Why marriage is the only answer
Same-sex marriage is an idea whose time has come, writes London-based Australian gay rights activist Peter Tatchell.
It is the growing trend all over the world, from Canada to South Africa and Argentina, as well as Portugal, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. So why can’t there be marriage equality in Australia too?
Political support for ending the ban on gay civil marriage is growing rapidly.
Two state premiers, Queensland’s Anna Bligh and Tasmania’s David Bartlett, have come out in favour of allowing lesbian and gay couples to marry. So have senior members of both major parties, including Labor’s Mark Arbib and Doug Cameron, and the Liberals’ Simon Birmingham.
Public attitudes have also shifted strongly in favour of allowing same-sex marriage. An Essential Media poll found 53 percent of Australians support marriage equality while a Galaxy poll found it was backed by 62 percent. In both polls, only a third of Australians disagreed.
In response, some politicians say that UK-style civil partnerships are sufficient for Australian lesbian and gay couples.
This is hypocritical. These politicians would never accept a similar ban on black people getting married. They would never agree with a law that required black couples to register their relationships through a separate system called civil partnerships.
It would be racist to have separate laws for black and white couples. We’d call it apartheid, like what used to exist in South Africa. Well, black people are not banned from marriage but lesbian and gay couples are.
If a ban on black marriages would provoke an outcry, surely the ban on gay marriages should provoke similar outrage?
In Britain, lesbians and gays are fobbed off with a separate system called civil partnerships. This reinforces and perpetuates division and discrimination. Separate is not equal.
Under UK law, gay couples are banned from marriage and only allowed civil partnerships. Heterosexual partners can only marry and are barred from civil partnerships. These dual discriminations based on sexual orientation are injustices that Australia should not repeat.
Having separate institutions for gay people and straight people creates an artificial divide. It ignores the reality that love and commitment are universal and transcend sexual orientation.
Civil partnerships are, of course, an important advance for people who want relationship recognition but who don’t wish to marry.
However, for couples who do want to marry, civil partnerships are not adequate and not certainly equality. They are discrimination.
Marriage is the internationally recognised system of relationship recognition. It is the global language of love. When we were young, most of us dreamed of one day getting married. We didn’t dream about having a civil partnership.
In Australia, there are already civil partnerships in some states and strong protections for common law partners, including same-sex ones.
It makes no sense to add another layer of discrimination by enacting a national civil partnership scheme that would perpetuate the differential legal status of gay and straight couples. Such segregation in law would be a backward step. It would be a form of ‘sexual apartheid’ to have different laws for gay and heterosexual couples. In a democratic society, we should all be equal before the law.
Gay and lesbian people are expected to pay taxes, obey the law and, if necessary, defend their country, just like everyone else. In return, surely the state should accord its lesbian and gay citizens the same rights and responsibilities as every other citizen?
Personally, I don’t like marriage. I share the feminist critique of its history of sexism and patriarchy. I would not want to get married. But as a democrat and human rights defender, I support the right of others to marry, if they wish. Everyone should have a choice.
That’s why I believe that civil marriage should be open to everyone without discrimination.
It’s time for Australia, as a secular democracy, to legislate for marriage equality.
info: Peter Tatchell is an Australian-born human rights campaigner, based on London. He is coordinator of the Equal Love UK campaign, which is working to end Britain’s twin bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships.
You May Also Like
Let gays marry so that they can be as miserable as the rest of us :P
[…] HERE to read Peter Tatchell’s thoughts on gay marriage in […]
I believe in full equality, not the notion we should be restricted to some rights and not others, this does not fit with my view of equality or fairness.
Why should some rights and freedoms be denied simply because of our sexuality, our gender, or our race? What other rights should we not have if we follow this path? I believe in fairness and a fair go. I believe in equality. Denying people rights and freedoms simply because of their sexuality does not fit into my belief of fairness at all. I see no reason why people’s civil rights should be violated.
Why marriage is the only answer- youtube link on getting “civilly unionised” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47cJSou-6JQ&feature=player_embedded
It’s very clever! Maybe Tanya Plibersek should add this clip to her “consultation” website where she is pushing for civil unions instead of civil marriage- http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XGTS3NH (she is totally ignoring the Greens directive for the consulation to be about marriage, & instead she is promoting in her current survey that we get civilly unionised instead).
“The whole notion of marriage itself should be abolished”. – that’s fine, but until it is, then we are entitled to have a civil marriage in a government registry office like any other tax payer.
btw- history shows that marriage seems to alsways “reform” & “evolve” with the times, rather than gotten rid of. So, it’s not a legitimate arguement to use as an excuse to deny us equal rights for equal taxes paid.
Yes I can see how a sane person wants to be free of discrimination. I can see how sane person would be very happy about the marriage debate turning every stone of discrimination up and exposing it to all.
A sane person sees how governments are talking about ending other areas of discrimination while the debate goes on.
In a utopia there would be no need for marriage. But the facts are the government has made it such that to have all forms of discrimination against your relationship removed, you need to be married. And well there is something I like about being able to marry my love. If forcing that debate forward frees people from oppression in many areas of their life then I think I can live with that. It is my choice, and my partners to be married.
