First submissions to inquiry published
The Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Committee into Senator Sarah Hanson-Young’s Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 has published the first submissions it received from the general public and opponents are out in front.
Twenty-five of the 46 submissions published on the federal Parliament website oppose marriage equality while 21 support it.
Many of those opposing marriage equality did so because they believed it would result in more same-sex couples having children, because they believed homosexuality to be dangerous, or because they believed homosexuality would create a slippery slope to the legalisation of paedophilia, bestiality, incest or child-parent marriage.
Opponent WP Gadsby said Hanson-Young’s bill fell short of its stated goal of removing all discrimination in the Marriage Act.
“The proposed amendment purports to remove all discriminatory references, but apparently has a very limited view of discrimination, namely to remove any restriction of people, regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity, the opportunity to marry,” Gadsby wrote.
“If I love my dog, and she loves me, why should we not marry? Because she’s a bitch? That is no answer, because ‘speciesism’ is also discriminatory — against me, and against my dog. It denies us the ‘right’ to express our love in a married relationship.
“Furthermore, why limit marriage to a partnership between two people …? Is that not also ‘discriminatory’? Why not authorise polyamory, with multiple partners in all kinds of mixes? On what moral basis should such groups be denied the opportunity to marry?
“And why limit all this to adults? … Should not children also have the right to marry? Should we legitimise paedophilia? And if not, why not?”
Opponent Warwick Poole wrote that homosexual marriage should not be tolerated.
“Homosexual marriage is and should never be aspired to,” Poole wrote. “It is a lustful exercise designed for self-gratification, which if the condom breaks, could be deadly.
“The portrayal of the sweet, kind, humorous, monogamous homosexual couple on television is a lie.
“Tolerance is a wonderful thing, but we do not tolerate some activities; why don’t we allow copulation, masturbation, urination, defecation in public? The list of unacceptable behaviours is endless. We simply do not tolerate some behaviours, and homosexual marriage is one that we should not tolerate.”
Kristy Adams said same-sex marriage should not be legalised because homosexuality was a “high risk lifestyle”.
“HIV/AIDS remains an overwhelmingly homosexual disease in Australia, with the overwhelming number of cases due to male homosexual activity, or intravenous drug use,” Adams wrote.
“Countless studies have documented the high-risk and unhealthy nature of the homosexual lifestyle. So why should governments be endorsing and promoting such activity?”
Alan Weatherall compared same-sex marriage to theft.
“Should we consider changing the definition of other words just because some don’t like the established definition?” Weatherall wrote.
“Some might not like the definition of ‘thief’. This definition when applied causes all sorts of problems for the people identified as a thief. They are discriminated against in our society, they can’t get the employment they seek, they can’t get a loan and they have their details recorded and used against them should they be a suspect again.”
James Gall warned that same-sex marriage could lead to parents marrying their children.
“If this bill is passed, where do we go to next?” Gall wrote. “I love living with my daughter/son – we love each other — it is plain to see — he/she gives me no grief, accepts what I do, etc.
“I would like to marry my son/daughter and change our constitution so this is acceptable to everyone as non-discriminatory.”
The Life Centre argued that changing the Marriage Act would violate the Oxford Dictionary.
“To define marriage as between something other than a man and a woman is to define another act; It is our belief that to do this would strike at the very roots of the fabric of our society and the heart and soul of our families that make up this society,” the Centre wrote.
“Our Pastor could not have said it better. If they (homosexuals) want to make a commitment to each other, let them. But like you would not call AFL football, soccer, without an outrage, do not call a commitment between same-sex relationships, marriage,” Helene Cohen wrote.
“Are then the terms husband and wife to be redefined? What would I call myself if it were to change? It just spirals to where those who are truly opposing the family, and seeking self first, wish it to go.”
Australian Marriage Equality (AME) national convenor Alex Greenwich encouraged marriage equality supporters who had not made submissions to do so.
“The committee will base its report on both the quality of submissions and the volume,” Greenwich said.
Greenwich noted that a number of the published submissions were from people who were Australian residents but not citizens.
“It is our understanding that the committee will look at submissions from any person who has something of value to add to this debate, so we would encourage anyone who feels they can add something to do so,” he said.
Greenwich was appalled by the tone of some of the submissions from opponents.
“We’ve seen repeated calls from the other side to have a respectful debate but whenever we’ve asked for a similar commitment from them it has gone unanswered,” he said.
AME has created a dedicated web page to enable people to make a submission to the inquiry.
INFO: www.australianmarriageequality.com/senate-inquiry-submission-form
It is in reality a nice and useful piece of information. I am happy that you just shared this helpful
information with us. Please stay us up to date like this.
Thanks for sharing.
Je peux vous dire que c’est toujours du bonheur de venir sur votre site internet
Hi would you mind letting me know which webhost you’re working with?
I’ve loaded your blog in 3 completely different browsers and
I must say this blog loads a lot quicker then most.
Can you suggest a good hosting provider at a fair price?
Many thanks, I appreciate it!
Amanda’s comment about gay people not wanting anything ‘traditional’ is very generalised and stereotypical.
Considering the ‘traditional’ aspect of marriage (being about religion/church/god) seems to be becomming more about two people’s spiritual committment and connection with one another – I imagine this is why so many Australian people are choosing simple ceremonies with celebrants instead of priests…
Now, as a gay woman who may not be as traditional as some, I would love the opportunity to marry my best friend and love of my life. I want for there to be no question when one of us dies as to who built our home.. who worked for our possessions, who’s super, insurance etc goes to who.
