My partner and I have now been together for thirty years. Considering the ABS found that the median duration from marriage to divorce in 2013 in Australia was 12.1 years we are travelling pretty well. Of course the advantage of not getting married means we won’t ever have to apply for divorce which I guess is a bit of a booby prize in the long run.
Several years ago, under the threat of harsh penalties we were required as two adults cohabiting, to declare ourselves as a couple or face fines. Being considered as a cohabiting couple for Centrelink purposes (de facto on the documents) meant that the government saved itself $22,297.00 (as of Nov 2014) annually, rather than our claiming separate pensions. This seems perfectly reasonable to be treated like any other de facto couple except that we are not permitted to marry.
It feels to me like the government is saying to us: ‘We’re perfectly happy to regard you as a couple for our financial advantage but your love for each other doesn’t deserve the same rights as other co-habiting couples.’
This fact perfectly epitomises for me the injustice of not extending marriage to those same sex couples who want it. The arguments fly back and forth but for me it’s simply a matter of justice. Same sex couples have the same rights as other couples or they don’t. The arguments against same-sex marriage are tedious but given the contemporary heat being generated I feel obliged to respond.
1. The religious reasons: I’ve never quite understood why religions of love and peace tell gay people you can be gay as long as you don’t act on it. (Try telling that to the red-blooded heterosexuals!) There’s been a blitzkrieg of advice from most of the Christian Churches urging their followers to lobby their MPs in the lead up to the Federal Parliament vote on same sex marriage. Catholic parishioners recently received a letter, entitled Marriage: One Man and One Woman in a Covenant of Love, a treatise against same-sex marriage. It’s too easy to ask where were the letters from the pulpit and the Bishops when children were being abused in churches and schools? Churches overstep their mandate when they stray past the maxim: ‘Love one another as I have loved you’ (John, 13, 34)
2. Children need a parent of both sexes to grow up normally. This may be the ideal but the situation is changing.
One-parent families are the fastest growing type of family in Australia. Over 20% of all families with a child aged 15 years or under are parented by a lone mother or father. Although some single parents have worries about money, child care and relationships, others report enjoying special closeness with their child and it would be difficult to prove these children were more disadvantaged.
In 2011, 12% of same-sex couples had children of any age, including adult children, living with them in their family – a situation that was more common for female than male couples (22% of female couples and only 3% of male couples). Last year the University of Melbourne researchers surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children about their physical health and social well-being.
Lead researcher Doctor Simon Crouch said children raised by same-sex partners scored an average of 6 per cent higher than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion.
The government’s own statistics from the Australian Institute of family Studies have revealed the dark side of the traditional family and the potential for abuse of children. The most recent national figures indicate that during 2012-13, there were 184,216 Australian children suspected of being harmed or at risk of harm from abuse and/or neglect within the family. This resulted in 272,980 notifications being issued by state and territory authorities (a rate of 35.5 notifications per 1,000 Australian children). The total number of notifications represents an increase of 7.9% from the 252,962 reports made in the previous year. It’s a bit rich for either churches or conservative family organisations to take the high moral ground over the safety of children given these alarming statistics.
3. Same-sex marriage will lead to all sorts of aberrations – like polyamory and bestiality – the Abetz/Bernardi line
I’ve never quite understood the link and these are what I call the ‘clutching at straws’ arguments and not worthy of a response.
4. Same-sex marriage is not the number one priority in Australia
It’s actually not my number one priority either but it’s a niggling issue of equality that could be quickly cleared up. Anyway I thought governments could do more than one thing at a time. Isn’t there a Minister and a Department for This as well as one for That AND a Minister and Department for All The Other Stuff?
Let’s just deal with this issue of injustice and get on with the important issues like climate change, a compassionate asylum seeker policy, affordable education and health services, jobs for young people etc etc.
What’s the worst thing that can happen? It’s unlikely there will be clouds of locusts, frogs dropping from the sky or more earthquakes. The only likelihood is that some same sex couples will get married and then get on with their lives – and some won’t. Just give us the choice.
For the Christian, loving each other is at the heart of being who we are and opening ourselves to the love of God.
No one has ever claimed that loving and being loved are easy. Therefore, one might expect society to be supportive of our search for ways to love each other.
However, when sex is integral to the loving, civilisations, via the institutions of society, be they secular or religious, have attempted to establish parameters for loving – all in the name of good order.
I wonder whether one day we, as a searching and struggling human community, might agree to support each other, regardless of our sexual orientation, in our search for ways to love.
Well put. Injustice is the key and there is no logical reason not to address this.
From me also, John – a great post. I particularly like your discarding of the Abetz/Bernadi line as not worth commenting on.
The Melbourne Uni survey results are interesting. I wonder what is the psychology of the outcome. At least the strong indication is that, contrary to the conservative expectation, children fare very well with same-sex parents.
On the religious opposition, synagogue, church and mosque will not be required to conduct same-sex marriages, as long as our current legislation on religious freedom remains. I only wish religious leaders in Australia would acknowledge that institutional religion benefits from Australia being a secular country. They should let civil society get on with civil definition and civil performance of marriage ceremonies, in line with community expectation.
Cheers, Ian
COULD NOT HAVE PUT IT BETTER MYSELF!
GREAT POST, JOHN, AND I CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAY, ESPECIALLY THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT COULD BE RESOLVED WITH LITTLE FUSS, AND NO FUNDING IS NEEDED. THEN WE CAN GET ON WITH THE OTHER ISSUES THAT NEED OUR ATTENTION: CARING FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS BEING TOP OF MY LIST.