The whole notion of marriage itself should be abolished. It’s a redundant system and the fact that marriage is where the state defines what relationships are accepted and recognised under law is inconsistent with human rights and how diverse relationships in our society are.
The state has no right in defining what a ‘accepted’ relationship should be for consenting adults. Instead of marriage (for either hetero or homosexual ‘couple’s ) we as society need to develop another system which recognises all forms of relationships be it monogamus, polygamus, platonic and all the other combinations there are.
The argument of using marriage as a basis for equality is ridiculous, what sane minded person would want to buy into a system which it has been oppressed by and oppresses. A sane minded person would want liberation and their fellow human to be liberated.
Of the many good Christians advocating for Same-Sex Marriage, we have Nobel Peace Prize winning Arch-Bishops, Bishops, nuns and priest, scholars, let alone many in our humble Uniting Church. All this and not to count the many other good people who are not associated with a Church.
The Early Church welcomed Same-Sex Marriage, along with other religions, and cultures. Further, marriage has never ever been exclusive to Christianity. To say marriage was only ever done by Christians is a bit like saying the world is still flat.
Jake you are correct. Peter you are also correct.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s only the vocal minority pushing this
Rubbish. The pro gay croud can get as philosophical as they like but they know in the end
How life is.
I mean really the clear agenda here is to get approval from god. Good luck with that :)
Christian supremacist Peter Stokes of Salt Shakers has no business imposing his contempt for the relationships of gays and lesbians upon everything and everyone else – including the federal Marriage Act.
To all blinkered selfish theocratic mouthpieces of his ilk, I say this: if you don’t want gay marriage, THEN DON’T GET ONE & SHUT THE F*CK UP.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204636989
[…] the full article click here Unknown Feed facebook Contact Information Ph. 0421 316 335 […]
Marriage should never have been recognised as a state affair. I believe Marriage is ONLY between a man and a women because it has always been that way, it is a religious ceromony allowing a man and women to profess thier love for one another under God. The state should take the Italian and French models of marriage and civil unions… this allows marriage to be marriage and erradicates the arguements of discrimination.
All couples who want tax benefits and to be recognised as a couple by the state should be ‘civil unioned’ in the registary office. Then and only if the unioned couple wish should they pursure religious blessing from their preferred institution. This way marriage stays a religious affair as it has always been since it originated from the Judeo-Christian religions!
Peter Stokes might not be quite coherent but at least we know where he’s coming from. As for Dave and his “Temple of Equality”… what the??? I’ll say it again (and again and again): those misty-eyed ideals of a world free of homophobia, discrimination and suicide was all supposed to dawn when homosexuality was decriminalised. That was quarter of a century ago. What will marriage achieve that decriminalisation didn’t?
As for Peter Tatchell, well he’s clearly past his use-by date. He talks about black people in making an example of equality? Why not cut to the chase and just point out a place in the world where blacks enjoy 100% equality with whites… Won’t hold my breath for that one. It’s the worse example you could make and if I was black myself I’d be insulted. Then comes this clanger: “Personally, I don’t like marriage. I share the feminist critique of its history of sexism and patriarchy.” But even with his storm-the-barricade reputation, Peter Tatchell can’t take it that step further and say “Get these laws off our lives altogether!” That would be freedom which, by it’s very nature, makes everybody equal.
uh..kinda late to be replying on this….but to peter Strokes.. The way you feel about gays is completely understandable, its just the way that you have been brought up, nobody can change that apart from your slef, however, who gave you the right to descriminate against other peoples views. Are you gay or lesbiand, by the sounds of your comment no,so how would you know what it is like, i personally don;t know…but i imagine its not as easy as it looks,and i don;t think it is something you can just turn on and off. have what ever views you wont on people but keep it to your self,….nobody wants to hear your crap. i would also like to thank the writer of this article…i helped me a great deal with one of my assignments…yeah im in highschool…thats right teenagers have oppinions too, don;t be sexist or ageist..anyway, im just goin to shut up
Murder is the most evil of non-consensual acts. Marriage is among the most powerful consensual commitments that two individuals of either gender can make to each other. Legalizing the rights and responsibilities of marriage for all who would participate leads to legalizing murder in much the same way that my petting my dog leads to nuclear holocaust: not so much, really.
Peter, you need a better lede, and a rejuvenation of your soul wouldn’t hurt either.
If you live in the electorate of Sydney, make sure you complete Tanya Plibersek’s survey on gay marriage. It will be used to feed into the federal Labor government’s nationwide canvassing of public opinion on whether Labor should change its stance on the issue. Make sure as many of your friends in the electorate of Sydney complete the survey in favour of gay marriage only (and not civil partnerships).
