Australian Senate considers marriage equality bill

Written by Mathew, Posted in Marriage & Family, Politics, Sexuality, Society & Culture

On April 2, 2012, the Australian Senate closes invitations from the public on their opinion regarding the legalisation of same-sex ‘marriage’. This is not the first time the Senate has been requested to do so; the last time was back in 2009. Yet the political climate in Australia is markedly different now. In 2009, the Labor Government had as it’s official party policy to support marriage as man-woman only; likewise the Opposition Government. The Bill put forward to redefine marriage to “any two persons”, the Marriage Equality Amendment Act 2009, by the Greens (a progressive left party) was resoundly dismissed. Yet this time round, we have a Labor Government who altered their party platform late last year to support same-sex ‘marriage’ and we have three bills being reviewed by the Senate to amend the Marriage Act 1961. One of the those bills is again from the Greens: the Marriage Equality Amendment Act 2010. It’s the latter bill that presents the most radical of change to the current definition of marriage in Australia. And its to that bill that I’ve composed the following submission:

Senate
Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Senate,

Re: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010

I write to the Senate Inquiry Committee to voice my opposition to the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 and to lend my support of traditional man-woman marriage. I note my reasons in the following paragraphs, providing supporting references where appropriate.

Full equality already exists under current law

Marriage, for all Australian constituents, is an institution in which there already exists a full equality under the law; there is none to whom the Marriage Act 1961 unjustly discriminates. In order for anyone to marry, all must pass the prescribed criteria: 1. Be of marriageable age; 2. Be not already married; 3. Must not marry a close blood relative, and; 4. Must marry a member of the opposite sex. All Australians, irrespective of their sexual identity, are expected to meet these criterions; there is no inequality of law in their application to either the homosexual or the heterosexual. Both the homosexual and the heterosexual have the same restrictions.

While this response may be unsatisfactory to many homosexuals, it must be noted that the existing criterion for marriage in Australia does not require desire or love between the two being married. Although love and desire are important to the marital union, it is not required by law, but assumed. Government does not regard desire as key to the marital union because such unions encompass not only love but also provide a unique social good¹.

Why prohibiting same-sex marriage is not equivalent to anti-miscegenation

Advocates of same-sex marriage mistakenly compare its prohibition to that of anti-miscegenation laws. While anti-miscegenation was unjust discrimination (as ethnicity has nothing to do with marriage), man-woman only marriage is not unjust – this is because anti-miscegenation was about whom to allow to marry, not what marriage is essentially about. The gender difference between a man and woman has everything to do with marriage.

In actuality, promoting same-sex marriage has more in common with anti-miscegenation than it does against anti-miscegenation because it also seeks to arbitrarily include a non-essential criterion to the institution of marriage: that the complementarity of the sexes is unimportant.

The public purpose of marriage

Man-woman marriage is an important social good. As a group, as a rule, and by nature, marriages produce children. The public purpose of marriage, therefore, associates the children produced from it to their father and likewise associates the father to their mother. This cohesiveness serves to foster the best environment within which to raise children², over and above all other forms of family combinations, and is in this real sense, a unique arrangement to be promoted.

By contrast, same-sex unions, as a group, as a rule, and by nature, cannot produce children without the involvement of a third party. Homosexual unions are socially infertile; while some homosexual partnerships do involve children from previous relationships or conceived through IVF, these arrangements are intentionally designed to deny children the nurture of one or both of their biological parents. While two homosexuals can be loving parents, it defies common sense that a homosexual man can be a good “mother” to a child, and likewise that a homosexual woman can be a good “father” to a child. Author and lawyer Dawn Stefanowicz, writing of her experience growing up with a gay father, remarked: “What makes it so hard for a girl to grow up with a gay father is that she never gets to see him loving, honoring and protecting the women in his life³.”

Thus, marriage is much more than simply the expression of love and commitment between any two adults; it is the love and commitment to each other as well as to any children produced by the sexual expression of that love and commitment. That marriage between a child’s biological parents is the ideal circumstance is a great public good, and it is a good that a homosexual union cannot create or produce. Where the welfare of children is concerned, the Government cannot unjustly discriminate and ought always promote man-woman marriage over and above all other relationships for the benefit of children and for the benefit of wider society as a whole.

Legalising same-sex marriage threatens religious liberty and free speech

Where same-sex marriage is legalised (and even in some instances where it is not yet legal), ordinary citizens, business owners, religious believers and not-for-profit organisations will have their religious liberties and values and freedom of speech curtailed:

In Jan 2011, hotel owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull from Cornwall, UK, were ordered to pay $6000 in damages to a homosexual couple who sued them for declining to offer a room as it violated their hotel policy to only make board available to married couples⁴
In Illinois, Washington DC and Massachusetts, US, Catholic bishops voluntarily closed the Church’s adoption and foster-care organisations rather than comply with new non- discrimination laws following the legalising of same-sex marriage in those states which would have forced them to place children with same-sex couples⁵
Massachusetts, US, 2005, father David Parker was arrested after talking with his son’s school about opting his son out of mandatory pro-homosexuality teaching⁶. (Charges were later dropped.)
New Mexico, US, 2008, a Christian photographer was sued by a lesbian couple after
refusing to shoot a gay wedding⁷

Canada, 2008, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was fined $5000 and banned from
expressing his biblical understanding of homosexuality⁸

UK, Church of England lawyers state that legalising same-sex marriage in England will
effectively force churches to comply⁹

UK, housing manager Adrian Smith was demoted¹⁰ after posting a criticism of the UK’s
new gay rights law on his personal Facebook page, on his own time

Derbyshire, UK, Christians Mr and Mrs Johns denied the right to be foster parents¹¹ after
refusing to teach children in their care that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle

Man-Woman Marriage Conclusion

Marriage ought to remain as the union between one man and one woman for life. It is this union that all cultures throughout the history of the world have recognised as the fundamental building block of their society, and it is a union that the Government of Australia has recognised and protected – and later described – as critical to the continued longevity and prosperity of its own society.

Aside from its societal importance, man-woman only marriage ought to be upheld as the norm; legalising same-sex marriage unduly threatens people’s freedoms of religion and speech – both of which are truly invaluable to any nation seeking to be equitable and prosperous.

Kind regards,
Mathew Hamilton

If you haven’t yet done so, there is still a wee bit of time left for you to email your own submission through to the Australian Senate Inquiry Committee. Your submission can be very basic; even one paragraph stating your support for man-woman only marriage is more than sufficient. In politics, numbers matter.

Email the Committee (legcon.sen@aph.gov.au) your submission, attached as a Word or PDF document. You must do this by no later than 4.30pm Monday April 2, 2012. Further detail on making submissions, including what items to note, can be found on the Australian Christian Lobby site.

References:

Sherif Girgis, Robert P George, Ryan T Anderson, “What is Marriage?”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2010, p26
Maggie Gallagher, “What is Marriage For?“, The Public Purpose of Marriage Law, section III A; cf. Georgina Binstock and Arland Thornton, “Separations, Reconciliations, and Living Apart in Cohabiting and Marital Unions”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 65 No. 2, 2003
Dawn Stefanowicz, Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, Annotation Press, 2007, p. 230
“UK Hotel Owners’ Religious Appeal Deemed ‘Discriminatory’ Against Gay Couple“, The Christian Post, February 10, 2012
“Bishops close adoption services over new rule on gay parents“, The Irish Times, December 30, 2011
“Charges dropped against jailed dad“, World Net Daily, October 20, 2005
“Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job“, Life Site News, January 30, 2008
“Government to Pastor: Renounce Your Faith!“, World Net Daily, June 09, 2008
“Law on same-sex marriages mean churches ‘will be forced to conduct gay weddings’“, The Daily Mail, March 12, 2012
“Demoted for not backing gay marriage: housing manager’s pay slashed for criticising new law on Facebook“, The Daily Mail, October 23, 2011
“Christian foster couple lose ‘homosexuality views’ case“, BBC News, February 28, 2011

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Zemanta

australia family homosexuality marriage marriage equality Same-sex Marriage

Pingback: Australian apologist makes the case against gay marriage proposal « Wintery Knight
http://hausdorffbb.blogspot.com/ Hausdorff

I don’t think it is correct to say that marriage produces children. Many unmarried people also “produce children”.
I’m also curious, would you advocate for couples who don’t produce children to have their marriage annulled? If that is the only purpose of marriage then wouldn’t this make sense? If there are other purposes of marriage then do they also not apply to homosexual couples?
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

Hausdorff,

In your view, what is the purposes (or purposes) of marriage?
http://hausdorffbb.blogspot.com/ Hausdorff

That is a good question Duane, in my opinion marriage is an expression of love between two people who want to spend the rest or their lives together.

