Let’s not meddle with the Marriage Act

So any change to marriage laws is about providing for a very small number of the population who may wish to have their same-sex relationship legally recognised. The difficulty is there has never been a unique or generally recognised word for that relationship.

The practical answer is for same-sex unions to be legally recognised by way of their own separate Act with their own definition, being a union of persons of the same gender, and, in order to overcome the lack of an appropriate and unique term for its form of enduring commitment, to provide that whilst a same-sex union does not constitute marriage within the definition contained in Part 1, section 5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961, it shall constitute “marriage” as defined, for the purposes of its act.

There have been several polls taken on the subject in Australia. The degree of support for the legal recognition of same-sex unions varies depending mainly on the question asked. But none has offered the choice between amending the definition of marriage and the recognition of same-sex unions in their own act.

In the resolution of this issue, whether by way of plebiscite or vote by politicians, this alternative should be considered as an appropriate and preferred compromise.

Postscript:

This is a follow-up version of my article, Same-sex unions: there’s more than one choice, which was posted on 9 July 2015. It sets out the legal and pragmatic approach to the subject in contrast to the very fine article by Eric Porter, Gay marriage and the changing concepts of marriage, posted 3 August 2015, which deals with the historical changes in the meaning of love, marriage and family as a social institution. My article also contrasts the compelling article by Murray Campbell, Reasons for changing marriage remain flawed, posted on 10 July 2015, which reinforces the sanctity of marriage and exposes the flawed argument for same-sex marriage based on “equal love”.

Whilst commending those other articles, one must surely concede that we are but voices in a raging wind of whipped up compassion based on an illogical claim of discrimination that is sweeping the western world. A wind of change that will not blow over until it has effectively cowed the public and our lawmakers into creating a legal fiction of social convenience.

That being the situation it is important, even at this late stage of the debate, to inject some rational consideration into the proposal and some fairness for the 96.5 percent of the heterosexual population.

That requires heterosexuals to concede to the fact that same-sex unions, although representing a small percentage of the community and howsoever regarded in nature or on moral grounds, have existed as an aberration of the ideal concept of marriage since marriage became the basis of social order.

It also requires conceding to the fact that same-sex unions are not illegal and, just as marriage came to be legally recognised, so too are there good and proper reasons to legally recognise same-sex unions. (In fact they are already recognised in law for various very practical purposes in such matters as taxation, superannuation, inheritance, etc).

These things being accepted on the part of the heterosexual community, the proponents for the recognition of same-sex unions should accept and be comfortable with having their own “marriage” act and not to expect and demand that the vast majority of the community have the meaning of their marriages redefined to be something they have never been and never will be – just the union of “any two people”.