Marriage Equality Bill Speech

Marriage Equality Bill Speech
byTammy Franks (SA Greens)

 This is my second reading speech on the Marriage Equality Bill, delivered yesterday in the Legislative Council:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:05):  Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to provide for marriage between adults of the same sex. Read a first time.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:07):  I move:
                That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise today to put before this place a bill for marriage equality for South Australian adult consenting couples of the same sex. As we would be aware, the Marriage Act is a federal act in Australia, and it is not typical that we discuss matters related to marriage in this place in terms of the legislation and protections and rights to our citizens in South Australia specifically. However, we do so because of the situation that has presented itself before us at a federal level.

            I am proud to stand here as a Greens member moving this bill. I am just as proud to be fully in support of the federal bill that Greens senator, Sarah Hanson-Young, has moved for marriage equality in the federal parliament to beat us to the punch, should that occur. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has worked on this issue tirelessly for many years, but she is certainly not alone in that. Of course we saw in the federal parliament the issue of same-sex marriage first canvassed under prime minister John Howard.

            We saw rushed moves through that federal parliament to ban same-sex marriages as couples began to marry overseas and come back to Australia and sought to have that status recognised here in this country. At the time, then Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja of the Democrats first moved a bill to establish marriage equality for same-sex couples in this country. That bill was never debated before the federal parliament, but I am pleased to see that Sarah Hanson-Young has continued that work.

            We have also seen thousands of people in the streets supporting the concept of marriage equality in legislation in South Australia. In fact, last year was earmarked as the Year for Marriage Equality. We saw many thousands of people on the streets in Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart and Adelaide, and we certainly saw them in force at the ALP state conference late last year. I am pleased to note that at that ALP state conference we also saw a motion from the Labor Party, with its internal party structures in support of same-sex marriage, so I hope that that would see some sea change within that party.

            We also know that those rallies and that that particular motion of the state ALP party here in South Australia reflect community attitudes.

Community attitudes on this issue have been changing. Increasingly, they have been changing in support of acceptance of same-sex marriage. That is in Australia, of course, and we see that over 60 per cent of Australians in fact do believe that same-sex consenting adults should be able to marry each other if that is what they wish, but also around the world we have seen attitudes to this changing because couples were marrying overseas and sought to have that relationship recognised.

            We are often told by the nay-sayers and the scaremongers on this issue of same-sex marriage equality that the sky might fall in and that the state will grind to a halt should we accept such a thing. I would note that the Netherlands has had same-sex marriage since 2001; in Belgium, since 2003; in Canada, since 2003-05; in Spain, 2005; South Africa, 2006; Norway, 2009; Sweden, 2009; Mexico City and Mexico, since last year, 2010; and Portugal, Iceland and Argentina also since 2010.

            In California, it was the law between 2007 and 2008 before it was repealed. Iowa, Vermont and Washington have had this law since 2009, and in New Hampshire in the US, since 2010. The sky has not fallen in any of these places. They have continued to function; they have continued to be just as prosperous or to have such a lack of prosperity as they did before or after this bill was introduced. However, they have given citizens who wish to marry each other and are of the same sex the ability to do so, and so I think they are brighter places.

            There are places where same-sex marriages are recognised but not performed. These include: Israel, which has had that recognition since 2006; Rhode Island in the United States, since 2007; New York since 2008; and Mexico since 2010. California had that recognition for the year 2007-08; Maryland in the US since 2010; and, most notably, Tasmania since 2010. I am proud to say that that was also a Greens-instigated bill that now recognises marriages that are conducted in other jurisdictions by same-sex couples to be marriages in Tasmania. In Finland, Slovenia and many other places around the world, we are seeing the march towards equality, also. We are seeing same-sex couples being recognised in the laws.