But since we are talking about a law we should be talking about the legal ramifications of marriage. When you get married, you get a suite of rights automatically. I’m married and I don’t even really know what all of them are (it’s nice to be in the privileged position) but the one that comes to mind first for me is if my wife is hurt and unconscious in the hospital I have the right to see her. This kind of thing has been denied to gay partners, I am sure I have seen headlines to this effect a few times, a quick google search revealed one

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/08-4

You can also file taxes together, you can get on each other’s insurance, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Another quick google search provides a partial list of these rights

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

I know this is an article about an Australian law and my perspective is USA, but I assume things are similar enough over there.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

Thanks Hausdorff,

I think initially, you may have answered a question that I didn’t ask. I wasn’t asking what marriage is (“…an expression of love between two people who want to spend the rest or their lives together”), but what is its purpose?

You attempted to address this in the subsequent paragraphs, which I think can be reduced to one thing – rights. So the purpose of marriage then, is to provide certain privileges to people that they don’t ordinarily have when unmarried. I think I also discerned by implication, that you believe that people who love each other ought to have access to these rights simply because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

Does that about sum up your view?
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

Thank you for the questions. They are important ones.

I’ll offer a slight clarification: I am not stating that marriage is the reason for children. That, of course, would be a stupid thing to state considering, as you’ve pointed out, unmarried couples can and do have children. (I, myself, am a product of such a union.) I am stating that the nature of marriage is such that, as a group, as a rule, and by nature (i.e. more often than not), it lends itself to procreation and, further, that it is the ideal environment in which to rear children – even above unmarried households – which are more akin to single-parent households with regards to the well-being of children.

Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course. But we do not, as a matter of course, legislate based on exceptions. If we did so, we’d end up with absurdities such as state endorsement of smoking because some smokers outlive some non-smokers. Instead, we have the state promoting quit and smoking-awareness campaigns, while not prohibiting people from the freedom to smoke. I am sure you would agree that the state really has no business in preventing people from having sex outside of marriage and conceiving children out of wed-lock, but based on the amount of social science studies we have at hand regarding how this impacts the long-term well-being of children, the state would be absurd to promote such relationships as the ideal.

As for childless marriages, again these are the exception rather than the rule. Books are designed to be read, yet if they are never read they do not cease to be books.
http://hausdorffbb.blogspot.com/ Hausdorff

Response to Duane:

“So the purpose of marriage then, is to provide certain privileges to people that they don’t ordinarily have when unmarried.”

Yeah I think I would say I agree with that. I might change privileges to “rights and responsibilities” or something. There are certain things that I would think any married couple would do for each other (caring for each other’s children, taking care of each other when they are sick or injured, dealing with funeral plans if they die for example) that should be reasonable for the state to expect you to do.

Apart from that minor change I think that is a fair summary of my thoughts.

mod edit: Unfortunately, the blockquote tag plays havoc with our comments plugin, so I’ve removed the tag and replaced it with quotation marks.
http://hausdorffbb.blogspot.com/ Hausdorff

Response to Matthew:

You claim that households of married couples are the ideal place to raise children. You also claim that studies basically back up this fact. Let’s assume this is true for the moment as it sounds pretty reasonable to me. What is it about these households that make them ideal environments for raising children? Is it because they are married, or do the ideal environment and the marriage both have a common cause?

I would argue that the ideal environment is mostly dependent on 2 loving parents. Generally such people would want to get married. Hence, married parents probably provide a better environment than unmarried parents in general.

I also imagine that the studies compare unmarried heterosexual couples with children to married heterosexual couples with children. If this is true it seems that using them to discuss gay marriage is a mistake as the comparison would likely not really transfer. I have made a lot of assumptions about the contents of those studies which I have not seen, so take what I said there with a grain of salt, but it is my guess of the situation with the information I currently have.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

Thanks for your transparency Hausdorff.

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth – hence my need to clarify with you first – but it sounds like you think the government should interfere in relationships purely on the basis that people love each other and want to live together? So allow me to call your bluff here. What is so special about such relationships that the government should care enough to license and privilege them; giving them “rights and responsibilities” (your words) over those who are not in love and do not want to live together?
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

It is not just that married couples provide the ideal environment for the rearing of children, but that these are heterosexual married couples. The importance of the complementarity the of sexes of a child’s biological parents is what makes the marriage environment ideal – as I alluded to in my letter to the Australian senate.

