Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Marriage Amendment Bill (no.2) 2012 and I thank my Senate colleagues for introducing the bill. I also thank the Prime Minister Julia Gillard for allowing those of us in the Labor Party to have a conscience vote on this issue.

I acknowledge and appreciate the hard work of all those who have campaigned over many years for the right for same-sex couples to marry. Unfortunately, I do not think this bill will secure the support of the Senate, so the campaign will continue and I will continue to support the campaign.

My views on this bill spring from my firm belief that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of their gender or sexuality. I am old enough to remember the process of reform of antihomosexual laws in South Australia in the 1970s. Like most South Australians, I was horrified by the death of Dr George Duncan on 10 May 1972. Dr Duncan was a gay man, a visiting academic at the University of Adelaide, who was thrown into the River Torrens by other men just because he was a homosexual. Dr Duncan could not swim and he drowned. It was a shameful time in Adelaide. I was 17 at the time and a bit naive. I was unaware that such levels of prejudice existed in our community. I could not understand why someone else's sexual preferences could engender such vitriol and violence in others. I still do not understand that attitude. I am glad it is an attitude less prevalent in Australia now, but it still shocks me when I hear and see such hostile discrimination against gay people.

After the drowning of Dr Duncan, the campaign to change anti-homosexual laws in South Australian gained momentum and eventually the South Australian Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Amendment Act was passed. I was proud of the Labor government and of the leadership of the former Premier Don Dunstan in that long battle against discrimination and for equality. I was proud that South Australians, in the end, accepted that inevitable change. This federal Labor government has also removed bias against same-sex-attracted persons in federal legislation, and I acknowledge that the opposition supported those changes. These were significant changes and it was interesting to see how those changes were passed without much rancour. The general attitude from most Australians these days is that that was the right thing to do and that people should not be discriminated against because of their sexual preferences.

I am not so naive as to believe that just changing laws will remove all the discrimination that gay and lesbian people and same-sex couples come up against all the time. That battle will go on for a long time. However, changing the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry is an important step in a long campaign for equality and for fairness. Changing the Marriage Act in the way proposed in this bill simply recognises that gay and lesbian people are like the rest of us. Their relationships mean just as much to them. They love each other. Their families are just as important to them. Their wish to have public and legal recognition of their relationship through marriage is no different to those heterosexual people who also want that recognition and demonstration of commitment. Not every same-sex couple will want to get married, just as many heterosexual couples choose not to get married. Marriage is not a precondition for setting up a family or having children. People will do those things whether they are married or not, whether or not they are straight and whether or not they are gay.

I do not accept the arguments that changing the act in the way that this bill proposes causes any harm to anyone else or will harm our children or destroy our culture. Marriage between a man and a woman does not, unfortunately, guarantee that children will be protected from harm or will always be loved or have a better life. Those conditions are set by other factors. It will not diminish anyone else's marriage or relationship with their partner and their family if gay and lesbian people choose to marry. I can find no credible evidence to support the assertions that some opponents of this bill make about the alleged harm that will be done if the act is changed. Indeed, some of the arguments against marriage equality that I have heard and read in this debate have been unnecessarily extremist, untrue and deliberately hurtful to gay people.

I respect those people who come right out and say that they oppose this bill on the basis of their religious beliefs and who do not resort to vilification and misinformation to support their position. I agree that churches and religious organisations should have the freedom to determine who they will and will not marry. This bill does not change that and, if it is passed, it will not be the slippery slope to forcing churches into marrying people who do not meet the beliefs and criteria of the church. Australians well understand the difference between a civil wedding and a church wedding and respect the right of religious organisations to set their own boundaries. No-one is challenging that right. Australians also understand, and value the fact that Australia is a secular society. Australians expect governments to resist attempts by religious organisations, of whatever religious persuasion, to unduly influence the laws that apply to everyone who lives here regardless of their religion. Our secularity is precious and we should defend it.

Later this year I will be in the joyous position of attending the wedding of my daughter and her fiance. It is an exciting time for our families, and it will be a grand celebration of a marriage between two young people who love each other and who are able to demonstrate their commitment to each other through marriage. I am very happy that my daughter and her fiance have been able to make the choice to be married or not. I wish all our children had that choice and were not precluded from that choice because of the gender of the person they love. I am sure that eventually the time will come when we will look back on this debate and wonder what the fuss was about. As the Hon. Michael Kirby, former justice of the High Court, said:

Change will come, including in the matter of marriage equality in Australia. And when it does, we will look back on the current state of the law that expressly enshrines inequality in the Australian federal statute book (as we now do on the old criminal laws against sexual minorities) with embarrassment, shame and ultimately astonishment.

I look forward to that time. It cannot come soon enough.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am one of the proud sponsors of the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012, which we are debating here today. We support marriage equality. We believe in marriage equality. We do this because we believe in fairness, justice and equality. We must demonstrate that we value everyone in our society in equal measure. Amending the Commonwealth Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage for all adult couples, irrespective of sex, who have a mutual commitment to a shared life will ensure that gay and lesbian Australians will have nothing less than the full privilege of citizenship. As Martin Luther King Jr said, 'The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.' This change is coming and, if we are not successful here, this campaign will not end here. We will not stop until we have equality.

A majority of Australians support marriage equality. A majority of those who have Christian faith have also said they support marriage equality. Australian people understand that this is a matter of providing equal rights to all Australians. This is a matter of ending discrimination. The Australian people understand that the current law is unjust. The Australian people understand that the current law discriminates. The Australian people understand that everybody is entitled to fair and dignified treatment under the law. We must reflect the wishes of the majority of Australians and do what is just and what is right.

