it does not have majority support. Polls are showing that in fact 60 per cent of Australians are more than happy to allow marriage equality to exist in Australia. In fact, most people do not care. You care if it affects you and you do not care if it does not. The polls have shown consistently over time the increase in support in the Australian community for same-sex marriage, and the latest Galaxy poll, showing 60 per cent support, proves this once more.

As the house will be aware and as mentioned previously, earlier this year I introduced my Marriage Equality Amendment Bill to remove all discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender identity from the Marriage Act and to permit marriage regardless of sex, sexuality or gender identity, removing the discrimination that is holding Australia back from going with the rest of the world in embracing the idea that marriage should be for everybody, not just for some. The bill was committed to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and tomorrow the report will be delivered.

This weekend marks the beginning of the National Year of Action for Same-Sex Marriage and I know organisations are expecting a big turnout across the country this Saturday in support of seeing my bill debated in the chamber early next year. It is time for us to have a rational and proper debate on this issue. The fact that it does not suit Mr Rudd does not mean it does not suit others. The Prime Minister needs to know that this is not an issue that will go away. He can try to put it on the backburner, he can try to defer a decision and he can even try to stamp over the territories that try to do their best in their own jurisdictions, but the desire of couples to have their love recognised by the state will never, ever go away. The Greens will continue to work with the community to keep this issue on the agenda, as we have already been doing, as we head into the election.

Mr Rudd should not forget that, when a Prime Minister refuses to listen or to change his position even when it is clearly outdated, old, used and simply not applicable or reflective of the Australian community, people stop listening to him. The people will not hesitate to bring about that change on their own. That may be through the ballot box or it may be by taking part in civil ceremonies, as the first couple to celebrate their love through a civil ceremony in the ACT did at one o’clock today. I congratulate that couple. Unfortunately, they have had to do it under territory law and not under the federal Marriage Act. Let us make it possible for all couples who want to celebrate their love and commit to each other in lifelong marriage in front of their friends and family and with the important blessing of the state to do this regardless of their sexuality.

Marriage is an important institution, and we should be enabling more people to participate in that. Marriage is a wonderful thing. It is symbolic in so many ways and reflects our nature as human beings: that we have love, care and compassion for each other and enter into lifelong, committed relationships. Let us allow same-sex couples the same rights as the rest of us to have that relationship recognised under the federal Marriage Act. That is the only true way to remove discrimination against gay couples in this country.