Motion Same Sex Marriage
19/10/2011
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:51): I do not think it will come as a surprise to anyone in this chamber today that I am speaking in support of the Hon. Ms Franks’ motion to encourage the federal parliament to allow same-sex marriage. I am doing this for two reasons. This motion is about two things that are very dear to me: one, the fundamental right to choice; and, secondly, and most importantly, this motion is about love. Everyone has the right to love who they will insofar as I consider love to be one of the only things, if not the only thing, that is truly above the law.
No piece of legislation can control our emotions. No law can stop love. The law cannot stop that wonderful characteristic of the human heart which enables us to see past appearances, past differences, past rules and, indeed, past gender, and straight into another heart. Sometimes when we are in love it can feel like we are at once enslaved and emancipated by it. Love does not answer to anything but love itself and for this reason love is a law in itself. But of course the law does not presently ensure that each love is equally recognised.
I am here to inform this chamber today as to why I consider this completely wrong and something that must and will change. The reason why I am so confident that same-sex couples will in time be given the right to marry is because there are a number of groups which were originally not afforded the right to wed because of the way that they were perceived by society at large, but over time those perceptions have changed and so have the laws which forbade them from wedding.
Historically speaking, for example, it is not that long ago that people with disabilities in general were denied the right to enter freely and wholly into marriage because it was thought that their disability stopped them from fulfilling some sort of prerequisite for marriage. It would be most remiss of me not to mention that this is still happening now, even right here in Australia, but to a much lesser extent. In the majority of cases where people with disabilities are still facing difficulties in carrying out nuptials this is because of family members or carers who may be scared or unwilling to assist them in doing so. It is certainly not due to any legal opposition.
Interracial marriage is yet another example of a form of union that was previously unrecognised and forbidden by law. Indeed, it is still forbidden in some parts of the world, but most of us have recognised that skin colour is no indication of a person’s intelligence or, indeed, their capacity to enter into a legitimate union with another person.
Many parts of the Western world have had laws in place banning interracial marriage at some point, which have been repealed. These include: Germany under Nazi rule, South Africa under times of apartheid and large areas of the United States of America until a 1967 Supreme Court overruling. Indeed, here in Australia we have been on, and evidently are still on, a long journey in terms of legally and socially allowing for all kinds of couples to marry.
I am proud to say that in 2009, of the 120,118 marriages recorded in Australia, 42 per cent involved at least one partner who was not born in Australia. Even more encouraging is the fact that Indigenous Australians—who were once not even recognised as citizens of this country by its white inhabitants— now have one of the highest rates of interracial marriage in Australia. I am advised that in 1996, 64 per cent of all marriages and de facto relationships involving an Indigenous person were interracial in nature. Since Australian laws and society have learnt to be so embracing of marriage regardless of these differences, I truly believe that it is only a matter of time before Australia realises that we cannot discriminate against couples on the basis of gender either. I hope that this motion gives us a chance to begin that journey or, indeed, continue it.
Before I go any further, perhaps I should talk a little more about exactly what I consider constitutes a marriage. Not long after my election, the Sunday Mail ran an article about me in which I was quizzed about my views on various political and societal issues. When asked about my stance on same-sex marriage, I said, ‘To me, same-sex marriage is the union of two souls not two bodies.’ This is perhaps an overly simple way of articulating what is, in essence, a very complex concept, but I think you can see my point.
Without wishing to diminish the importance which marriage as an institution holds for many people, I must say that to me it is nothing more than the formal legal recognition of something that already exists. What I mean is that one would hope that in most marriages the connection between two people from which the desire to marry often springs is already formed. As I said before, this is not a bond that any official document or piece of legislation can, in itself, create or control. However, it would be very remiss of me not to make reference at this point to the fact that, really, it is not obligatory that a marriage be founded on love at all.
People can marry for money, for religious reasons or due to some sort of societal or familial duress. There are many reasons, other than love, why two people may choose to enter into a marriage. For this reason, I do not believe that it is right to deny same-sex couples the opportunity to marry based on the idea that they are somehow incapable of feeling the same feelings or forging the same connections as heterosexual couples. Indeed, I personally know and know of many same-sex couples who have disproved the stereotype; some are same-sex couples who have been in relationships lasting upwards of 15 years.
