Census to count gay marriages
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) plans to release data on same-sex couples who tick the -˜married’ box on the 2011 national census.
Previously same-sex couples who tried to declare a legal marriage conducted overseas in countries like Canada or the Netherlands were counted as de facto.
Head of the ABS Population Census Branch Paul Lowe emailed lobby group Australian Marriage Equality (AME) last week, confirming that same-sex partnerships would be counted separately as marriages and de facto relationships.
The count of people in same-sex relationships who tick the -˜husband or wife of person 1′ box at question five will be made available as a part of the standard output from the 2011 Census, he said.
ABS Census Products and Service director Jenny Telford said the ABS was not entering the debate about legal recognition of same-sex marriages in Australia.
What we’re releasing is people who fill out their census form and tick that they’re a husband and wife relationship in a same-sex couple -” we’re just releasing the results as people put it on the census form, she told the Star.
Since 1996 we’ve produced data of people in households that identify themselves as same-sex and in a relationship. We’ve made that available for a while, but the key difference this time is the fact that we’re releasing the output as stated on the census form when people tick the husband and wife category.
AME national convenor Peter Furness welcomed the decision, saying it gave married same-sex couples the ability to stand up and be counted, despite the ban on same-sex marriage in Australia.
The Rudd Government may choose to bury its head in the sand and pretend same-sex marriages don’t exist, but clearly the ABS will not, he said.
NSW GLRL co-convenor Emily Gray welcomed the inclusion, however, she stressed the census should also count Australians’ sexuality identity.
At the moment it’s the most glaring absence in the census. The Australian Human Rights Commission in its 2007 Same-Sex: Same Entitlements report said there are over 20,000 same-sex couples living in Australia. We know that is a huge underestimation, but the reason they relied on it is because it came from the ABS, she said.
We can do all the surveys we want, but we’re never going to get an accurate picture of the number and breadth of our community unless a question is included in the census. It’s not just important for lobbying purposes, it’s also important for health data in Australia.
Following the release of the 2006 census data, an ABS spokeswoman explained same-sex couples who declared themselves married were counted as de facto because of the Marriage Act definitions. It would be unrealistic to expect the ABS’s standards and classifications to provide a view contrary to federal legislation, she said at the time.
To all readers,
May I first state that I am FOR gay and lesbians being able to be married. I am heterosexual and do not have any gay friends, my partner is homophobic as are most of my friends (as I now live in Australia and this seems to be the way here, not being unfair just stating what I have been subjected to) but I am indifferent. I used to run weddings for a living in the UK and I ran a number of gay/lesbian weddings and had lots of fun in doing so, If it is legal for any human adult to love/live with/sleep with any other human adult then what difference does it make if that partnership has a piece of paper to go along with it? (from a heterosexuals point of view) Anyone should be able to celebrate their love for anyone else and more to the point – who has the right to state that anyone should not? What does it matter to anyone else’s lives anyway? It will change nothing in the lives of a heterosexual couple if the gay couple down the road now have rings on their fingers instead of not having them the previous week…
However… there a some points made in this discussion that I cant help disagree with – for example – ‘MINORITY RIGHTS SHOULD NEVER BE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY VOTE’
How can this be a sound statement? If this statement were correct then the world would be in turmoil!!! Think of the minority situations that this could apply to – Murderers, Rapists, Thievery etc etc, If the government were corrupt or biased in a particular country and majority votes meant nothing then laws could be passed on a daily basis that conflict with the general publics interest (as sadly is the case in lots of parts of the world) and who of you would agree that the statement is sound then?
Think about how much the world can/would change if every minority decision was agreed/disagreed to by a select few rather than the majority. We disbanded Royals running their countries for this very reason did we not? The human race decided all those years ago that the countries should be ran by a person or persons that the public voted for rather than a king or queen that’s only claim to leadership was birthright. We have evolved enormously to points where we forget that we are still a race of animals trying to get along in the world, if the opinions of the minority were more important or even as important as the majority opinion then how would a herd of animals progress?
A majority vote in my opinion is not only the fair and decent way to do things but a fantastic thing and should never be discarded from any decision, be it minority or not. If the majority is against a decision then it is up to the people fighting the cause of the minority to change that opinion. Otherwise how is it fair for a minority cause to be accepted possibly against the majority of peoples opinions, making the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE UNHAPPY OR DISGRUNTLED? I do not think this is fair practise.
