Real equality must frame marriage debate

Australians want their own say on marriage. The political establishment says it's a "no-brainer" on the basis of equality and human rights, and that it's "inevitable", but has avoided principled in-depth discussion, despite holding the opposite view just two election cycles ago. Meanwhile, those opposed still haven't yet addressed the issue of equality.

By having a deeper and longer discussion Australians are clearly saying they want to be sure that any change will not affect our common democratic belief that we are all "created equal". They want the question properly put:

Should a free society based upon human equality view the sexual union of a man and woman in a marriage relationship as a pre-eminent expression of human sexuality worthy of special recognition in its laws, or not?

The marriage definition came to us in the great democratic reforms of the 1800s that also abolished slavery and child labour, allowed wives to own property, gave women and poor people the vote, and facilitated trade unions and religious freedom. In defining marriage, English judge James Wilde also wrote of a wife's "social equality with the husband" and how she stands "upon the same level with the man". Adapting Wilde's wording, Australian law defines marriage as:

the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Let's look at it more closely.

It's important to realise that you don't need a wedding to have a marriage. Registration of the marriage is simply a voluntary public declaration about the relationship. Many couples in a relationship that fits the definition of marriage don't register it at all, which suits them just fine. The definition describes the relationships we recognise as marriage, not just their registration.

Also well-known is that people aren't perfect, and some marriages fail, but our mistakes don't destroy the desire for permanence.

Regarding exclusivity, it's clear that polygamy is incompatible with equality.

Then there are three main points to consider regarding union.

Firstly, it's true the starkest differences in humankind are between men and women. This sexual difference, the everyday reality of our bodily structure and function, has ramifications on virtually every level of life. It's a source of both wonder and bewilderment to either sex.

Secondly, it's because of, not in spite of, those stark differences that marriage can produce wonderful union. In a marriage, the man and woman strive to be understanding, to know what makes their spouse tick, but they can never really grasp what sex is like for each other, because they are so different. Yet they are equal and in union. This great leap into the mystery, wonder and bewilderment of union with one of the opposite sex makes what they have something very different, special and unique.

The voluntary, exclusive, lifelong relationship that involves the equality and union of both halves of humanity therefore represents the democratic principle itself. Only the equality of men and women can result in the actual human unity we describe as marriage. The most dramatic division in humanity becomes the source of its deepest unity.

Thirdly, the definition of marriage doesn't mention sex because the sexual unity of husband and wife cannot be understood separate from their overall personal unity - the free gift of the whole of their lives, including their future, to one another.

Aristotle said that the "barbarians" who treat women as slaves are themselves only fit to be ruled as slaves.

Only when sexual desire serves the common humanity of men and women and they are seen as equal persons, can human equality arise as a social principle. Look at other parts of the world today. Where women are suppressed, reduced to an appendage of a man or the State, or hidden from view, life is ugly and coarse, and democratic life is impossible. That changes when the law reflects the equality of the sexes in the unity of marriage, because it's the highest expression of human equality.

In marriage, husband and wife are a self-governing democracy, in and of themselves: different, equal, united. If there isn't a woman and a man in a marriage, it can't possibly reflect the equality of men and women, from which flows all other equalities, rights and freedoms. This is the real equality of marriage.

It is not only just, but necessary, for the political system founded on the principle that we are "all created equal", to recognise the inclusive nature of marriage between husband and wife above all other human relationships. This does not mean intolerance or hostility towards other relationships that exclude one biological half of humanity, as marriage is the very source of the right to domestic privacy that protects us all in our private lives. That right to privacy does not however mean that all our private actions should be recognised as exemplars of human equality.

Changing marriage will change our understanding of human equality and democratic principle, our highest common belief. The protection of Real Equality is the right reason to vote "No".