You are right to conclude that the studies I refer to and have read relate married biological parent households to unmarried biological parent households. They also compare single parent and blended households and adoption scenarios. Of the non-married scenarios, the closest comparative family configuration is that of adopted children in (man-woman) married households. That these studies by and large do not make comparisons to same-sex households ought not preclude their use when discussing the merits of man-woman marriage over same-sex marriage; using the studies deductively, we can reasonably rule out that same-sex parented households (along with all the other household configurations) can favourably compare to the ideal.

On what basis do you posit “that the ideal environment is mostly dependent on 2 loving parents” in which – as I think the assertion implies – gender has no role in the well-fare of children?
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

It is not just that married couples provide the ideal environment for the rearing of children, but that these are heterosexual married couples. The importance of the complementarity of the sexes of a child’s biological parents is what makes the marriage environment ideal – as I alluded to in my letter to the Australian senate.

You are right to conclude that the studies I refer to and have read relate married biological parent households to unmarried biological parent households. They also compare single parent and blended households and adoption scenarios. Of the alternate scenarios to married biological parented households, the closest comparative family configuration is that of adopted children in (man-woman) married households. That these studies by and large do not make comparisons to same-sex households ought not preclude their use when discussing the merits of man-woman marriage over same-sex marriage; using the studies deductively, we can reasonably rule out that same-sex parented households (along with all the other household configurations) can favourably compare to the ideal.

On what basis do you posit “that the ideal environment is mostly dependent on 2 loving parents” in which – as I think the assertion implies – gender has no role in the well-fare of children?
http://hausdorffbb.blogspot.com/ Hausdorff

That’s a really good question Duane. My first thought is that I probably wouldn’t say the government has interfered with anyone’s relationship as nobody has to get married. You can live together and do whatever you want for as long as you want and never get married. The only time it will come up is if you decide you want to get married.

That being said, let me get to what is (I think) the heart of your question, why is government in the marriage business at all? To answer that, I would say that maybe it shouldn’t be. I heard someone once say they thought the government should not care whether you are married or not, that is just between you and your church. Then all of the things that currently come with marriage should just be legal contracts that you could get. Maybe there could even be a standard suite of contracts that would correspond to what is currently marriage if you wanted to go the easy route which many people would probably do. Not being a lawyer, I’m not sure how practical such a system would be (especially transitioning from our current system to that) but something about it seems very appealing.

But the reality is, the state is probably not going to stop recognizing all marriage any time soon if ever. And given that we have this system in place, I just think it should be equal for everyone. My gay friends who are in committed relationships should be able to get the same legal right as I have.
http://hausdorffbb.blogspot.com/ Hausdorff

Matthew, you make a good point that I hadn’t thought of. I was thinking of married couples vs single parents. But if you look at adoptive parents it does make sense that the finding could transfer in some ways to gay couples.

You asked the question on what basis I make my assertions. I guess my most honest answer would have to be instinct and anecdote. I have read some articles (not scholarly articles but popular press articles) and first hand accounts of children of same sex couples and it seemed like a good situation for them. It makes sense to me that the most important thing is 2 loving parents. But I will admit I don’t know the studies and scholarly activity.

You said the environment of a heterosexual couple is ideal because of the “complementarity of the sexes”. I could believe this would have an effect. If you had 2 families, one gay and one straight but all else equal, the straight couple could be a better environment. What I would question is how much of a difference it would make if any. I would be surprised if the difference was very large, but again, I don’t have any studies to back me up. Do you know of any research addressing this question that you could link? I’d love to read it if possible.

The other thing I would add that I can’t help but think about during these conversations, it is one thing to think about such ideal conditions, but often reality is a long way off. Even if gay adoptive parents are less ideal than straight adoptive parents, it is hard to imagine it is better for the kid to be stuck in foster care. My understanding is many kids don’t get adopted at all, and that has got to be worse than homosexual parents (again, no studies to back me up but it just makes sense to me)
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

Once again, Hausdorff, thank you for being so straight forward. That goes for your responses to Mathew also. The discussion with you is far more congenial than most I have experienced on this topic.