It is as simple as this…
I love my partner… no less than a heterosexual couple love each other. We work just as hard to support each other as a heterosexual couple.
Actually the only difference between my relationship and others is I genuinely don’t care if you are gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, pansexual or straight.. I don’t care if you are intersex or transgendered or a-gendered because I know that is the smallest piece of the picture when it comes to love..
All we are asking is for the same Access and Equality as the rest of the population.. cos just like the rest of the population we are your teachers, doctors, lawyers, police officers, youth workers, dentists, paramedics.
It’s funny that it’s ok for us to be part of the collective society when we are working, paying taxes and being strong members of our community.. but when we say we want a piece of the mainstream we cop shit from most likely a small, but very vocal portion of society that relate sexuality to beastiality, rock spiders and satan.
Don’t stay neutral even if you’re straight. This could strongly affect other people in your life your children,neices, nephews, grand children and friends.
I will say at the end of this as I previously stated.. it is a SMALL but very VOCAL part of society that is makes equality feel impossible.
With crazy comments like these being promulgated by the anti gay sector, we’re laughing all the way to the altar!
Honestly… if those opposing marriage equality are serious about upholding the “sanctity of marriage”, then surely their first port of call should be banning divorce?
“Slippery slope” arguments offered by opponents of marriage equality are the last resort of those bereft of any empirical evidence in support of their case. Has the granting of the vote to women led to our granting it to cats, dogs and hamsters? Has legislation penalising the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals led to prosecutions for swatting flies? Fortunately, in spite of our cognitive limitations, rational civilised human beings are quite good at steering between Scilla and Charybdis. It is ironical that “slippery slope” arguments have an uncanny knack of making an appearance when some traditional and indefensibly privileged status is threatened.
This is terrible. The ‘slippery slope’ argument does not even apply unless a majority approve the idea every step of the way. Please, do you really think that a majority of Australians would allow pedophilia to be legalised? Bestiality? Really?
As for gay marriage somehow supporting the damaging homosexual lifestyle, it actually does the opposite! By promoting monogamous relationships it encourages gays to move away from the implied dangers of sleeping around. I assume that was what she meant.
How hard is it to accept that marriage already has very little to do with religion, and more to do with a commitment between two people that love eachother? How could it possibly be detrimental to encourage more commitment and responsibility and interdependence?
I support gay marriage because it’s pro-family. Denying the legal protection afforded by marriage to children of gay families leaves them prone to poverty, emotional instability and disadvantage. By allowing gay families the stability of legal recognition doesn’t impact on other families, it doesn’t ‘threaten’ heterosexual families or weaken them. You can’t catch gay, you can’t wander into it because other people around you are gay or you’ve watched gay people on television. We’re born gay, and I can tell you that because God knows no-one would chose this level of inequality.
I support gay marriage because it’s not the first step to allowing a man to marry his dog, his child or 400 other people. Marriage is between two consenting adults, and to suggest that bestiality would follow is not only archaic, juvenile, dramatic and offensive but illogical. It’s like saying that allowing women the right to vote would be the first step in allowing our pets to vote. That doesn’t make sense, does it? It’s like saying allowing women the vote would allow children to vote. It’s like saying allowing women the vote would allow people to vote four or five times. It just doesn’t make sense.
I support gay marriage because it’s about love, not just sex. Promiscuous is a word thrown at gay people by those who are against them, and yet when gay people try to move into a stable, monogamous relationship they are blocked and derided at every turn. And the HIV/AIDs argument? I can’t even deign to respond to that.
The most important questions to ask yourself are how you would feel if you couldn’t marry your wife or husband, the person you love. How would you feel if you woke up every morning knowing that your family was at the mercy of a politician’s whim? How would you feel if someone said heterosexual marriage wasn’t ok?
I support gay marriage because it’s right.
I am appalled to read the dreadful statements against gay people cited above at the top of this page. I am unhappy that I am not given the right to marry legally at this point in time but devastated that I am not even deemed capable of more than child-molestation, animal perversion, HIV AIDS contracting, family wrecking, by certain quite vocal groups out there in civilised Australia. How can they legally get away with such slander?
You do not have the right to judge another person. I live by all the same road-rules, laws, taxation legislation, cultural norms as everyone else. Only my sexuality may be different from the majority but I am not ‘in to’ kids or animals or multiple partners. What I do in the privacy of my own bedroom with my ‘wife’ is no one’s business but my own and hers and I assure you, it’s not nearly as colorful or deviant as some might make out. Love just doesn’t get better than ours because there’s nothing crude about it.
I want the right to marry, and as all the other areas of life include me, such as centrelink or taxation rules and conditions which apply to me, this should be my right to decide who I choose to legally marry. At nearly 50 years of age, I believe I am capable of making morally sound decisions for myself, and should not need any religious nut out there to preach to me about rights and responsibilities. God didn’t go on holiday and leave you in charge of my soul, thank you.
My wife and I have five children between us, from previous marriages (to men) so neither of us are men haters, we just knew that we were good people trying to fit in with regular hetero-sexual society, denying ourselves of real love for the benefit of the majority. Both of us have kids and none of them, nor our parents and siblings cast us in the fires of hell for falling in love with each other so I am rather scornful of those who don’t even know us doing exactly that. I know I will look kinda old and maybe wrinkled by the time we get to say “I do!” properly but I would rather emigrate to other parts of the world than give up my dream to marry the one woman I love.
Come on Australia, you know you can do better than these discriminatory laws that have nothing to do with religious fear-mongering and everything to do with equality – I am equal to the next person no more nor less important!