Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

If Portugal can allow same-sex marriage, why not Australia?

By Rodney Croome - posted Thursday, 8 July 2010


Like Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard believes only Australians with opposite-sex partners should be allowed to marry.

This will be deeply disappointing to the many Australians who believe same-sex couples should have the same right. It is particularly frustrating at a time when same-sex marriages are allowed in an increasing number of places overseas.

In the last few weeks Portugal, Mexico City and Iceland have joined Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Sweden, Norway and six US states from Massachusetts to Iowa in allowing same-sex couples to marry. The number of places where same-sex marriages are either soon to be allowed or are already recognised from elsewhere is even larger and more diverse, ranging from Argentina through to Slovenia and Israel to Nepal.

Advertisement

In the world cup of marriage equality, Australia hasn’t even made the first round.

Why is this? If Catholic Portugal, mid-west Iowa and conflict-ridden South Africa can allow same-sex marriages, why not relatively secular, progressive and relaxed Australia?

My response is that we should look to these other places to understand why we are falling behind.

Broad popular support isn’t the problem. Polls show a relatively-high 60 per cent of Australians believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry with a majority of both Labor and Liberal voters endorsing reform. Interest among same-sex partners is also not an issue. Eighty per cent of gay and lesbian Australians believe they should have the choice to marry their same-sex partner. A majority would marry if they could.

The culprit is often identified as the religious right, particularly Pentecostal Pastors who make over-reaching claims about the influence of their mega-churches in marginal seats, and Catholic bishops who make even more audacious claims on the consciences of Catholics in both major parties.

But I suspect a deeper problem is the myth that camouflages this power: the wide-spread conceit that Australian politics is not heavily influenced by religion because its people aren’t.

Advertisement

When Christian Lobby chief, Jim Wallace, claimed Federal Government opposition to marriage equality was due to Kevin Rudd’s “personal faith”, not one journalist felt this was important enough to ask Rudd himself.

Perhaps Portugal, Spain and Mexico allow same-sex marriages not despite their overwhelming Catholicism but because the traditional dominance of the Church leaves them with a clearer understanding of where the line between civil law and religion should be drawn.

Other places that allow same-sex marriages also have lessons to teach.

The pragmatic, non-ideological conservatism that can be found in patches of heartland America like Iowa has moved on from demonising homosexuality and fossilising marriage.

It appreciates that when marriage embraces same-sex couples, traditional family values like love, fidelity and mutuality are strengthened not weakened.

Bush-appointed former US Solicitor-General, Ted Olson, believes same-sex marriage is about “the values conservatives prize” because:

Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance.

Marriage equality in Australia depends in part on our centre right also throwing off the shackles of neo-con orthodoxy and articulating the link between marriage equality and true conservative values.

The lesson for Australia’s centre left is from South Africa. In that country a raw and painful history of racism, including strict bans on interracial marriage, put same-sex marriages clearly in the context of ending discrimination and inequality.

Australia has a parallel history. For a hundred years many Aboriginal people were denied the right to marry the partner of their choice causing immense pain to many people, not least those mixed race couples who fled across state borders to remain together. This injustice was so emblematic of Aboriginal second-class status that marriage equality became one of foremost demands of Indigenous advocates in the lead up to the 1967 referendum on Aboriginal rights - above equal pay and access to traditional lands.

But most figures on the centre left are oblivious to the crucial role marriage equality has previously played in shaping a more egalitarian and just Australia. This makes it easier for them to ignore or trivialise the issue today, to declare the fight for equality substantially complete with the Rudd government’s recognition of financial entitlements for same-sex partners.

Clearly, achieving marriage equality will depend on convincing the centre left that gay and lesbian people cannot live on bread alone.

When either major party finally decides to move away from its current opposition to marriage equality, the danger is it may settle on a substitute for marriage equality such as a UK-style civil partnership scheme.

Reports from the UK and US show that civil partnerships cannot replace equality in marriage.

Civil partners are too often denied legal entitlements, even when the law says they should have these entitlements, because of widespread misunderstanding of what civil partnerships are.

The same problem exists at a social level, with family, friends and the community understanding and recognising civil partnerships much less than marriages.

Civil partnerships are fine for couples who don’t wish to marry. Australia already has state schemes which serve this purpose well.

But, where civil partnerships exist instead of same-sex marriage they entrench discrimination rather than removing it. They are a step away from full equality, not a step towards it.

Greater global recognition of same-sex marriages deeply embarrasses many Australians. But it also illustrates what moral and political debates we must have before equality can be achieved, and what pitfalls we should avoid along the way.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Rodney Croome will make the case for same-sex marriage at Lunchbox/Soapbox at the Wheeler Centre on July 8 (today) at 12.45pm, further information is available at wheelercentre.com.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

90 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Rodney Croome is a spokesperson for Equality Tasmania and national advocacy group, just.equal. He who was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2003 for his LGBTI advocacy.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Rodney Croome

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 90 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy