Polygamy claim ‘not relevant’

Polygamy claim ‘not relevant’

Marriage equality advocates are still hopeful the Marriage Amendment Bill Inquiry report, to be handed down next week,  will be favourable, despite opponents’ claims the Bill would lead to polygamy.
Australian Marriage Equality (AME) spokesman Rodney Croome told Sydney Star Observer the inquiry was not just a numbers game.
“It’s not about numbers. Ultimately it’s about the quality of submissions and the quality of submissions that went into this inquiry was very high,” Croome said.
A public hearing — which included church groups, human rights experts and grassroots marriage equality organisations — fleshed out several potential stumbling blocks in the Bill’s terms of definition including use of the word ‘sexuality’ over ‘sexual orientation’.
Claims by Liberal senator Guy Barnett the Bill could legalise polygamy were refuted by representatives from AME and the Australian Coalition for Equality (ACE).
“We support the two principles [marriage] being between two people over the age of 18 to the exclusion of all others,” ACE spokesman Corey Irlam told the inquiry.
“We do not believe that same-sex marriage will move towards polygamy and we do not feel it is something that is really relevant.”
But Australian Christian Lobby director Rob Ward told Sydney Star Observer he disagreed.
“The current [Marriage Act] wording … includes the expectation that it’s to the exclusion of all others and for life. The new Bill doesn’t include that, so by default the assumption must be that those people promoting gay marriage do not believe in exclusivity and do not believe in longevity,” Ward said.

Ward said ACL did not support the Australian Capital Territory’s move to allow civil ceremonies for same-sex couples.
“We’ve supported the Government’s moves to change laws that were in some sense unfairly discriminating against homosexual couples … but we still feel quite strongly marriage is a separate issue and needs to be treated in a different way,” he said.
The Bill — introduced by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young — defines marriage as the union between “two people”, however, it removes “to the exclusion of all others”.
Monash University Castan Centre for Human Rights Law deputy director Dr Paula Gerber told the inquiry Australia had international obligations to uphold the principle of non-discrimination by allowing same-sex marriage.
“If you take a step back from the emotive arguments and extreme positions and look at this issue through the lens of human rights law, I think the action that Parliament should take on this issue becomes clear,” Gerber said.
“In July this year Albania, a predominantly Muslim country, announced through its Prime Minister that it would be legalising same-sex marriage.
“If countries, steeped deeply in religion as they are, can legalise same-sex marriage then surely Australia, a secular country that prides itself on separation of church and state, can take similar action in the name of equality and human rights for all.”

You May Also Like

14 responses to “Polygamy claim ‘not relevant’”

  1. Any progress to reduce discrimination with respect to marriage must include the legalisation of polygamy. If the gay and lesbian community wishes to promote the legalisation of gay marriage, they must do so bearing in mind that ALL forms of marriage discrimination must be addressed. Otherwise, any efforts will be seen to be hypocrytical and self serving.

  2. Interesting language Milly!

    Quoting you, in your use of “they and their” in your second sentence, it is assumed you mean the gay and lesbian community? I understand from the tone of your comments that you feel very threatened by the potential change in the definition of marriage, its a shame that you feel that way. Milly, surely by definition those that represent the minority [i.e. using your terms “they and theirs” (or the gay and lesbian community)] should be extended the same curtiousy and protection that families are extended….

  3. Marriage is an ancient god-given institution based on the bonding of a man and women. This social experiment of same-sex marriage will fail, and if they have their legal unions it should not be called “marriage”. Why change definitions or an institution as old as the human race? It is not about excluding rights, but protecting the definition of marriage as the core of families and society. Where will it end? Polygamy is the next “diversity” of marriage, and all sorts of combinations. Families need protection, and marriage should stay as it is!

  4. The braodest and most common definition of the word marriage as it appears in every dictionary is defined as : “The union of two parts”. That’s what the word means! It does not mean exclusively the union of a man, or a woman,but rather any two parts.
    Now some will say well that allows for a man and dog to get married. Yeah, if a dog had rights?

    But seriously though . . . the bigger issue is one of rights; and sadly we don’t have any rights (gay or straight). SO I ask you, which comes first, our human rights, or the right to marry a member o the same sex?.

    I’d argue that all human beings have the right to be treated equal before the law, and as for the right to marry a dog? I’d say, laws about marriage pertain to human beings not farm animals. Only a Catholic would dream up such a twisted idea!

  5. I agree with Chris – were is the sorry from Mr. Rudd on all the gay men who were in the past thrown in jail for the “crime of buggery” or “gross indecency” as written in the law back in the past (as recent as 1997)?????????? Those dumb and stupid “sodomy laws” are still in practice in 80 countries across the world even today – so Mr. Rudd were is our apology?????

  6. The Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 is very clear on monogamy:

    Omit – “a union between a man and a woman”

    Replace with – “any two (2) adult persons”

    “Monogamy” for those of you who do not know means (1) a pair of 2 humans together or a pair of 2 animals together; (2) having only one partner in a lifetime.

    “Serial monogamy” [means the same thing as above] but; (1) having more than 1 partner in a lifetime.

  7. We do not have equal rights.END OF STORY.The G+L politicians in the Labour and Liberal parties should be ashamed of themselves END OF STORY.Australia is backward and conservative END OF STORY So much for the biggest greatest Mardi Gras in the world.WHAT a joke !Its is so pathetic that G+L marriage laws have not been passed,like 10 years ago.What a DISGRACE to the world we are!

  8. The standard of politician we have on the conservative side of politics is abysmal. What Guy barnett aserts about the amendments legalising polygamy is either symptomatic of stupidity, or a tendancy to lie. The Australian Christian Lobby is the same. Neither has legal qualifications to comment. The Marriage Act makes it abundantly clear that polygamy is an offence, and entering into a marriage whan already married is null and void. But that’s the tactic you get from the conservative side of politics – send in someone dumb and expendable to spread hate fuelled propaganda that is factually wrong, and distract from the reasoned arguments. They do it consistently.

  9. Andrew Bolt, a Herald-Sun journalist has been running around saying this where ever he can. It is a stupid idea with no factual base. The other people arguing against Gay Marriage are the Australian Catholic Church that has a shocking history of abusing people. Its leader is a former Hitler Youth who’s group delighted in the murder and killing of people like us, and people who were Jewish or had a disability. He has said recently Catholics have to fight Climate Change and homosexuality.

    These people need to be held to account, along with our Happy Clapper Prime Minister who, apart from funding and supporting Christian Hate Groups, has stacked the Hearings with representatives of the Catholic Church, The Australian Christian Lobby, and other Hate groups. Kevin Rudd made sure hardly anyone from our community was allowed to say anything despite the massive majority of people who support and end to the discrimination against us, being well documented in the submissions.

    I call on our Prime Minister and Federal Labor to have a Sorry Day for all the suffering they have caused us.

  10. Albania is not a country steeped deeply in religion, as there is more than one religion present in Albania. It is a secular country where religions are separated from the government.