There is support for marriage equality on all sides of federal politics, and I hope that through the Australian parliament marriage equality will be achieved. I belong to the ALP. The ALP, at its heart and its core, believes that all of us have the right to a full and fulfilling life. That is a challenge. It was a challenge when the ALP was created and it is a challenge now.

We are not always going to agree on what is meant by a 'full life' and we are certainly not going to agree easily and comfortably about how to achieve it.

I believe we have to act; and, if we want to be true to our own beliefs in fairness and equality, either all human beings have the same rights or none of us have any. That is what believing in human rights means—not rights for men but not for women, for whites but not for non-whites, for Christians but not for Jews or Muslims, for heterosexuals but not for LGBTI people. Anything else is unfair. Anything else relegates some people to second-class status. It is time for Australia to allow same-sex couples to marry.

It is greatly to the credit of the Australian Labor Party that under a federal Labor government we have passed legislation to allow same-sex couples and their children the medical, superannuation and tax concessions previously unavailable to them. I am proud of that. We did what we thought was right and fair. It is time to move again.

Having a full life means having the right to love and means having the right to follow your heart. For some people that never involves marriage. For others it must mean marriage. It is the way they declare and swear their love to the world. They want to enter into a union acknowledged by the state to which they belong as adult citizens. For me a marriage is a commitment between two adults who make this choice together. The quality of their marriage will depend on their personal commitment and determination. Not long ago people believed that people of different religious beliefs should not marry, because that could not be a good marriage. In a good many places that claim to be civilised people of different ethnic backgrounds were forbidden to marry. It was said that civilisations would fall in such marriages if such marriages were allowed. Somehow, miraculously, civilisation has survived. It is time for the next step.

It is time to amend the Commonwealth Marriage Act to allow for marriage equality. What is the problem? That gay and lesbian couples love each other? That they want the same rights as heterosexuals? Why is that a problem? If we accept that same-sex couples have the right to have sex together and live together, why on earth shouldn't they have the right to marry? Some say it is because marriage is a special institution. They are right; it is. That is all the more reason to extend the right of access to that special institution to same-sex couples. Opponents of this bill point out that marriage has always been associated with procreation, but it is also true that there has always been procreation without marriage and that there are LGBTI couples who have children and who want those children to be raised within a married union.

Families come in all shapes and sizes, all creeds and colours. Like the rest of the population, LGBTI parented families are diverse. Family members come from a variety of ethnic, racial, cultural and socioeconomic groups. The main difference between same-sex parented and heterosexual parented families is that same-sex parented families face legal discrimination and prejudice which heterosexual parented families do not face. In this debate in this place those opposing marriage equality have argued that they are doing it to protect children. In fact, I believe they are doing entirely the opposite: they are discriminating against the children of same-sex parents. A vote for marriage equality is a vote to protect and promote the rights of children.

Children deserve the relationship between their parents to be legally recognised. Extensive research on gay, bisexual and transgender parented families highlights that the number and sex of adults in a household has no significant bearing on the children's wellbeing. It is the happiness of the relationship between adults in the household and the openness and warmth of communication between the adults and the children which have the major impact on the child. This shows that strong, happy, caring relationships where parents love their child is what is important, not the gender or sexuality of the parents.

Our families are complex. Happy children are raised in households where there is only one biological parent or where neither parent is a biological parent, and there are unhappy children raised by two biological parents in lawful marriages. We have known for a long time—for centuries—that procreation is not the prime purpose of marriage. Who would tell a loving couple without biological children of their own that their marriage is not a true one? Do we tell people who cannot have children that their marriages are meaningless? Do we require them to divorce if there are no children? If we are civilised human beings, we honour their relationships because we honour their love.

There are those in this place considering voting against this bill because they believe it is their duty to protect the institution of marriage. Though they are entitled to their views, I ask them to deeply reflect on what true marriage really means. What is at its core the institution of marriage? We are privileged to live at a time and in a country where marriage is entered into and defined by love. This in the context of history is only a very recent development. In past times marriage was a transactional relationship based on the transfer and inheritance of property, to continue a family line or to shore up ethnic or religious identity. If we think of what marriage means in Australia today and what we wish marriage to be, we think of words such as partnership, kinship, union. We think of two people bound together by love and a shared commitment to one another who want to share a life together. Surely the addition of people who love one another, who care deeply for one another and who wish to express this to each other and the world by entering into the institution of marriage serves only to make this institution stronger.

Some say that legalising same-sex marriage would normalise homosexuality. Is there something wrong with that? Do we really want to send to LGBTI people the message that their sexual preferences make them abnormal people marked out as less acceptable than others? Haven't we learned anything from the misery that was inflicted on countless people for generations for the crime of loving differently?

It has been argued that same-sex marriage negates what marriage is and what it is for, as though everybody everywhere has always agreed on this. There have been many times and places where marriage was a property arrangement depriving women of legal existence. That view of marriage is not worth protecting. The understanding of marriage that is worth protecting is that of a loving union between consenting adults. In the case of same-sex marriage there is more than consent; there is a passionate belief in the institution of marriage and in the commitment that it involves.

Difference often creates fear. I understand that. But we should not be ruled by our fear, and the state certainly should not encourage it. It is time for the Australian state to have the same degree of social acceptance of same-sex marriage as the Australian people. It is time to help LGBTI Australians enjoy full human rights by showing that the Australian state acknowledges and respects their right to form a legal union.

Hell has not broken loose in Canada, Norway, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands or in any other state or nation where same-sex marriage is allowed.

Some say that, while hell has not broken loose, there is no need to allow same-sex marriage. Why don't they just live together? Why bother with marriage? I think the answer to that is very simple: because they love each other and they want that love given official recognition and protection. There are people for whom marriage does not matter—lots of them: men, women, straight, gay. Nowadays, most of us are not concerned when unmarried people live together. A few decades ago, they were told that they were 'living in sin'. People also said that society would be destroyed if people believed they had the right to have sex before marriage. People counted back on their fingers if a child was born fewer than nine months after a marriage. Harsh words were said.