You correctly ascertained what was at the heart of my question: “why is government in the marriage business at all?” But then, instead of answering this question, you suggested that perhaps the government should not be involved in marriage. Well ok, for arguments sake, maybe they shouldn’t? But that doesn’t answer the question, why are they? Do they have a good reason for their involvement? Can I suggest the answer to this question takes us full circle, back to the main points raised in Mathew’s post.

I understand that this can be disheartening to some gay people who want marriage, but truthfully, the same rights and restrictions already apply to them as to any other member of the community. There is no inequality under the law. So when you say, “My gay friends who are in committed relationships should be able to get the same legal right as I have”, I respond, they do. They have the same rights you do concering marriage. No-one is treated differently. There is no inequality. If you need me to break that down for you, I am happy to do so.

Right now however, I’m in a rush, gotta get my kids to school. Big day, Easter hat parade and all.

Look forward to your response.
Royce

Hi all. Just thought I’d put my 2 cents in with reference to the whole “love and marriage” connection.
My understanding (assuming the man-woman environment as being the best for raising kids) is that marriage exists as an institution not for the purpose of providing love to our off-spring but, rather, stability. Love is an emotion and, as such, has a tendency to wax and wane. Marriage establishes a legally binding commitment to remain in the relationship through those waxing periods (or waning…. whatever).
I believe this notion is supported (and, in a way, justified) by the fact that romantic marriage is a fairly recent advent. For most of human history arranged marriages were the norm.
(As an added note, arranged marriages statistically have a lower divorce rate than non-arranged. But this could easily be attributable to other outside forces that exist in those cultures where they still can be found. So…. forget I said that.)
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

I also meant to add – with regard to your aside, that perhaps the government should stay out of the marriage business – coincidentally, Bill Muehlenberg has addressed this in a piece only yesterday.

See here
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

Hausdorff – I would argue that married adoptive parents are not like same-sex couples because the former includes the mix of genders – like intact biological families – while the latter does not. As I stated in my letter, while a same-sex couple can be loving parents, a homosexual man cannot be a good “mother” and neither can a homosexual woman be a good “father” to a child. That gender matters, and that the genders are united in marriage for the well-being of children, is the point. And studies support this conclusion – for a start, I’d point you to the first reference (“What is Marriage?”) I cited in my letter. The link to the report is contained in the reference notes of my post above. It should also address your question as to how much a difference there is for the welfare of children between the ideal and alternate family combinations.

A note about intact married, biological households being the ideal: they are also the reality. They happen now and we have been studying the positive effects of them for more than 40 years.

I won’t speak on the issue of whether or not it is better for orhpaned children to be placed into same-sex households except to say that we ought always focus on what is in the best interests of such children as far as it is possible. And I don’t know whether or not adoption agencies struggle to find suitable placements – this is an area I’m only beginning to investigate. At any rate, adoption is a special exception and I cannot see it as a firm basis on which to build a case for same-sex marraige. (I’d actually argue that government should more heavily regulate the IVF industry and actively promote adoption as a better – and more ethical – alternative for infertile couples wanting families.)
http://hausdorffbb.blogspot.com/ Hausdorff

A quick google search found this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html?_r=1

which seems to me to be an example of places where rights are not shared. Although to be fair that is an article from 2009 and by what else came up in the search it looks like this particular issue is being worked on pretty well by a lot of activists.

also I’m assuming if you are not married you can’t be on each other’s insurance and you can’t file taxes jointly, that’s something. When you say they have the same rights as me I think that is just incorrect.

As to why the govt is involved in marriage, I guess my answer is just ‘I don’t know’. It could be that there is a good reason that I am unaware of, it could just be a legacy of history. I guess when it comes down to it I don’t really care, what matters is that the govt IS involved and we should just make sure there is equality.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

So why change marriage when these things can be addressed in other ways. For example, Obama didn’t change the marriage law to accommodate same-sex couples who want visitation rights.

By the way, my point about equality in case you missed it, is that the laws governing who can and cannot be married is applied in equal measure to everybody, including homosexuals. Once married however, it is clear that people in this relationship have rights and privileges that other people do not. That seems to be your concern. But to that I say, so what? Why should the government privilege relationships just because people love one another?
Pingback: Why can’t the gay brothers be wed? :The Aristophrenium

The Aristophrenium

1

20