Well said Jack. Peter is living in fantasy land if, with all the knowledge we have now, he still believes homosexuality is a choice. Why would anyone choose to live a life where they are ridiculed and hated by people like him? And why is the suicide rate among gay youth 3 times that of hetero youth? Homosexuality cannot be changed or “cured”. Church groups may claim success in these areas, but at what cost to the sanity and self esteem of those concerned. Bottling up your natural feelings up and living a lie is not a cure. What is this obsession people have with what goes on in the privacy of someone’s bedroom between consenting adults? I don’t care, just like I don’t care what goes on in Peter’s bedroom. Love is love, let people love who they want, it certainly is more Godlike than all this hate.
Let us think Peter Stokes, psychologist associations and psychiatrist associations that believe we are normal as we are, including the AMA, or your opinion?? Black is Black. Wrong is Wrong. But you my friend have a great mental health problem I think trying to impose your obscene cruelty on me.
I have to think as Scientist can now genetically replicate lesbian mice and gay fruit flies, what would they get if they replicated you?
Peace be with you.
Dave
I do believe this is the Peter Stokes I am thinking , if it is then……
He runs a church of 20 or so, less excluding family. He and his followers turned up in white to one of our first Same-Sex Marriage rallies. They quickly fled surround by thousands of people protesting for Same-Sex Marriage. I had to laugh. He also argues at Mardi Gras there is only a few hundred people attend. Well Peter it is 300,000 on a bad year. What is the maths of your followers to the people having a great time?
Well Peter all that talking in tongues and rolling your eyes. I thought I saw a live exorcist performance, but no, it was tiny Christian cult.
It is clear to me Peter that you are not representative of the Christian Movement. In fact you operate on the fringes of society from what I can see.
All this Same-Sex Marriage debate makes you lose ground. It exposes the irrational arguments of those that seek to oppress people and deny them rights. For years you have been trying to build up a flock by uniting them in fear of the outside world. I guess now you have to find something else to do.
Pease be with you and God Bless,
Dave
Peter
I think I =can figure out what you’re trying to say in your poorly edited post (too much Holy Water, anyone?)
But let’s look at it from another point of view shall we.
Let’s say ‘Christians’ (and I use the term loosely because religious nuts like yourself can hardly be considered ‘Christian’) were currently not allowed to marry and homosexuals were. would you feel the same then?
Of course not. Get down off your high-horse and start living in the real world.
I won’t touch your murder analogy.
‘Christians’ have been murdering people for centuries in the name of ‘God’ and ‘religion’.
Funny how crying ‘religious freedom’ and waving a massive piece of fiction in the air can let you get away with such atrocities against other human beings.
I always thought the point of ‘Christianity’ was to teach love and respect for your fellow man.
Seems all you want to do is preach hate. Guess that means you won’t be heading to heaven anytime soon.
It does not matter how many countries allow it or which MPs go along with it. If they legalised murder would that make it OK – Of course not. Why? because “Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it.”
Augustine
Niether Mark Arbib, Doug Cameron, or Simon Birmingham are relationshIt does not matter how many countries allow it, or which MPs go along with it, if they legalised murder would that make it right? Of course not. Why? Because “Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it.” Augustine
Neither Mark Arbib, Doug Cameron, or Simon Birmingham are relationship or social science experts. They are only politicians trying to score points to get votes.
Black is black – NOT something they can change – even Tatchell agrees homosexuals can and do change – in other words it is a choice to join, to stay or to leave.
If they want to marry they can – just find someone of the opposite gender who will say YES.
Even single people are expected to pay taxes, obey the law and, if necessary, defend their country, BUT that does not guarantee them marriage – they too still have to find the right spouse.
In all this rhetoric there is not one good reason why society should accept same-sex marriage.
It is the benefits to society that counts not ‘Rights’
ip or social science experts.
They are just politicians trying to score points.
Black is black – NOT something they can change – even Tachell agrees homosexuals can and do change – in other words it is a choice to join, to stay or to leave.
If they want to marry they can – just find someone of the opposit genda who will say YES.
Even single people are expected to pay taxes, obey the law and, if necessary, defend their country, BUT that does not gaurantee them marriage – they too still have to find the right spouse.
In all this rhetoric there is not one good reason why society should accept same-sex marriage.
It is the benifits to society that counts not ‘Rights’
We are standing on the warm steps of the Temple of Equality. The marriage debate exposes all the areas of discrimination with each step we take. We now have politicians saying either they support Same-Sex Marriage, or they do not, but want all other forms of discrimination ended.
Soon we will have freedom. Millions of good Christians around the world support Same-Sex marriage. Some are bishops, some are Nobel Prize winners, some are nuns and priest, some are just good folk who see a wrong, and are trying to right it.
In living memory some people from our proud GLBTI community have had parts of their brains cut out, they were put to study in every way possible, and the psychiatrist and psychologist associations found we are all normal good and decent people. We were not deserving of years in jail for making love to our lifelong partner.
Who could imagine one day we will be at the rainbow gates to the Temple of Equality. That a young child might grow up never to know homophobia throughout their life. And the laws that discriminate, and those terrible attitudes will be obsolete, and studied by academics, as all Australians say, how could people of been so cruel to good and decent Australians.
Soon, very soon, we will be truly the land of a fair go. We will have freedom.