Gradually, we came to know better. If someone told you now, in shocked tones, that a child had been conceived out of wedlock, you would wonder what was the matter with them. Perhaps you would tell them that times have changed and that what really matters is whether or not the child is loved and protected. Perhaps you might also point out that this is not an area where any of us really wants to live in the past. For those with open hearts and minds it is time to honour the love of same-sex couples.

I wish that people whose hearts and minds are closed would have the experience that I have had of meeting with the parents of honourable, decent men and women who love, with all their hearts, people they are told they cannot marry. These parents are members of PFLAG: Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. They love a daughter or a son who is lesbian or gay—and they wish that we, here in the Australian Parliament, would allow that child the same right to marry as their heterosexual children, because they love them equally and they cannot understand why we treat them differently. They want all their children to live their lives with openness and dignity, to have the same rights and opportunities.

In this debate there have been some who have peddled the lie that the move for marriage equality is a push by 'militant lobby groups'. This type of argument was used to demean other movements throughout history—movements like the suffragette movement and the civil rights movement. We now look back on leaders of these movements as heroes, people standing up for what is right and affecting change for the better. Supporters of marriage equality are made up people of all backgrounds. When we look to the voices that have joined the call for marriage equality, we see teachers, doctors, nurses, labourers, office workers and police officers. We see mums, dads, sisters, brothers, neighbours, friends, strangers and our parliamentary colleagues joining together. This is a grassroots movement, a call for justice and equality. And I add my thanks to the Rainbow Labor network, particularly the Tasmanian branch members Robbie Moore and Matt Hastings for their friendship, advocacy and hard work.

As parliamentarians we can no longer deny some Australians the right and opportunity to marry because of outdated ideas about who constitutes a suitable marriage partner. It is time to understand that, although there are many things from the past that we need to conserve, attitudes towards same-sex marriage are not included. Those attitudes do not serve the greater good. They serve only to keep narrow minds closed. If we remove the impediments to same-sex marriage, the only walls that will tumble down are the walls of prejudice and bigotry. They are the walls screeching at us: 'I don't understand you because you're not the same as me. And because you're not the same as me, you're less than me. So your love must be less than my love, less worthy of respect, understanding and acknowledgement.'

An amendment to the Commonwealth Marriage Act will ensure that Australia remains a country which promotes equality, fairness and dignity for all its citizens. For me, as a member of the Australian Labor Party, belief is not enough, and I am here to promote fairness and dignity. Everybody, all Australians, are entitled to fair and dignified treatment under the law in equal measure. That means it is time to change a law that serves no moral purpose, that serves only to discriminate against people who have done nothing wrong. The same-sex couples watching what we do and say here respect marriage as an institution. They should be allowed to marry if they want to.

Marriage will survive. Indeed, it will be strengthened. Australia will survive. It will be strengthened, too, by showing that we truly believe in respecting all citizens. I urge you all to think deeply about the core principles of our fine country. I urge you all to reflect on the meaning of justice, the meaning of fairness, the meaning of equality, the meaning of love, because, when it comes down to it, that is all this is. It is very, very simple. It is saying to all Australians that, in the eyes of the law, we have all the same rights, we are all equal.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me commend Senator Brown's excellent contribution to the Senate. Senator Brown is co-sponsoring the Marriage Amendment Bill (No.2) 2012 before us today, along with Senator Crossin, Senator Pratt and me.

As much as any other issue that I have addressed in my time as a senator, I am confident that on this issue I will be judged to have been on the right side of history. As recently as 1997, the year we were introduced to Darryl Kerrigan and his scepticism about the value of jousting sticks, homosexuality remained illegal in Tasmania, a legal divorce had yet to be granted in the Republic of Ireland and you could still smoke a cigarette in pubs and restaurants right across Australia. It is incredible to think how far our attitudes have shifted and almost impossible to conceive of going back to the way things were a scant 15 years ago. I am proud to say that the Australian Labor Party has kept pace with this change.

For the benefit of senators who were not present at last year's ALP National Conference, I will inform the chamber of the items inserted into the ALP national platform under the heading of 'Removing discrimination': Labor will ensure that all couples whether married or de facto do not suffer discrimination; 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; and these amendments should ensure that nothing in the Marriage Act imposes an obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any marriage. Same-sex marriage is Labor Policy.

Today, most Australians understand that marriage at the most fundamental level is about a lifelong relationship based on love, commitment, responsibility and respect. As poll after poll shows, the majority of Australians understand that this definition of marriage, their definition, easily encompasses same-sex partners. Marriage equality is an issue with tremendous momentum in terms of popular sentiment. Approximately two-thirds of Australians now support marriage equality, up from 38 per cent in 2004. And it is fair to assume that, regardless of what happens in the Senate today, marriage equality in Australia is an inevitability.

I have listened with interest to a number of speakers on this matter but I am yet to hear an argument against marriage equality that could justify the disregard that is being shown by some toward the views of the clear majority of Australians. What I have heard have been uncritical appeals to tradition, vague and unsupported suggestions that same-sex marriage would somehow detract from marriages that currently take place and quite bizarrely an argument on the basis of discrimination. I wish to address each of these arguments in turn. It is important for us to be informed by history, but we should not be constrained by it. While the institution of marriage has long been of central importance in cultures all over the world, it has not remained static. As societies have evolved, so has marriage.

