Tying the knot: quest for same-sex marriage in Australia

Same-sex marriage is not a phenomenon of modern society.

• Marriage has been a continually changing institution.
• Same-sex marriage dates back to antiquity.

Marriage: A changing institution:

Marriage is an evolving institution whose social meaning has undergone considerable re-definition over time and accommodated variations in society at any one time. Professor Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg, writes in the Journal of Modern History (Sept. 06):

Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize. ... And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.

Modern marriage can be traced back to 11^th Century Europe, when the Roman Catholic Church imposed its meaning of marriage. The meaning of marriage shifted in Medieval times when a wife, as the subordinate partner, could be divorced if she was not bearing children. Later, believing that the marriage union was sanctified by God and remained valid for life, early Christians changed the meaning so that the union could not be dissolved because a married couple couldn't have children. As a result the procreative function waned as a determining factor in marriage.

During this early period, marriage was essentially a business transaction between men of the families concerned. By the 16^th Century Christian marriages permitted mutual consent.

From the Middle Ages the Church could register marriages, but it was not required to do so. At this time the State took no part in marriage.

Following the Counter-Reformation in the 16^th Century, the Roman Catholic Church decreed marriage to be, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life." And the marriage ceremony had to be officiated by a priest. By the 19^th Century, following an Act of the British Parliament, civil marriages were permitted as a legal alternative to church marriages.

Up to this time marriage was an unequal partnership. The wife was property – destined to dutifully "honour and obey" her husband and agree to give up her family name for his. Love was generally not a consideration before or during marriage.

In the early 1900s, mutual love, sexual satisfaction and devotedness became stronger considerations for entering into and maintaining marriage. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, the youth-driven sexual revolution, and then the women's equal rights movement, actively challenged the laws and traditions that perpetuated sexism and patriarchy in modern society. Rising from this challenge was another shift – marriage became a shared equal partnership between two people whose roles were less prescribed by tradition.

It is necessary therefore, to view marriage within the social reality of today.

Same-sex marriage in history

Same-sex marriage dates back to the Roman Empire. Two Roman emperors were considered married: Nero and Elagabalus. Roman statesman Cicero documented the legal rights of an individual within same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage continued in the Roman Empire until Christianity became the official religion. In 342 AD Christian emperors Constanius II and Constans outlawed marriages between partners of the same-sex. Punishment for violating this law was death.

Despite the severe measures to eradicate same-sex marriage, ancient Church liturgical documents record ceremonies called "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10^th and 11^th Centuries) and "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11^th and 12^th Centuries) are indicative of same-sex marriage. (Female same-sex marriages were rare, as women were accorded less freedom, authority and responsibility in family and social life at the time.)

In late medieval France, the dominance of Christianity was responsible for the suppression of same-sex relationships, including marriage. Yet there is evidence that same-sex marriage existed at the time. For instance, the legal contract of "embrotherment" (a pledge to live together sharing "one bread, one wine and one purse [joint property]") was an early form of sanctioned same-sex marital unions. Like marriage agreements, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses.

By the 19^th Century, heterosexuality became the standard sexual orientation. Homosexuality was considered a diseased state which, if not treated, had to be suppressed. For this reason same-sex marriage was largely prohibited at the time.

In the 20^th Century, as marriage became a shared lifelong partnership of love, sexual satisfaction and equality, differentiated gender roles within marriage began to wane. Historian, Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage: A History, argues that, "... it was heterosexuals who revolutionized marriage to the point where gays and lesbians began to say, 'Oh, this applies to us now,' ... First love, then sexual satisfaction, and then, finally and not until the 1970s, the idea that marriage could be gender-neutral."

As Professor of Philosophy at University of Southern California, Ralph Wedgewood explains, an extension of this change in the social meaning of marriage provides the basis for legitimizing same-sex marriage:

In general, the social meaning of marriage must change whenever such changes are necessary to avoid injustice. The social meaning must now be changed so that it no longer excludes the participation of same-sex couples.

The changing attitude towards normalizing same-sex marriage

Writing for The Punch (Aug. 09) Tony Pitman highlights the key issue at hand here – marriage is not devalued by allowing same-sex marriage:

... to all those who think that allowing same-sex couples to marry somehow devalues the institution of marriage; it doesn't. Marriage remains the same legal institution with all the same rights and responsibilities attached. Nothing changes except that a sector of the population that has traditionally been discriminated against is now allowed to marry. ...

On ABC television programme, Q & A (9/7/12), presenter, Virginia Trioli, reflected a live and let live attitude in a question to Malcolm Turnbull (Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband): "I've often wondered why it matters so much to you people what one couple down the road might do if they shack up together; why you think that this will somehow unpick the entire institution of marriage? I know gay couples together; they have nothing to do with my marriage whatsoever." Turnbull focussed his response on "commitment:"

When people say that two gay people together will undermine your marriage ... that is just absurd.