Am I the only one who wonders what the hell the government, and a secular government at that, is doing defining marriage to begin with? Since when did the semantics of people’s domestic arrangements and sex lives become a government function? Yes, I know, since always really, but why do we persist with it? We don’t look to the government to establish legal definitions of clever or well dressed, we accept it’s a matter of personal opinion. Why not treat marriage the same way? Then a gay couple could say they’re married and everyone else could agree or disagree or not give a toss either way according to their own values.
Angry Exile – male, straight, married and completely indifferent to anyone else’s domestic situation.
Paul,
I am a high school student taking legal studies, i am in the process of writing an issues analysis and am collecting information to use. The topic i have chosen is “Should people in same-sex relationships be allowed to get married?” With your permission i would like to use your views in my piece. If you give your permission i would be very greatful and if you could please let me know by emailing me at [email protected] along with anything else you wish to put forward.
Thankyou,
Deanna
James…(you big closet) you are boring us to death…we really don’t care what you think…your outdated jaundiced thinking belongs in the dark ages..why don’t you spend all your days on The Daily Telegraph website ( instead of on a site for the gay and lesbian community )where your comments may be appreciated.
James – Yeah that’s pretty much my position James, If it can work for Canada it can work for us.
So when you say that -œminority rights should never be subjected to majority vote” what you REALLY mean is that the public can go to buggery and NOT HAVE A SAY and that the government should simply legislate without a public vote. You really only say this because you think that if it went to public vote, you’d lose, like what happened in California.
That’s actually a pretty piss-poor position to take.
James – In Califorina practially all the opinion polls suggested that the public there supported gay marriage, like Australia. Its easy to tell some stranger over the telephone what you support when they do the surveys for opinion polls, however when it comes to voting at the ballot box it can be a total different story, you only need to look at what happened in Califorina as evidence. Thats why even though the opinion polls suggest Australians support gay marriage I feel that as a gay marriage supporter it would be wrong just to assume and put it on the ballot box. Also as ive said previously with my reasons it should never go on the ballot box anyway, but as I have a suspicion that there will be a public vote I have outlined my thoughts.
Simple James there does not need to be a vote. The government can easily legislate for minorities without a public vote.
Jason – you’ve been harping on about “MINORITY RIGHTS SHOULD NEVER BE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY VOTE” for a while now.
So how, specifically, do you propose minority rights should be dealt with? Let’s take the “gay marriage” issue as an example. How do you propose a vote on this would take place? Who would be eligible to vote? Who would not be eligible? How would you define a “minority”?
Time for some details from you rather than general, high level, motherhood statements.
James – MINORITY RIGHTS SHOULD NEVER BE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY VOTE. I note you comment “Howard did not outlaw gay marriage, he simply clarified the existing laws” The problem Howard caused was not so much of clarifying existing laws, but the consequencies of clarifying the laws which did not need to happen.
Jason said;
“The majority should never be able to vote on the rights for a minority”
We do not seek minority rights – we seek the same rights as every other Australian – the vote would be to grant homosexuals the same rights as every other Australian.
Jason – we are going around in circles, but….
Gay marriage has never been legal in Australia. If it is to become legal, then it should be put to the people to vote on it.
Howard did not outlaw gay marriage, he simply clarified the existing laws. If he had an agenda, then so what? No offence, but don’t you?
James – If gay marriage was never lawful to start with, then why was gay marriage outlawed ?
James – But my point is there was no referendum to do so, so why should there be a referendum to legalise gay marriage ? Also he did not just choose to ban or outlaw gay marriage (or however you choose to call it) he also changed the law to prevent the federal government recognizing gay marriages from overseas. The fact is Howard had an agenda and he wrote discrimination into laws, and then he had the cheek to walk in the mardi gras parade with a big smile on his face.
Jason – “James – When Howard banned gay marriage was there a public referendum to do so ?”
He didn’t ban gay marriage. For a start it was never lawful and so it could hardly be banned. He simply clarified the existing law so that its intention could not be open to interpretation.
There was no referendum to ban gay marriage so why should there be a referendum to legalise it. There was no public discussions/forums initiated by the howard government when it choose to ban it.
Chillisauce100 – You do realise that if there was a referendum in the next six months on gay marriage, and if the majority voted against gay marriage then it would be practically impossible for the next twenty or so years for gay marriage to be legalised. The decision would also have world wide ramifications for the gay movement. The people of Califorina voted against gay marriage so seriously whats the chances of gay marriage being legalised by a referendum here when a tv programme like Home And Away cant even have a lesbian story line without controversy. The majority should never be able to vote on the rights for a minority. Australians are not opened-mined enough on homosexuality in my opinion.