The popular contemporary definition of marriage I provided earlier has not always applied. Marriage has notalways been about a relationship built on love and commitment.3 Less than a century ago women were seen as chattels or property for transaction through a marriage contract, no provisions were made for no-fault divorce, and marital rape exemptions existed until the mid-1980s. Mixed race marriages were prohibited on the basis that having 'mixed blood' children was seen as a threat to the preservation of distinct racial lineages. Dowries needed to be paid and women were subservient in every respect to their husbands. This is to say nothing of the other barbaric marital traditions that have happily been consigned to history such as the Indian tradition of suttee where a newly widowed woman is compelled to immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre.

The argument against marriage equality on the basis of tradition is based on superficial logic and ignores those aspects of tradition that are inconvenient. But worse than the misguided adherence to tradition is the suggestion that marriage equality would somehow erode the value of heterosexual marriages that are recognised currently. Just once, I would like to hear a cogent, convincing explanation of why this is so. This is no idle curiosity on my behalf. If same-sex marriage will cause real, demonstrable harm to married heterosexual couples, I would like to know how.

4 As John Stuart Mill put it in his philosophical work On Liberty:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Such is the justification for the banning of smoking indoors and in public areas.

But what harm is caused by same-sex marriage that could justify the ban that currently exists? How does the legal recognition of the love between two people of the same sex negatively impact upon the lives of others? Is there a same-sex marriage equivalent to passive smoking? Could such a thing ever be considered harmful?

Let us not forget what our role is in this chamber. We are here to consider and debate the legislation of the Commonwealth of Australia. Let us also not forget precisely how marriage is viewed by this legislation. As far as the law is concerned, marriage is a contract between two people and the state. It is not a contract between two people and a religion and it is most certainly not a contract between two people and everybody else. The suggestion that a marriage contract between two people somehow detracts from a separate marriage contract between two otherwise unrelated people is ludicrous.

5 The third argument I have heard in opposition to marriage equality was made on the basis of discrimination. Perversely, it was not made on the basis that marriage equality is itself discriminatory. Instead, it was made on the basis that marriage equality would lessen the ability of the community to discriminate against members of the LGBTI community. Of course, it should go without saying that a reduction in discrimination on the basis of sexuality is actually a desirable outcome. But, even putting this aside, there is nothing in this legislation that compels an individual citizen to privately acknowledge the legitimacy of a same-sex marriage in terms of their personal beliefs. In fact, this legislation has been drafted with the express intention of ensuring that no minister of religion can be compelled to solemnise a marriage, same-sex or otherwise.

Australia has come a long way towards eradicating legal discrimination against gay and lesbian people, but as long as same sex marriages are not recognised, we cannot claim to have finished the job. Whilst I am yet to hear a cogent and convincing explanation of the harm that same-sex marriages will cause to others, there is no doubt that discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation has very real and sometimes tragic consequences.

The people who would be directly and profoundly affected by this bill are almost universally in favour of it. Those opposed to it will be completely unaffected or at least unable to articulate the harm that they maintain that a same-sex marriage will cause them. In this context, I fail to see how the parliament's continued opposition to marriage between people of the same sex can be justified. Whilst almost every facet of the institution of marriage has evolved over the years, there can be no question that same-sex attraction is, and always has been, a natural and normal feature of humanity. There can be no question that same-sex attracted people love each other and there can be no question that some same-sex attracted people have a desire to commit to each other for life, to the exclusion of all others, in a public ceremony that is recognised by the state.

There has been a lot of debate on this legislation and the depth of feeling on both sides of the argument has been plain to see. However, there is one point on which all present here and all participants in the debate seem to agree: that is the important and beneficial role that the institution of marriage has within our society. If marriage is such a valuable institution, if it is responsible for even a fraction of the social good that so many on both sides of this argument maintain, then surely we must make the institution of marriage available to be enjoyed by all members of the Australian community.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am supporting the legislation before us, the Marriage Amendment Bill (No.2) 2012. I am not married but I could be provided I chose someone who identified not as a woman. In terms of the process, in the same way that I can marry I can vote, I can actually take out a loan, I can receive social security payments and I can walk freely in the streets of the city. All these rights were not automatically gained. Looking back over the history of our nation and other nations, whenever there was a need to establish a right for any person in the community, there was a process that it had to go through. People had to identify the right that was involved. They had to see why they thought that right was necessary, they had to do their work to investigate the background, they had to work with the community and then in most cases they had to talk with the politicians of the day to ensure that the politicians were able to reflect appropriately the needs of the community. In that way rights have been achieved and it is important that we see this outstanding need: the human rights issue that gay and lesbian people have talked to us about as their political representatives and said, 'We want this right the same as anybody else in the community.'

Australia justifiably promotes our human rights history. We are the signatory to a number of human rights conventions. We celebrate our successes and we exhort other countries to follow our lead, to talk about freedoms and rights and equity. Indeed, in many ways for gay and lesbian people there have been great advances and we have talked about those things in this parliament. We have talked about the fact that we have identified discrimination and then we have talked to the community, we have listened to what they have said and we have made laws that appropriately reflect these changes. But somehow there still seems to be a particular debate about the term, the institution of marriage.

Several years ago when in this place this parliament made changes to the definition of marriage to make it absolutely clear that lesbian and gay people would not be able to marry in this country, I agonised at that time over whether I would speak in that debate. In the end I did and my argument was I was so upset and angered and hurt by the level of hatred and discrimination that came out in that debate. We had a result in that process and we have moved forward to today when we are actually having a chance again to look at the issues around the rights of gay and lesbian people to marry in our community. I acknowledge that there has not been, I believe, the degree of vitriol and hate in the debate at this time as there was several years ago, so I think we have moved forward, and that is important. However, what I ask of our community and what I ask of our parliament is this: why are we so determined not to make this change?

