2015-06-09
Paul Bladon
I happen to be heterosexual. However, disclosing that should be irrelevant — the issue is whether Australia should be a discriminatory society, a society within which I enjoy a better quality of life because of the gender of the person that I love.
Why should we, as a society, care? Is marriage just a word? Of course there are many examples of why we should care, so I will not list them all here. The Australian Human Rights Commission has a relatively comprehensive list and stories of discrimination — however I will draw your attention to two examples in particular from the 2007 Commission:
- Example 1: A woman denied the right to farewell her dying partner in hospital because she could not answer the hospital staff with the word “spouse”. She could not sit with her partner at the end of her life. Her partner died alone, and she was outside in the corridor. Unsurprisingly, she continues to suffer great distress that her life-time partner died without her comfort and without knowing she was there with her. If that were me, I would be absolutely beside myself with grief.
- Example 2: A woman was hospitalised and, although her partner was allowed to ride in the ambulance with her and stay with her while she received treatment, when consent for further treatment was required the hospital could not legally accept her partner's consent to treat her as should could not answer with the word “spouse”. If a patient is unable to provide consent it means she was unresponsive, so her condition must have been serious. So precious time was lost as the hospital tried to track down her sister. The Commission does not share further details of the case, but this discrimination could have very well have endangered that woman's life, and caused serious distress for her partner unable to help her.
So this discrimination manifests in society as daily annoyances and up to wanton cruelty. We should care.
Clearly, marriage equality is not just a nicety. I, and many others in society, have been waking up to this for a while now. Ultimately marriage is not just a word; it means that a large percentage of our population are not experiencing an equal quality of life.
From what I can tell, Australia does not have marriage equality purely because we as a species are historically afraid of what is different, whether it is a difference in race, religion, gender, skin colour, hair colour, or sexuality. When I mention hair colour, I am not being flippant: there was a period in history when people with red hair were burned alive, first by the Egyptians, and then during the Spanish Inquisition — red hair was evidence that its owner had stolen the fire of hell and had to be burned as a witch. I have red hair, which should affect things as much as my heterosexuality. I no longer need to be afraid of being burned simply due to my hair colour, however I am leading a privileged life (I have been happily married for 6 years) simply due to my sexuality. The fact that such an imbalance still exists in society based on an arbitrary metric of what defines a person is outrageous.
From a Constitutional perspective, when our society decided to become secular and separate church and state, marriage became a civil right, not a religious privilege. This has been the case since the Constitution of Australia became law in 1900:
Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Therefore, I can go down to the state office of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registry, be witnessed by a civil celebrant, and the church would have absolutely nothing to do with my marriage. As a taxpayer I have access to regular state functions such as getting married. It is a fundamental civil right, which is as it should be, as it bestows important civil rights. Human rights.
The principle of equality before the law as set out in Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that:
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has been very clear that this principle includes GLBTI people. Because they are people.
Therefore, if the only remaining argument against maintaining this discrimination in Australian society is a religious one, then:
- are we not a secular society? If so, then this should not be a religious debate in the first place. If we are, in fact, not a secular society then I refer to my second point;
- are we not a multicultural society? If so, then why should one religion in particular — Christianity — have ruling sway in public policy? What about the voices from those in Australia's population of different religions, or of no religion?
I believe we are both a secular and multicultural society. After all, these are two significant reasons why Australia is such a sought after place in the world to live.
In 2013, the Federal Government used Commonwealth law in the High Court to squash the legalisation of marriage equality in the ACT. Marriage equality now exists in New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, as well as the United Kingdom itself; the very seat of the Commonwealth. I'm sure the Federal Government involved a lot of legalese when it used the High Court in 2013, however from the point of view of the average Australian, Commonwealth law seems to point towards affirming marriage equality, not preventing it. Regardless, it is clear that Australia now lags behind the developed (and much of the developing) world on this issue. We missed the chance to be a leader in the pursuit of equality; we are now just waiting to follow the precedent set by all other countries ahead of us.
So far I have addressed this issue from a perspective of secularism, multiculturalism, and civil rights. However, even more fundamental is the basic human dignity we are denying our fellow citizens. Couples who have spent their lives together, worked, loved, raised children, and died together, and our culture insists on recognising their relationship as only 'boyfriends', 'girlfriends' or 'partners'. Clearly what society labels a relationship does not materially change the relationship itself, however for couples who wish to be recognised as married, both legally and societally, we as a culture debase ourselves the longer we ignore them.
Fundamentally, equal rights should not be this difficult for Australia to embrace; we are not talking about uprooting the fabric of society, we are simply talking about equal access to rights that already exist for heterosexual people. Is it so hard to see each other neither as man and woman, gay and straight, but as people?
If marriage equality is legalised:
- The lives of heterosexual people will be made better by living in a society of equality, not a society of discrimination.
- The lives of homosexual people will be made better by virtue of being equal.
So, whether marriage equality is viewed from a purely legal perspective, or from an empathic perspective, the equation makes sense. Indeed, the equation has already been proven by many other countries.
School children are often intolerant. If a fellow student is different in some minor way, in the colour of their skin or hair, or the way they speak or eat, they can become victims of hateful tormenting. Of course, not all young people are cruel or heartless, but no one likes to be unpopular, so many of them still join in, until they hardly recognise themselves. We see it often in the teasing and bullying in the school yard. Unfortunately, many adults do not behave any better. However, if we want our society to be more than just a macrocosm of the school yard, we must be better.
Finally, Australia has free speech. This is a fundamental freedom and allows citizens, if they wish, to hold bigoted opinions about other citizens that are different to themselves. So, individuals can be bigoted as they may. However, would it not be better for everybody, if our government were not?