When gay people want to make a serious commitment to each other, in a way they're holding up a mirror to the heterosexual couples whose commitment has been lacking. ... So we should be focussing on commitment.(Emphasis added)

Some clear benefits of marriage flow for committed same-sex couples and their families. Research conducted by Professor Lee Badgett, University of Massachusetts, shows that:

Ø their children were better (and "legitimate") after their marriage. They showed signs of enhanced feelings of security, stability and acceptance.

Ø participation and acceptance in their extended families and communities had increased because of their marriage.

We should not lose sight of the fact that same-sex couples are real people just like the rest of us. Rob Mills reminds us of the human dimension in this conversation:

My gay friends aren't stereotypes. They're real people with real hearts and their love for their partners is just as precious as the love between a man and a woman. ... And what about the kids raised by gay people? They deserve the stability that comes with marriage. ... (The Punch, July 09)

World leaders support same-sex marriage

Democrat US President Barack Obama and Conservative UK Prime Minister David Cameron represent contrasting political philosophies. However, both have liberal views on social issues which are reflected in their support for same-sex marriage.

President Obama's support for same-sex marriage has evolved: "I think that attitudes evolve, including mine. ... I have a whole host of friends and staff members who are in committed, monogamous gay partnerships, who are raising children, and who are wonderful parents. ... a strong civil union provides the protections and the legal rights of married couples."

Prime Minister Cameron has promoted the Conservative Party as no longer the "nasty party" on such social issues, but a more socially inclusive, compassionate party more suited to equality in the 21st Century: "Yes, it's about equality, but it's about something else – commitment. I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative."

To put an end to the discrimination, French President Francois Hollande pledged same-sex marriage in France during his recent election campaign (2012).

Croatian Prime Minister, Zoran Milanovic, has declared that: "I think we must go forward, and be inspired by the most advanced countries in the world. Giving stronger civil legal rights to gay communities will not deprive anyone of their rights."

Scotland's Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, recently announced that marriage equality was the "right thing to do". Scotland is planning to introduce legislation that would enable same-sex couples to marry in 2015.

Western countries have granted same-sex marriage

The Netherlandsled the way in legalizing same-sex marriage, in 2000.

Belgium(2003) followed.

In turn, Canada (2005),Spain (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2008), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), and Argentina (2010) committed to this view.

Tensions in Australian politics

The Howard-led Government amended the 1961 Marriage Act (2004) to ensure that same-sex couples legally married overseas would not be recognized here in Australia. This was to ensure "survival of the species". Same-sex couples were targeted as a threat to procreation.

In 2011, in Federal Parliament, a conscience vote was proposed for when the proposed same-sex marriage legislation is brought before Parliament. Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott immediately disallowed members of the Coalition a conscience vote.

Abbott is not unanimously supported within his own Party. Malcolm Turnbull for instance, polled his Liberal electorate to gauge public opinion. A clear majority were in favour of same-sex marriage (68 %). Turnbull acknowledged that community views on this issue were changing.

The Prime Minister's opposition to marriage equality is puzzling. During a dinner held at the Lodge with marriage equality advocates earlier this year, the PM admitted that Australia's lagging behind the growing number of nations which have already granted same-sex marriage was putting increasing pressure on Australia, and that, as more countries embrace this reform, it will become increasingly apparent that this is a reform whose time has come. Marriage equality in Australia was "inevitable", and her opposition to this social reform was "not immovable", she said.

The Prime Minister's opposing view is personal – unaffected by a Senate inquiry which drew 75,000 submissions and resulted in a clear majority supporting same-sex marriage (44,000 in favour and 31,000 against). The PM is also out of step with her own electorate of Lalor, where many more are in favour than against (45% in favour, 34% against, 21% don't care.).

In Queensland politics, pragmatics and expediency rule.

During his election campaign, newly elected Premier, Campbell Newman, announced that, if the LNP won Government, he would look at repealing the Labor legislation on same-sex civil unions. However, in Office, Mr Newman announced that Queensland's law would not be "repealed", but "amended". Despite the fact that this is an issue of civil marriage in a secular State, Newman indicated that the amendment was because the State-sanctioned marriage ceremony offended Christian groups such as The Australian Christian Lobby. "The gay community already had all the rights they needed to not be discriminated against," he said, "... They have nothing to fear from this change." Is that so?

Surrogacy lawyer, Stephen Page, warns that proposed changes to the Queensland Surrogacy Act aim to ban single people, people in de facto relationships of less than two years and same-sex couples having children through "altruistic surrogacy". This move is at odds with the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act. The proposed Queensland legislation would deny the right of surrogacy to same-sex couples. Violation of that law would be an offence punishable by up to three years imprisonment.

Stop prevaricating. Just do it!

The last word goes to Liz Ann Macgregor, Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art (Sydney). After lengthy discussion of marriage equality on Q and A (9/7/12), she drew much applause from the diverse audience when she summed up with an endgame scenario:

I just don't think the politicians are reflecting what the people want. Survey after survey says so [support for marriage equality]. For goodness sake let's just get on with it. It's another of these issues where we see the politicians bickering about it. It will go away. They should just pass it.