I come from a very large Irish Catholic family. We celebrate everything that happens in life and we really do enjoy a good wedding. We enjoy a marriage and we actually celebrate it. We celebrate it when it occurs. We actually mourn the fact that many of these marriages do not last, and the statistics are clear. In our community we know that every marriage is not a permanent commitment before our god, which is something that people claim as theirs. We also shamelessly speculate as to the motivations of the marriage and speculate about its success rate. I do not know the absolute motivation of the 26,530 marriages that were actually registered in Queensland in 2010. I do not know what caused those couples, men and women, to go before whatever form of process to make their formal commitment to each other. I do not know why they did it in an all those 26,530 cases. I know that only about 25 per cent of those cases actually had any form of religious ceremony. Most of the people in my state decided that they wanted to publicly proclaim their togetherness, their commitment and their marriage not in a religious form. We acknowledge that and that is part of our public law.

To all those people who have emailed, phoned and written to me with their views—and I thank you—I want to say: I have read every one of those emails and I acknowledge the rights of every one of you to give your opinion and to suggest, direct and, in some cases, demand that I respond in a way that you want in this debate. What I say to all of you is that everyone has the right to put their views forward.

We in this place will be voting in this process, in a short time I hope, on what will happen in the parliament. What I do not understand, amongst the many views I did receive, is the view that somehow making a change to the Marriage Act will impact on the integrity, the sanctity and the reality of marriage vows at the current time. I have never understood if two people make a commitment to each other to a loving relationship into the future why that will impact on anybody else in our community in making their own choice—an argument that Senator Marshall has just made in his previous contribution. This seems to have been an ongoing issue coming forward in the correspondence of the people who have written to me while feeling that their marriages will be somehow affected by any change in the definition that this parliament puts through. I firmly believe that the decision to marry is very personal. I firmly believe that everybody will make that decision in their own way for whatever reason. By far the majority of the people who have spoken to me have talked about the fact that they wish to share their lives into the future and that they have a love and a commitment to each other which they wish to publicly proclaim. That is the hope that I have for the people who have asked us to give them our trust and to move forward with this decision about the status of gay and lesbian people in marriage.

I remember amongst all the weddings that I have attended two particular occasions. One was when I was quite young. I went to a wedding ceremony and I noticed that only half of the church was full. I asked people around me what had occurred and I found out that the decision of these two people was that they would marry outside their own religious basis, so only half of the invited guests turned up. I went back and I said to my family, 'It wasn't the same. There was not the joy, there was not the celebration and there was not the pride in the ceremony.' Quite recently I attended another service in Brisbane of two of my close friends who are gay and who wished to have a ceremony for their commitment to each other. There was joy and pride at that ceremony but there was also fear because one of the people involved in this ceremony was employed in an area whereby if anyone had found out that she was actually going through a commitment ceremony, with the hope of having the marriage blessed, that person could lose her employment. That is not an equitable way of living, of celebrating and of having a process in 2012 in this country.

I particularly want to thank the people from Rainbow Labor in Queensland and my friend Sean Leader, who has kept me informed and supported and has given me the strength and the trust of people who are prepared to tell me their stories, often very painful stories about their past and what they hope for the future. I say to them: I thank you for your trust in giving all of us in this parliament the opportunity to hear those and, hopefully, to be able to make decisions that reflect your need.

I also particularly want to thank the people from PFLAG who have given us wonderful information about being parents and friends and family of people who are gay and lesbian and saying directly to us, 'Why can't our family have the same opportunity as everyone else to do that celebration?' That celebration I talked about that happens in my family.

To all the people who are involved in this debate I thank you for actually having the strength to put forward your arguments, to listen respectfully to other arguments and to genuinely think about the issues that are in front of us. We need to continue to have this debate because this will not go away. We as a community, as a parliament and as a country have a commitment to our citizens that we will maintain a sense of equity and justice for everybody in this community. We will ensure that their issues are considered, that their aim and goal of true equality will be acknowledged by their parliament and that people will be able to celebrate and join in their own commitment.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand to speak in favour of the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012. This bill seeks to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to establish marriage equality for same-sex couples by amending the current definition of man and woman to two people, thus removing gender specific terms. Importantly, this bill outlines that a minister of religion, a person authorised under state or territory law or a marriage celebrant is under no obligation to solemnise a marriage where the parties are of the same sex.

I understand that a lot of people have a great deal of passion for this subject, but I must confess that I am not among them. I understand that a great number of people have worked very diligently and in a very focused way to make sure that this matter has come before the parliament, but I must confess that I am not one of them either. But the matter is before this parliament and it is before us as members of the Australian Labor Party to make a decision based on our own conscience and, on that basis, I am here to declare my support for the bill and to explain my reasoning for that.

I am a Catholic having been brought up and schooled in its traditions. I married my wife in the Catholic Church and I continue to profess the faith of my forebears. In the Hon. Michael Kirby's submission to the inquiry of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 he stated that only one-third of marriages in Australia today are solemnised in a religious ceremony. The argument that marriage belongs to the church can no longer be justified. It is my firm belief that in Australia, a secular society, religious doctrines should not be enshrined in our laws. It is clear in section 116 of the Australian Constitution that Australia has an essentially secular legal character, notwithstanding our cultural indebtedness to our Judeo-Christian values and morals. I must say, having heard the contribution of Senator Thistlethwaite, that I thought he summed up my own views on this subject very eloquently.

The Second Vatican Council declared that 'man is bound to follow his conscience faithfully in all his activity'. I am aware that many see the use of conscience as a cherry-picking tool of Catholic teachings but, to me, Matthew 7:12 provides the crux of all of Christ's teachings: 'So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.' Dr Daniel Maguire, a United States theologian and professor at Marquette University, a Jesuit institution in Milwaukee, has written on Catholic Church teachings and sexuality. In fact his pamphlet entitled A Catholic Defense of Same Sex Marriage I would commend to all of my coreligionists. He has said that church leaders are misrepresenting catholic teaching and are trying to present their idiosyncratic minority view as the Catholic position and it is not. He went on to say:

… Most in the church have moved on [to] a more humane view on the rights of those whom God has made gay.