I think that before we condemn the short life of the same-sex relationships or same-sex marriages we should, in the interests of fairness, good legislating and good debate, examine the record of heterosexual marriage in this sense. There are, of course, a number of celebrity marriages that I could mention here—for example, Britney Spears’ infamous 24-hour marriage and a number of more everyday people, including a German couple who filed for divorce just three hours after tying the knot, after the groom attempted to give his new bride a new haircut using a kitchen knife.
However, I do not think that I need to use any real-life examples here at all because the fact is that, as a woman, I could wander onto North Terrace right now, strike up a conversation with a nice boy or a nice man (providing he was of adult age) and, if we liked, we could meander on down to the registrar’s office and marry one another right away, despite the fact that we were complete strangers to one another.
The Hon. T.A. Franks: It’s a month and a day.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Well, in a month and a day; that is pretty much straightaway—but not long enough if you ask me!
An honourable member: You old fuddy-duddy!
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Well, I cannot be progressive about everything, surely.
The Hon. T.A. Franks: You could go to Las Vegas and get married in 24 hours.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Thank you—but I would argue that even in a month and a day we would still be complete strangers to one another. Furthermore, we might spend the rest of our time in this marriage abusing and mistreating one another, yet our union would be seen by the current law as being somehow more genuine than that between two people of the same gender who may never abuse each other and may love each other with all of their hearts. Quite frankly, if anything devalues the institution of marriage, I believe that it is marriages founded on fear, hatred and violence, and indeed marriages void of any emotion whatsoever, rather than marriages forged on genuine commitment and caring relationships, regardless of the gender or genders of the couple in that marriage.
I acknowledge that I have received correspondence from some constituents who state that if same-sex marriage were to come to be they would take it as ‘a personal insult’ and something which would diminish the importance of their own marriage. I appreciate their taking the time to share this belief with me, but I must say that my logic does not accept this idea. Quite simply, I do not understand why a person would let the actions of others, particularly actions which do not in any way affect them directly, change the way in which they view their own relationship and/or their own marriage. As I stated before, a good marriage is based on a strong egalitarian bond between two people, and so I believe it is up to those two people to ensure that their own actions and not those of others uphold the value of their own relationship.
It is not as though current heterosexual marriages will be declared void the moment same-sex marriage becomes legal in this country. It is not as though there were a limited number of marriages available and there will somehow be fewer available to heterosexual couples if same-sex couples take their share; nor is love itself a finite resource. There will just be more marriages and hopefully a little more ability for same-sex couples to live and love freely. To quote my dear mother:
If you change the laws to meet the needs of a minority in terms of same-sex marriage, you aren’t bending to their needs at the cost of someone else’s. You are just changing the laws to include them, as well as—not instead of—everyone else.
Similarly, I do not believe that members should reject this bill on the grounds that some people consider sexual acts between two people of the same gender to be somehow unnatural. I reject this idea purely because this is a motion calling on parliaments to condone same-sex marriage, not same-sex sexual activity. Sex between two people of the same gender and, indeed, people of the opposite gender, will occur whether or not same-sex marriage is legalised, especially given that South Australia became the first Australian jurisdiction to begin decriminalising homosexuality in 1972, with further reforms in this state being achieved in 1975 and 1976.
Furthermore, I feel it is worthwhile noting that I am sure that for many people who are strictly same-sex attracted, participating in heterosexual sex would be equally unnatural to them as homosexual sex appears to be to many heterosexual people. This brings me nicely to my opposition to the idea that same-sex marriage should not be allowed on the grounds that same-sex couples are not fit to raise children—again because this is not a motion which seeks to legalise same-sex parenting. This is a motion which simply places pressure on the federal parliament to legalise same-sex marriage and nothing else.
I have already talked at length in this place about my beliefs on same-sex parenting—or as I, and I am sure all parents in same-sex relationships and indeed their children, like to call it, ‘parenting’—so I will not go too much further into that today, particularly, as I have already said, that this is not the topic of this motion. In fact, I would like to point out that I think the issue of child rearing is particularly irrelevant, due to the fact that raising children is no longer considered by society at large—as Ms Franks has already pointed out—to be some sort of expected consequence of entering into a marriage. I think that it is quite hypocritical to expect to use this as a reason to reject same-sex unions when it is in no way compulsory to raise children in heterosexual ones.