            Same-sex partners will not have legal equality under the Marriage Act until it is amended to make sure that they have the same recognition as opposite-sex couples. Until this happens, they will face practical legal problems because they are not able to marry. In the absence of a marriage certificate, they can have problems proving their legal entitlements. This can be a problem in medical emergencies and where a partner has a decision-making role for the other. I would draw members' attention to a story of one particular person who had married her partner overseas. This is Julianne Clark's story:
                I married my partner of the same-sex overseas in 2006. But the moment I stepped back onto Australian soil, my marriage was not recognised. My partner was hospitalised in 2007 and I was informed I had no more rights than a friend, hence I was only allowed in during visiting hours.

That might seem trifling to some people, but when a loved one is sick and when they are your wife or husband, of course you want to be able to visit them at whatever hours, and hospital policies (as we know) change the rules for those who are in a marriage. That right should have been afforded to that particular couple in that case. It is a tragedy that it was not.

            There is no substitute for marriage. I often hear people say, 'Why can't people have civil unions? Surely that should be good enough.' Beth Robinson, the US activist, has summed it up best: 'Nobody writes songs about civil unions.' When you want to introduce your partner or your son-in-law or daughter-in-law, you do not say, 'Here is my civil union partner.' It does not quite have the same ring to it. You do not dream, when you are a child, of growing up one day and 'civil unioning' the one that you find to be your one true love.

I have not ever seen in the fairytale books the idea of the prince and the princess 'civil unioning' and living happily ever after.

            Studies in Britain and the US have shown that, where there are alternative forms of relationship recognition—and these are often called things like civil unions, civil partnerships, registered relationships, domestic partnerships—they are no substitute for marriage equality. They do not have the same level of recognition as marriage, are misunderstood and considered the gay option, perhaps, or dismissed as second-best.

            This means the legal rights of those couples in those unions are sometimes not respected. In the absence of marriage equality, other schemes for recognising same-sex relationships effectively label these relationships as lesser or different, and they reinforce the second-class status marriage equality is just designed to overcome. We know that we have a sad history in this country of discrimination against those people who are same-sex attracted.

            I am very proud that, in South Australia, we were, in fact, leaders in the decriminalisation of homosexuality—I was going to say homosexual activity, which is what they used to term it as—but homosexuality. I am very proud of that history that we have here in South Australia, and I would be just as proud to see us lead the way in seeing marriage equality here in South Australia as well.

            I think that there are a few furphies out there that get raised around the equal love and marriage equality debate. The first is that same-sex couples already have enough rights. We have seen a lot at the federal level where the Labor government, to its credit, has come a long way in a very short time just recently in recognising same-sex couples, whether that be through our welfare system with superannuation and with entitlements and so on, and I welcome that, but I say it has not gone far enough.

            Same-sex de facto couples have trouble proving these rights when challenged, and the rights of partners in civil unions or in de facto relationships are often not widely understood or respected. Only marriage equality will provide same-sex couples with their full legal equality and full recognition of their spousal rights.

            We also hear the furphy that marriage will be demeaned. There is no evidence that heterosexual marriages suffer or that marriage is held in lower esteem in countries where those same-sex couples have been allowed to marry. I would also point to Elizabeth Taylor's many, many marriages or Britney Spears' very short marriage, and note that they have not demeaned the institution of marriage.

            The same argument used to be made against interracial couples being allowed to marry and, of course, I do not think that anyone would contend in this day and age that interracial couples should not be allowed to marry, and certainly those couples do not demean marriage.

            We also hear that it will be a slippery slope, that it will open the gate for human and animal marriages, or human and inanimate object marriages. I have had some correspondence on this recently where I have been asked why I am standing up for homosexual couples when I am not standing up for incest, or I am not standing up for the rights of people to marry their pets, or a whole range of quite abhorrent suggestions. I would say to those people that it simply proves their homophobia. I think that that sort of argument demeans the institution of marriage.

            We have also heard that marriage is unchanging. Marriage laws once used to prohibit divorce. They made wives the property of their husbands and they banned interracial unions. This, of course, has quite rightly changed to ensure greater equality. Marriage equality for same-sex partners will actually make marriage more relevant to a society increasingly accepting of homosexuality.