He continued:

Most Catholic theologians approve of same-sex marriage and Catholics generally do not differ much from the overall population on this issue.

That is certainly true for me. I also note that the Democrats in the United States have in recent times taken on this debate with eloquence and with dignity. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader in Washington, has said that her Catholic faith compels her to be against discrimination of any kind and thus same-sex marriage. Ms Pelosi said:

My religion … compels me to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this—

'this' obviously being the marriage arrangements prevailing in the United States—

a form of discrimination. I think it's unconstitutional on top of that.

President Obama has said on the issue:

… [Michelle and I] are both practising Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but … when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.

He continued:

Over the course of several years, as I talk to friends and family and neighbours, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together. When I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf, and yet feel constrained even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone because they're not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

In coming to this view President Obama said that he was sensitive to the fact that, for a lot of people, the word 'marriage' has very powerful traditions and religious beliefs.

I also want to note that, throughout the conduct of this debate, the Australian Greens party has taken care at every point to make sure that they have attacked the Prime Minister and the Australian Labor Party. This is no surprise. It is an old adage and a lesson of history that Bolsheviks always attack Mensheviks before they attack tsarists. But on this occasion the sneering contempt of the Greens party for religion and for people of religious conviction has been on full display. The intolerance of the secular puritans in the Greens party must be opposed. In Senator Milne's speech on Monday she criticised the National Secretary of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Union, Mr Joe de Bruyn, for his deeply held views and for his articulation of those views at the ALP national conference and at other open forums. And Senator Milne criticised the Prime Minister—the same Prime Minister who courageously persuaded the ALP national conference to adopt a conscience vote.

What a cheek! What a cheek, because ultimately these criticisms flow from the conceit, indeed the narcissism, of the Greens that this issue is theirs and that it is all about them. Of course it is not; it is about justice and about us reaching a reasoned decision about what is best for our community.

It has always been my conceit, it has always been my belief that the Australian Labor Party's national conference is the crucible for national debate in this country. And I discovered on Monday that Senator Milne obviously agrees with me. She obviously agrees with me because she spoke at length about the ALP national conference, and I might say that she spoke in terms where she tried to set herself up as the shop steward for the opinions of the ALP rank and file. One thing I am very confident of is that whether one attended the ALP national conference and supported the views of Mr de Bruyn or whether one attended that conference as a delegate and supported the views of Rainbow Labor, one thing that unites all of them is a great confidence that they do not need Senator Milne and the Greens to serve as their shop stewards.

Senator Milne's conspiracy theories about the Prime Minister, Mr de Bruyn and the issue of marriage equality do not deserve any forensic response. We all know the Australian Greens are partial to a good conspiracy theory—or, as Senator Sinodinos revealed recently, they are even partial to a bad conspiracy theory. But Senator Milne criticises Mr de Bruyn for his views, which he articulated in a public, open and broadcast ALP national conference. This is an affront that deserves a response. What a contrast it is to the Greens, to have the open processes of the democratic ALP attacked by those who come from a secret society. A confederation of protest groups and political fringe groups that call themselves the Australian Greens meet in secret.

And what a shame it is that they meet in secret. Senator Milne talks about the ALP delegates who voted this way and ALP delegates who voted that way, and Senator Milne talks about ALP delegates who abstained and backroom factions. It is a tragedy for all of us that the Australian Greens hold their conferences and their votes in secret. Imagine the entertainment if they were to hold them in public! The media and the broader community would love to watch the various kooks and crazies of the Greens debate their superstitions, conspiracy theories, plans for alien engagement and proposals for one world government, but, alas, they meet in secret and that scrutiny cannot be made of them. Mr de Bruyn's most dramatic speech would be as nothing if the media could look at the wheeling and dealing that would attend a Greens conference.

Let me finish this point by saying this: the exhortations of the Greens about the ALP, its processes and its debates are as nothing and cannot possibly deserve or merit a response while the Greens continue to meet in secret and forbid public scrutiny of their internal deliberations and their internal decision-making.

What a contrast all of that is with Rainbow Labor. Rainbow Labor adopted a strategy of persuasion and engagement, rather than denigration. This has done them an enormous credit, and they are obviously can, with great pride and a sense of satisfaction, look at their political accomplishment—that is, by bringing this issue, successfully, ultimately to the ALP national conference they won this debate in the crucible of national debate.

My support for this bill comes from what is clearly outlined in section 47: that nothing in this bill or in any other law requires an authorised celebrant, being a minister of religion, to solemnise any marriage. I have always advocated that this provision is a necessary part of any move to legalise same-sex marriage. This amendment makes clear provision that no marriage celebrant, whether a minister of religion or a civil celebrant, can be forced to conduct a marriage ceremony that is in violation of their conscience. Marriage celebrants would be protected against the possibility of prosecution under antidiscrimination law if they decline to conduct a same-sex marriage under this amendment.

A conscience vote on this issue is essential to this bill's success. That great reforming South Australian Premier Don Dunstan, who 40 years ago passed the first laws decriminalising homosexuality in Australia, did it in stages. It came about by way of a series of conscience votes on private members' bills, such as this, rather than by way of government legislation, that senators and those in the other place were bound to support. I think this is a sound precedent.