James – When Howard banned gay marriage was there a public referendum to do so ?
I agree with you chillisauce100. If a government wants to change a law relating to what many believe to be a sacred institution, it should be put to the people.
Apparently, according to some people, some jurisdictions in the world, outside Australia, have legalised gay marriage.
Those jurisdictions would have had to introduce that legislation in those jurisdictions correctly or the legislation would have been invalidated by the courts in those jurisdictions.
Someone has inferred that the governments that legalised gay marriage did not put the issue to a public vote, thereby denying citizens in those jurisdictions who opposed gay marriage the opportunity of voting against the legalisation of gay marriage.
In Australia the issue of the legalisation of gay marriage has not been put to a vote of citizens.
I am in favour of the legalisation of gay marriage so I have been denied the opportunity of demonstrating my support for the legalisation of gay marriage by voting for that proposal in a referendum.
Paul Mitchell have you ever heard the saying empty vessels make the most noise? Clearly you are passionate about GLBTI rights but your arguments need to include a little more fact than emotion. Also you have obviously copied and pasted most of your responces and just inserted a snide comment here and there. This does not sound like the work of an activist. Tell me, which GLBTI organisation do you work with?
Paul Mitchell – please spare me the pseudo legal rubbish and answer my previous question.
Dear ABS,
All references to “husband and wife”, “wife”, “husband”, “male”, “female”, “person of the opposite-sex”, “opposite-sex” – need to be ommitted and fully replaced with simply – “spouse or partner” and “person”.
Yours sincerly.
Paul Mitchell.
James here is some education you might need –
Number 1: Marriage is a FEDERAL issue in Australia, NOT A STATE ISSUE. If you look at the Australian Consitution – section 51 (part xxi marriage). Even if SSMs were legal at a state level (e.g. Tasmania) they will be struck-down due to “inconsistancy” under section 59.
Number 2: We are NOT America, In America the states have the control of marriage. From “conservative” Iowa and all the New England states (except for Rhode Island). TIP: New York and New Jersey might just well be next to legalize SSMs!!!
Number 3: Both Labor and Liberal parties need to amend, modify or change their policies to make sure “any two (2) adult human beings” have to legal and social right to marry.
You can both tick the Married Husband/Spouse box if male, or both tick the Wife box if both female- it’s just that in the last census if you did that they then “censured” it & changed the married ticked box to defacto. (even though the couple were legally married in sister-commonwealth country Canada).
With all the cheap flights now, I bet even more same sex couples will get married in Canada, Spain etc… (or civil-partnercised in the UK).
Paul Mitchell – how many of the countries or states that you mentioned had the question of gay marriage put to the vote? ZERO!!!
people in same sex relationships are ticking boxes that they are in a “husband and wife” relationship???
um, could we fix that too, please?
Since 1 May 2007 [when I became a gay activist], I as a gay activist have been fighting very hard for the right for us gay men and lesbian women here in Australia the LEGAL AND SOCIAL RIGHT right to marry. Thank you ABS – this is a step in the right direction. Now it is time for Mr “gay-marriage-phobic” Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull to change the Marriage Act 1961 and support the Marriage Amendment Bill 2009 [Greens amendment].
All Commonwealth statute references of “a union between a man and a woman” needs to be ripped to shreads and fully replaced with “a loving a dedicated union between two (2) adult human beings”.
The Benefits of same-sex marriage include:
* Universal recognition of relationships;
* Good for the Australian economy;
* Good for Tourism;
* Show that Australia is not a bigoted country;
* Gays and lesbians are just as good as heterosexuals;
* Gays and lesbians pay their taxes and deserve FULL equality and recognition under the laws and statutes;
* Love is love in the end – IT HARMS NO ONE!!!!
If it is good enough in Sweden, Norway, Nepal, South Africa, Canada, Belgium, Holland (Netherlands), Spain and several US States (including Massacusetts, Iowa [yes I know, Iowa in deeply conservative middle America], Connecticut, Maine (eff. Sep 2009) and Vermont (eff. Sep 2009). Possible New Hampshire as well [just pending a signature from the Govonor there]???? California had it for a while, until Prop 8 [passed by 52 percent] – THEN IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR AUSTRALIA!!!! Source: wikipedia and gay news sources lots of them through google searches. New Jersey and New York bills are pending for a vote next week. Source HRC.
Remember UK, New Zealand and various European and South American countries have civil unions or registered partnerships.
Thank you Census people at the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)