MP: marriage not a rights issue
A federal Opposition MP has written to a constituent, claiming that marriage equality is not a human rights issue and that the majority of Australians oppose it.
The letter was sent by Peter Slipper, the Liberal National Party member for the Queensland seat of Fisher, in response to an email from Melissa Page, a 38 year old lesbian mother living in his electorate.
Page told the Star Observer she had written to Slipper in November as she was curious about his views as her local member and that the issue was doubly important to her as her father was gay and in a 40-year relationship.
But she wasn’t impressed with the response that arrived four days before Christmas.
“In 2004, the Liberal National Government amended the Marriage Act 1961 to define … marriage [as] “the union of man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life,” Slipper wrote.
“The Liberal National Party believes that the majority of the Australian community agree with that definition.
“This issue is not one of human rights but of what is understood by marriage as an institution. I will not support legislation that would alter the current definition of marriage as a relationship entered into by a man and a woman.”
Page said the letter would affect the way she and her friends and family vote in future.
“I don’t think the things he claimed in his response were accurate,” she said.
“I thought it was pretty typical of what I’d heard about people who are against same-sex marriage. They just say ‘I just don’t think marriage should be for anyone other than between men and women’ without giving any explanation as to why they think that. I can now make sure I don’t vote for him and I can let other people know that he’s totally against it”
Polls have shown majority support in Australia for same-sex marriage since 2007 percent, and opposition below 50 percent since 2004.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”
The declaration does not specify that they found a family with each other.
In addition to being an MP, Slipper is also an ordained priest and chancellor of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a group of Anglicans threatening to become Catholics over mainstream Anglicanism’s ordination of women and acceptance of homosexuals.
“Time Conquers All”
@G .. whilst your concerns should be recognised, you should also understand that by not voicing your opinion to your elected MP your voice is not being heard.
MPs can only take into consideration the opinion of those who contact them – if you remain silent, then your opinion is also silent.
But seriously, if you were to approach your MP and state that you saw nothing wrong with same-sex couples getting married what “salacious gossip” can occur as a result? Supporting same-sex marriage does not suggest that you are same-sex oriented, just that you are more open minded and believe in equal treatment of everyone.
Actually marriage as a ceremony to confer kinship existed long before any of the established religious faiths we have in the world today – like funerary rites it predates recorded history. Over history it has meant different things to different cultures and under different legal systems has created multiple variations on a theme.
I cannot speak for all modern religions but I do know that historically marriage is a “recent” development in Christianity. Early Christians simply decided to mutually consider themselves a married couple and announce it before witnesses – this was much like the rest of Roman society. No priest, no paperwork, no planning; just the decision to create a kinship. It was not until after the Dark Ages that the marriage ceremony as we know it even existed and became necessary for the Church to recognise a marriage.
As for Australia it is a secular nation which means Church and State are supposed to be separate. We have no national religion. The reason why a priest in a church can marry a man and a woman has nothing to do with being a servant of God; but rather federal law in Australia recognises that a minister of religion is lawfully authorised by the State to execute the legal instrument of the Marriage Act with all the same rights of a civil celebrant. To further this point; the Catholic Church does not recognise divorce (although they will provide annulments in some situations) but that has no bearing on the fact, under federal law in Australia, a married couple may seek disolution of a marriage end the legal responsibility of being a married couple. The separation of Church and State also applies to de-facto, or common law marriages; they are all recognised under federal law eventhough no Christian church I know of would consider it a marriage.
Marriage in Australia, and equality, are federal issues. Here’s hoping our politicians are up to the challenge!
It has always fascinated me that marriage is a religous ceremony performed by different religions.
Does it not worry anyone that the government can decide who gets married or not.
It is nothing to do with Governments and should stay that way.
This is what Federal MP Alex Hawke sent out in his mid-December newsletter:
“Thank you to everyone who has contacted me regarding the debate late in the Parliamentary year regarding same-sex marriage. There were many passionate and sincere arguments expressed to me covering a wide range of views.
“The most widely held community view expressed to me by Mitchell constituents was that marriage should be considered an institution between a man and a woman, and a radical alteration is not required at this time.
“Community sentiments on many issues had changed in recent decades, including those regarding same sex relationships. While it is important to continue to strive for equality under the law for same-sex couples, especially in relation to financial arrangements, the majority sentiment expressed to me by our community is that marriage should remain defined as between a man and a woman.”
He linked to these news articles: http://www.hillsnews.com.au/news/local/news/general/hills-residents-are-against-samesex-marriages-says-mp/2011040.aspx
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/top-end-alp-adds-to-push-for-gay-marriage/story-fn59niix-1225958882994
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/kids-for-gays-but-not-marriage-hockey/story-fn59niix-1225959716199
I live in Mitchell but am not game to contact Alex Hawke or his office because I am worried about my privacy and the risk of becoming the subject of gossip out of his office. Recent surveys did actually show that the majority of residents are not against gay marriage nor for it. The dominant local political discourse however is only concerned with people who share a particular worldview and are out of touch with anyone that might have different experiences and beliefs. I am sure there are many many others who support equal marriage who are similarly not contacting conservative MPs in “conservative areas” out of fear and disillusionment.