If those opposite were truly conservative they would argue that all couples in committed relationships should marry for the societal and civic advantages that lifelong commitment brings. I note that those opposite will not be voting according to their conscience on this bill and I think that is a real shame. It is also interesting that the Liberal Party go out year after year and attacks the Australian Labor Party for our pledge, for our custom of binding on votes while extolling virtuously that they are free to vote with their own conscience. Yet now that the rubber has hit the road, we find those opposite are in fact those who are bound by the chains of obedience to their leader. Free will in the Liberal Party is, at least for the moment, dead. I would finish that point simply by saying: no more grandstanding on that particular debating point from the coalition.

Senator Humphries interjecting—

I will take that interjection. You are perfectly right. The pledge normally does prevail, but on this critical issue it has not, and I think that was the right decision by the Prime Minister. I think that has been well articulated.

In researching this topic I came across a document entitled '10 Reasons why Christians should support same-sex marriage'. I have to confess it came from a Canadian website, but I will attempt to put an Australian spin on it. It says:

Why Christians should support same-sex marriage.

1.   Christians support equal rights for all [Australians].

2.   Christians have long benefited from the freedom of religion in [Australia], indeed that is why many came here.

3.   Modern Christians realise that marriage is not based only on procreation.

4.   Christians should support marriage.

5.   Christians realise that the Church has been discriminatory in the past and would want to seek amends for that.

6.   Christians realise that marriage has never been a static institution, and therefore there is no reason that it should be now.

7.   Christians support the separation of Church and State.

8.   Christians have long known that the Church should not determine the laws of our society.

9.   Christians are committed to justice.

10.   Christians believe in the supremacy of God, not the supremacy of government.

Passing the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 to remove discrimination and to allow two individuals, regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity, the opportunity to marry will create what the constitution intends, that of a separation of church and state. This bill is fair and it strikes a balance ensuring legal acceptance for everyone's beliefs and values. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the 11 January 1975 I married the person I love and each year on that day we are able to say to one another, 'Happy wedding anniversary'. We have two wonderful children and four gorgeous grandchildren. Our family is everything to us. Our daughter's wedding was a priceless occasion. This is the third time I have risen in this place to speak in support of marriage equality—to give all families, all couples the special moment of a marriage ceremony, of being part of an institution that, yes, has been around in many different forms throughout human history.

In the lead-up to the ALP's national conference I spoke on the need for the conference to change our platform to amend the Marriage Act to allow any two adults, regardless of sex, sexuality or gender identity, the honour and privilege of standing in front of their family and friends and making a commitment to each other; to allow the children of a couple in a same sex relationship the stability of knowing that their family is just as special in this country as all other families; and to allow the community to celebrate the love and commitment of two Australians.

I have shared the stories of Jenny, Jen, Peter, Martine and Maxine in the hope that it would add some dignity and some human faces to the campaign to remove this legislated discrimination—discrimination that the 42nd Parliament did so well to expel. In 2008 the 42nd Parliament removed discrimination against same-sex de facto couples in over 85 pieces of Commonwealth legislation. But it fell short of amending the Marriage Act to support equality for all. And so the campaign continued.

In Tasmania, the campaign to end this discrimination was led by Robbie Moore, our Rainbow Labor Convenor. I have known Robbie for many years. I knew him when he was in a heterosexual relationship. Since he has been in a same-sex relationship, I have seen him the happiest in all the time I have known him. Robbie's family are featured in an advertisement in Tasmanian media calling on support for marriage equality. This shows the love for their son and is something all parents can learn from. For Matt and Robbie, marriage equality means that they will be equal in society's eyes, and any excuses used for discrimination will be eliminated. When this positive reform is achieved it will allow Matt and Robbie to share with their family and friends a wedding day. Matt and Robbie have attended the weddings of their brothers and sisters. Their siblings have been able to share that private, special day with their families. And yet we bar Matt and Robbie from doing the same.

Robbie's tireless lobbying, together with the entire team from Rainbow Labor, is part of the reason we have this bill here today. Labor members from across the country and from across the spectrum of unions have rallied together to end this discrimination. As the 43rd Parliament, we should heed this call and remove this final piece of discrimination. In a recent speech I outlined why my Labor values and the values of so many Australians are compatible with support for marriage equality. I told of how Labor values of fairness, equality, family and compassion fitted naturally with support for marriage equality; and of how Labor is the party of progress, the party of reasoned and logical government and why this reform fits as a true Labor reform. I congratulate Senators Brown, Pratt, Marshall and Crossin for their bill. It is a comprehensive bill and reflects the work done by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Senate Committee under Senator Crossin's leadership.

I acknowledge that this debate is difficult for some, that the community is divided and that for many overcoming long-held prejudices is tough. That is why I approach this debate with my Labor values at the fore. There are honest, decent, hardworking Australians who want nothing but acceptance in our society. There have been arguments put forward against reform, but I believe that these arguments are easily refuted and I am encouraged by polling on this issue that indicates that the clear majority of Australians also feel the same way.

In the lead-up to the debate on the Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the Tasmanian parliament a column appeared in the Launceston Examiner. In her regular column conservative columnist Claire Van Ryn wrote that a campaign being run by some Green groups on 'preserving the Tarkine' should also then apply to 'preserving the institution of marriage'. Ms Van Ryn claimed that the state government was wilfully throwing away the 'heritage values' of marriage, and that the state government was:

… trying to topple the way things have been for millennia (like the Tarkine) just so that a minority can have a look in.