            Same-sex relationships, we are told, are very short lived but, in countries that allow same-sex marriages, divorce rates are the same for opposite and same-sex couples—no better and no worse—and certainly those are words that we hear a lot with regards to marriage. Large-scale studies of same-sex couples show that their relationships are of just the same quality and the same duration as other couples. As I say, no better and no worse, and certainly just as diverse.

            We also hear that there is a problem with religion and marriage, because marriage is seen to be a religious institution. I would point to the fact that in Australian law there has always been a clear distinction between civil and religious marriages, and today two-thirds of Australian marriages performed by civil celebrants and not in churches.
This distinction is why the law allows marriages between people of different faiths or of no faith, it is why the law allows divorce, although some Christian teachings condemn it, and why polygamy and child betrothal is not allowed, even though they are common in the Old Testament.

            Denominations such as the Quakers and individual celebrants of other faiths already marry same-sex couples. In fact, I was most touched by one of the 27,000 submissions to this bill in the federal parliament from an ACT-based church, which had two members of its congregation who were dearly loved and who wanted to marry. That church contended that its freedom of religion was being violated because it was unable to marry those two members of its congregation and that it would dearly love to. Anyone who has been to any of the marriage equality rallies here in South Australia would know that we have quite a few similar cases within the Uniting Church and other churches in this state.

            Why would same-sex couples want to marry? I point out that this is not going to force any same-sex couples who do not want to marry to marry. So, when the argument is put to me, 'I know a same-sex couple and they don't want to get married', they do not have to and nobody is going to make them, but for those who want to it should be an option that is open to them. They will decide to marry for all the same reasons that other couples marry, perhaps not for a Green Card, but we will see—not that that applies here in Australia—but for a Visa, for legal security, to publicly celebrate their commitment, to provide greater legal protections for their children or simply because they are in love.

            Marriage remains the most important way that we celebrate love and commitment in our society. Terms such as 'husband' and 'wife' are universally recognised as connoting love, commitment and a shared life together. When same-sex partners are told that they cannot share in such an important and universal institution, they are effectively being told that their love and commitment is of a different and lesser quality. This is not true. Same-sex partners love each other and make sacrifices for each other in the same way that all partners do and it is time for our laws in South Australia, and Australia, to acknowledge this.

            Globally where same-sex marriages have been allowed: the statistics that I read out of other countries that have so far enabled same-sex marriages, those are growing very quickly and, in fact, I am sure that they will be joined by some more soon. Economically, we have seen some really significant issues emerge where marriage, according to The Economist magazine, remains an economic bulwark. Single people are actually economically vulnerable and much more likely to fall into the arms of the welfare state. For those readers of Ayn Rand, you perhaps might like to refer to that argument in support of marriage equality. Furthermore, those who are not married call sooner upon public support when they need care. Married people, the statistics show, are not only happier, they are often healthier.

            It has been estimated that if 55 per cent of Australian same-sex couples who wish to marry spent the national average on their wedding, that would be $7 billion injected into the Australian economy. I would point out that the Sunday Mail raised this issue quite early on in the piece. Should South Australia lead the way in this that would be quite a chunk of that $7 billion coming towards South Australia's economy. Not that I think that is the main reason to do this, but it certainly would not hurt.

            Many private institutions and corporations, such as the Commonwealth Bank, the ANZ, Westpac, St George, IBM, Qantas, ING and Seek have all come out in support of same-sex marriage and certainly support their employees who are in same-sex relationships.

            At this point I would note that, as I mentioned before, we are seeing a marriage bill before us which would normally be a consideration of the federal parliament, but given the blockages presented at the federal level we are in fact not only seeing marriage equality bills presented in South Australia, but we are seeing them in Tasmania, we will see them in New South Wales and we are seeing them in Victoria. These have all, of course, had some input by the Greens but also other members.

