HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-05-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARRIAGE EQUALITY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 March 2012.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (17:40): I rise today to speak in support of Tammy Franks' Marriage Equality Bill, and in so doing there are three areas that I propose to discuss: the first issue is what marriage means to me; the second issue is the equity and equality between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples; and the third issue is that of religion and its relationship with the issue of same-sex marriage. I am a heterosexual male and have been married to my wife Glenys for over 36 years. Our marriage has been a most wonderful and fulfilling partnership.

Glenys and I were married in 1975, which was around the same time that no-fault divorce came into being in this country. I raise this because at the time the changes in divorce law were seen by some as a threat to the institution of marriage. It was a time when society was moving away from the idea where wives were considered the property of their husbands. We have, thankfully, moved on from that notion, and I note that this change occurred nearly four decades ago and, in the time that has passed since, the sky has not caved in, nor has society collapsed.

I actually saw the changes in those laws as strengthening marriage, and that one should never and could no longer take their marriage for granted. I see marriage as a commitment between two people to love, support and nurture each other, and I certainly do not see same-sex marriage as a threat to my own marriage, nor will it devalue the relationship I have with my wife. I see the recognition of same-sex marriage as a step within our society which moves away from seeing homosexuals as deviants and people to be feared, which they should certainly not.

To the issue of equality: I say that if we hold to the view that homosexuality is not deviant behaviour but that some people are biologically attracted to members of the same sex, just as other members of society are attracted to the opposite sex, then why did does the law discriminate against these people? My only conclusion is that it must be the result of the insecurity of a few. Same-sex couples who seek marriage wish it for the same reason as heterosexual couples, that is, legal security for themselves, their partner and children and to publicly acknowledge their commitment and love for each other.

It is a reality that marriage provides couples with immediate access to certain entitlements under law. This is not necessarily the case for de facto couples, who must live together for a period of time before those same legal rights are conferred upon them. Prima facie, a marriage certificate allows a couple to prove their legal rights, which can be particularly important, for example, in the case of an emergency situation. Marriage is an institution in which legal rights are defined and recognised, whilst rights under a de facto relationship differ between jurisdictions, even in Australia.

The commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 clearly discriminates against same-sex couples. In fact, the definition of marriage in this act was amended by John Howard's government in 2004 by virtue of the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004, which heightened the discrimination even further. The federal parliament then defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman and that any existing same-sex marriages from a foreign country were not to be recognised as marriage in Australia.

The discrimination that now applies as a result of the definition of marriage under federal law is similar to the discrimination once applied to Aboriginals, who were prevented from marrying the person they wished. In the case of South Australia, Aboriginals needed the approval of the chief protector of Aborigines under the Aborigines Act 1911. The Marriage Act is the only remaining federal law that discriminates against same-sex couples. This sends a clear message that it is okay to discriminate against homosexuals in our society—which it is not.

In 1972, as a result of the murder of Dr George Duncan, South Australia introduced a 'consenting adults in private' type of legal defence into our law. In 1975, South Australia became the first Australian state or territory to legalise sexual conduct between males. That was nearly 40 years ago. Marriage is considered an important legal and social institution which, in my view, should be available to same-sex couples. It is true that marriage equality will not remove all the prejudices held by some against homosexuals in our society, but it will certainly go a long way towards minimising such prejudices, and it will remove any argument that it is okay to discriminate against an individual because the law itself discriminates.

It is a preposterous idea that anyone should try to justify opposition to same-sex marriage on the basis that laws in Australia have already been introduced to increase the rights of homosexuals. To say that because homosexuals have been granted more rights under the law than they previously had, they should not be entitled to further rights to mark them as equal to their heterosexual counterparts, is ridiculous. Society should not accept a compromise solution, nor a second-best effort where we can tell homosexuals that they should be thankful that they are not still living in an era where sexual acts between consenting same-sex persons are illegal.