Perhaps I contradict myself a little here because I realise that, in another sense, the issue of raising children with parents of the same gender could actually be seen as quite relevant to this debate. Let me clarify my ideas: as we have already learnt in this place, through reports from the Social Development Committee and, indeed, other motions and bills presented to the chamber, sexual orientation is no barrier to a person’s desire to parent, nor indeed to their ability to do so, although it may involve a few extra challenges.
We already know that children are being raised by same-sex parents, whether or not the union between those parents is classified as a marriage, and we have learned—most pertinent to this motion—of the barriers and unfair difficulties which not having their partnership formally recognised can place on parents, and thereby on their children, from the inability of the non-biological parent to travel interstate or overseas with the child to the inability of that non-biological parent to make medical decisions regarding the child even in circumstances of emergency, not to mention the fact that children are currently likely to be ineligible for inheritance should a non-biological parent die.
Now we are of course slowly seeing changes in the laws to allow for these loopholes to be closed, but I would like to argue that if parents of children raised by same-sex parents were allowed to be recognised as formally married, many of these problems could be automatically solved. If the non-biological parent of a child were married to the biological one in a same-sex marriage, just as in a heterosexual marriage where there is a non-biological parent, there would be a clear relational and legal link between the child and each of the two married parents.
This would most likely solve many of the barriers that parents and children in same-sex partnerships currently face, particularly in regard to custody, consent, duty of care, etc. I humbly ask you, Mr President, if we can truly call ourselves worthy of governing the great country we serve if we are willing to continue to wittingly deny people raised in same-sex partnerships these rights which are fundamental to their welfare and their future simply because they are no more able to choose their parents than the rest of us are.
It would seem to me that allowing same-sex parents to marry would actually give them greater legal capacity to fulfil their duties as parents and therefore make them more fit, not less fit, to be parents than they are at present. We have already learnt in this chamber, when discussing other matters to do with the rights of non-heterosexual individuals, that for them being queer is no more a choice than being heterosexual is for heterosexual people—it is a natural state of being for them and not something they can control. We also know that despite this it is something they can currently be alienated, hurt and punished for.
Members are already aware of the disproportionate level of depression, self-harm and suicide among same-sex attracted people, in particular, and most frighteningly, young people. We already know that research from beyondblue indicates that psychological disorders such as depression are far more prevalent in same-sex attracted people than in heterosexual people. Indeed, beyondblue’s 2008 research paper, entitled ‘Feeling queer and blue,’ indicates that mental illness such as depression is experienced by about 20 per cent of the heterosexual population and around 42 per cent of the queer population. There can be little doubt that this is due at least in some part to the suffering and alienation caused by non-acceptance, homophobia, etc.
I believe that offering marriage to same-sex attracted people could help them feel respected and protected by the law in such a way that we may well see much less of this tragic harm and needless loss of life occurring ,and I feel that as legislators, we have an obligation—both professional and moral—to offer that respect and that protection.
My final point, which is sometimes used to oppose the introduction of same-sex marriage in Australia, is an idea that was recently put forward by Martin Hamilton-Smith. Mr Hamilton-Smith recently said that he intended to oppose any legislation seeking to legalise same-sex marriage, and one of his key reasons for doing so is the fact that ‘not all gays necessarily want to get married’. Indeed, I concede, that this may well be true.
It is likely that not all same-sex couples will choose to marry when marriage equality becomes a reality, but I do not see this as a reason to deny them that choice. After all, if we applied this idea to other factors of life, private health insurance might not be available at all just because not everybody takes it up, or women might not be able to give birth by caesarean at all, no matter what their medical situation, just because not everyone does this.
We must remain mindful that what we are discussing here is giving same-sex attracted people the option to marry, not the obligation to do so. They would have the choice of marrying or not marrying, just like heterosexual couples have that choice.
In conclusion, I believe that the beliefs from which the opposition to same-sex marriage often comes are unfounded, unfair, outdated and just as changeable as the examples I gave at the beginning of my speech, where marriage has previously been denied to certain groups but is now permitted. I believe that Australia, as a nation that supposedly operates on the ideals of fairness, acceptance and inclusion, has nothing to lose but so much to gain by allowing same-sex couples to marry. So, when this chamber asks me whether I support this motion, I am proud to say I do.
Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.