I note that I am on record as being joined as a co-sponsor of this bill by the Hon. Ian Hunter of the Labor Party. I also note that, in Western Australia, we are seeing moves by the National Party towards marriage equality, although at a civil union level to start with.

            We have seen people come out on this issue from all sides of politics—the Greens, of course, Liberals, Labor, the Nationals and Independents. The reason for this is that it is not a party political issue; clearly, it is a deeply personal issue for many, many people. I think the logic of it actually transcends our party politics, and I certainly hope that is the case when we are considering the issue in this debate.

            The reason we are seeing the issue raised at a state level is largely due to some formal opinion, provided to the Tasmanian Greens initially, on the constitutionality of this move, from Professor George Williams, a constitutional law expert from the University of New South Wales. I am happy to circulate this legal advice to members. In summary, at a federal level we have seen moves to discriminate against a certain category of people, being consenting adult couples of the same sex, by preventing them from being able to marry, and that, in fact, has opened up the door for states to legislate in this area to address that discrimination, and I hope we take up that baton.

            Another person who I think would be cheering us on (and I would draw the particular attention of Labor members of the parliament to this but, as I have said, this is an across-party issue) is Bill Hayden, who writes in support of marriage equality, as follows:
                Yes, homosexual love is now tolerated by the law, but not marriage. There is a 'relationship certificate' available for them in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT, the short end of the leash, civil partnerships. These offer some protections but do not pass muster as real equality for gays which requires the provision of marriage rights.

                If an Australian same-sex couple go, say, to Canada they can get a marriage certificate which is universally recognised and understood as symbolising the solemn commitment between two people.

                The Labor Party had the chance to do something meaningful on this at its last national conference but squibbed it. Has it lost the belly fire for the big challenges of major progressive reform and the enshrinement of basic liberties for which I have so long admired it?

                It is not as if Labor is uncaring. In 2008 it did remove discrimination against same-sex couples in some 85 laws. But it is the big one, full recognition of gay people's marriage rights, which will really establish the depth of Labor's commitment to the principle of people's entitlement to be different but still fully valued law-abiding members of our society.

That is Bill Hayden AC, former Governor-General and, of course, as we know, former leader of the federal Labor Party. I would hope that, as the Labor Party gears up for its next national conference, this issue will be fully and firmly on the table. I dearly hope that it follows the lead of the South Australian Labor Party in moving towards acceptance of marriage equality but, more than simply accepting it in theory, I hope it would be working hard to make it a reality.

            As I have mentioned, I look forward to working with the Hon. Ian Hunter on this bill, but I would also welcome any other members of this chamber or the other place supporting us in raising this incredibly important issue and getting it to the forefront. People have waited long enough for equality.

            When I was listening to the Social Development Committee the other day, one of the most poignant statements I heard was that, where discrimination continues to exist, it is all very well to say that we have a problem with homophobic bullying in our schools or in other places in our society but, if we as a legislature are endorsing a difference and lacking in that acceptance of the diversity and not ascribing equal rights to all of the members of our community, we are perpetuating that bullying and that homophobia by simply not doing enough to stop it.

            Showing leadership at the top levels will, of course, be the way that we can address that discrimination. I would like to sum up with some personal reflections on how I think marriage is more important than a civil union. As I have said before, you certainly do not dream of growing up one day and 'civil unioning' your long-awaited partner.
 
Should I have a child who were gay, I hope that one day, if that child fell in love and wanted to marry, I would be able to call somebody my son-in-law or my daughter-in-law, certainly not my son or daughter's civil union partner.

            I believe marriage is not just about the two people who make that commitment to each other; it is also about creating family, and family, of course, is the basic building block of our society and a strong community. When you deny people the right to be sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers, then you deny far more than simply two people who love each other being able to make that commitment in public. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

            The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:30):  I move:
                That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the bill to pass through its remaining stages without delay.
            Motion carried.