Her main argument was eloquently dismantled by a young man from Spreyton in Tasmania. Lochsley Wilson, a senior college student, wrote an article for ABC Open to refute Ms Van Ryn's arguments. Regional Tasmania is not known as the most forgiving place for young homosexuals. Things are getting better, but for Lochsley to air his opinion on a major online news source was incredibly brave. Lochsley simply said that everyone can access Tasmania's wilderness but not everyone can access marriage, that this is an issue about people being discriminated against based on their biological characteristics, and that marriage has changed from once not allowing people of different races to be married. Thankfully we have moved on from there. Van Ryn concluded her column by disagreeing with the LGBTI 'lifestyle', whatever that actually means, and not seeing the need for a marriage contract between two loving Australians. Lochsley pointed out that it doesn't matter whether van Ryn approves of the LGBTI lifestyle—that that lifestyle is private; it is the business of no-one but the couple—but that her discriminatory discourse is destructive. It is destructive to the loving same-sex couples who long for a legally recognised wedding, just like everyone else. As long as there is legislated discrimination in our country, it fuels the homophobia that so hurts Robbie, Matt and Lochsley; all decent human beings. That hurts their families and friends.

In concluding my remarks today I quote Tasmanian Labor Premier Lara Giddings who said when introducing a bill for marriage equality in Tasmania:

There comes a time when no amount of excuses should stand in the way of doing what is right.

I believe that allowing same-sex couples the right to legally marry like everyone else is doing what is right. This positive reform will improve the wellbeing of so many of our fellow Australians. This debate is about people. It is about love. It is about growing acceptance in our community. We must comprehensively move to end all legislated discrimination in this country. While it unfortunately will not happen today, we need to continue the campaign. We will one day allow same-sex couples the ability and the honour to celebrate their wedding anniversaries just like I can. One day we will allow them to say to their loved ones, 'Happy wedding anniversary'. I will vote in favour of this bill.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

  Some critics seem to believe that legislating for equal marriage is simply a flight of fancy, a social experiment undertaken on a whim or change for the sake of change. Nothing could be further from the truth. The debate we are undertaking is important to Australians who want their relationships recognised as equal, and there are many of those among my constituents. They have written to my office, they have come in to speak to me and they have stopped me in the street. Some are people who have already spent lifetimes together and want their relationships recognised for the marriages they have always been; others come wanting to make a commitment to that same journey. All of them have stories about love and a commitment to a shared life.

It is the hope for a fairer and more welcoming Australia that resides at the core of these stories. That is compelling in itself; but this message has a much broader audience than those individuals seeking to make a commitment to one another. The most difficult of the letters I have received on this issue are from those who write about the devastating effect the discrimination embedded in our Marriage Act has on the lives of individuals, especially young people. Last year I received a letter from one of my constituents that captured this devastation, and I would like to quote from that letter. She wrote:

From a very young age I knew that I was attracted to girls, but I was also taught from a very young age that this was wrong. The only laws I knew was my fathers law and gods law, and they were one in the same. As the pastors daughter, not only was I constantly exposed to the hatred of LGBTIQ people, but I was expected to exemplify it. At first I thought I could teach myself not to be attracted to women. I kept a rubber band around my wrist, and every time I thought about a girl I pulled back that band and let it snap my wrist. This self corrective behaviour led to extremes of cutting and deprivation of food.

By the time I was in my early teens, I no longer had an answer. I had lost my faith and everyone around me seemed to condemn me for what I was, and it was something I knew I couldn't change. In the darkest period of my life, I often contemplated suicide and would regard it as my solace.

It is an awful story contained in this letter, but its themes are reflected in the experience of countless others. Another of my constituents shared his story, and I again I would like to quote from the letter I received. My constituent wrote:

I grew up in a small town in rural NSW and like most LGBTIQ people moved away straight after graduating high school. I came to Canberra which was a reasonably long way, but in the digital age it doesn't take long for news to make it back. In Canberra I learned to love and had my heart broken, I surrounded myself with loving friends and could finally be myself.

On a trip home in a university break I went out to the pub where I'd worked the summer after high school. Whilst having a beer with my sisters I was made to understand through threats of violence that people like me were not welcome there, that my sexuality which they had 'discovered' over social media made me unwelcome in a place I'd once been employed. The guys behind the threats had been acquaintances and school mates for years. It was difficult, but it only confirmed something my teenage self knew intuitively, that there was no space for me to be fully myself in a town that I had spent 18 years of my fife growing up.

Marriage equality isn't that important to me personally now, I know the value of my relationship now. It is none-the-less important. Equality in our laws would have been a message to my teenage self, and the countless other young people who live their teenage lives scared and isolated in rural and regional Australia, that it was those few people who made my town unliveable and not me that was wrong.

Changing the Marriage Act will not make all people equal in the eyes of the entire community.

These amendments simply remove the discrimination from our laws. They speak clearly to the young men and women who have expressed their view that their government does not believe the messages they are hearing in their communities. This may not seem like a big deal to some, but it has been at the heart of the majority of the letters I have received.

So many of the people who have written to me have done so to tell me that the message of discrimination that these laws send has had a profound effect on them, on their friends and on their family. They want to see relationships of their loved ones recognised not only in the name of equality but also to ease the burden on those who are struggling with the same discrimination in their lives that is currently reflected in the Marriage Act.

So I stand here today to tell them that they are not second-class citizens and that the law should reflect that. I support equal marriage because I want to see a better Australia, an inclusive Australia and an Australia that does not discriminate according to who a person loves. My constituents want to make that Australia real—real for long-term gay couples, real for the lesbian couples raising their children, real for the teenagers coming to terms with their sexuality and real for the parents who simply want to walk their child down the aisle. So I will continue to fight for equality, and I believe this fight will not be stopped. In my maiden speech to this parliament I stated:

The Australian Labor Party stands for the political and social values of equality, democracy and freedom. These are the principles that I bring to the Senate.

I am very proud to be continuing that legacy today in the context of this current debate.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate my support for marriage equality. I believe this debate still has a way to go, of course. But I think the process of bringing this bill, the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012, before the Senate and the bill as it was debated before the House is a way in which to progress some of the fundamental issues that we are contemplating in the course of this debate.

Debate interrupted.