Instead, society should be striving for more: it should be striving for a new era when homosexuals are treated as equal under every law in this land. Allowing same-sex couples to marry will strip away one of the last vestiges of legislated discrimination against homosexuals. It will allow gay people to participate in the universal and valued institution of marriage if they so desire. It will enhance same-sex couples' self-esteem and subsequently help to enhance their mental and physical wellbeing. In fact, Lee Badgett, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, has undertaken landmark research on same-sex marriage in the United States and the Netherlands. She states:

Overall, the experiences of same-sex couples in two countries, the United States and the Netherlands, suggest that same-sex couples...and their families are strengthened by a policy of marriage equality for same-sex couples.

There is also a growing body of research showing that married partners, including same-sex partners, are on average healthier, happier and live longer than their cohabiting peers or singles. According to the United States Centre for Disease Control, even the rates of heart disease, drug use and stress are lower amongst married partners.

The following places overseas allow same-sex couples to marry: the Netherlands, 2001; Belgium, 2003; Canada, provincially beginning in 2003 and nationally in 2005; Massachusetts, 2004; Spain, 2005; South Africa, 2006; Connecticut, 2008; Iowa, 2009; Vermont, 2009; New Hampshire 2009; Norway, 2009; Sweden, 2009; Mexico City, 2009; Argentina, 2010; the US District of Columbia, 2010; Portugal, 2010; Iceland, 2010; New York State, 2011; Washington DC, 2012; and Maryland, 2012. As you have heard, this list has grown rapidly in recent times.

I recently spoke to this house in support of the Hon. Ian Hunter's Assisted Reproductive Treatment (Equality of Access) Amendment Bill 2012, which I am pleased was passed only in the last session, and I read into Hansard a speech from the United States by Zach Wahls who was raised by two mothers. I urge anybody who has reservations about marriage equality and the ability of gay parents to raise a child into an outstanding young adult to search for this video on YouTube and view it for themselves. I am sure they will be truly impressed.

I would now like to touch on the issue of religion and same-sex marriage. Whilst I accept that many have strong views on same-sex marriage based on their religious beliefs and whilst I accept their right to hold such views, what I do not accept is that that view be enforced on the rest of society outside of their homes or their place of worship. My strong view is that there should be a separation of church and state.

Not all people hold religious beliefs, just as not all people hold religious beliefs that are against same-sex marriage. I have no issue with churches that, because of their beliefs, refuse to marry same-sex couples, but this should not preclude same-sex couples from getting married in a church that accepts same-sex marriage such as the Quakers or, for that matter, undertaking their marriage vows under a civil ceremony as many heterosexual couples do today.

I understand that the bill before us does not propose the French model of marriage ceremony, although I certainly believe this model has merit. Under the French model, as I understand it, state-sanctioned legal marriage is completely separated from its religious counterpart. To celebrate a religious marriage is a two-stage process. A couple would participate in a civil, legally-recognised marriage at the registry office, with a subsequent religious ceremony as an option at an institution of their choice.

In fact, I understand that my parents, who were married in the Netherlands over 60 years ago, actually undertook this process, and they received a legally-binding marriage certificate from the registry office before, at their choice, they were married in the local village church. Evidence suggests that there is strong support in Australia for same-sex marriage. In fact, a Galaxy poll conducted in 2009 showed that over 60 per cent of Australians are in favour of same-sex marriage, and I suspect that a survey today would show even higher levels of support for same-sex marriage.

Finally, I must be clear that I do have a personal interest in this matter. As you know, Mr President, I am the father of a gay daughter and, one day, just like any other father, I hope to be able to escort her down the aisle to marry the love of her life if, of course, she chooses to do that. This issue is clearly not just about homosexuals. It is also about their families and their friends, and in many cases they would like to see this inequality in our law rectified.

I look at my son Matthew, who is happily married to his lovely wife, Kelly. He sees the current law discriminating against his sister and would like to see her entitled to exercise the same right of marriage as he was entitled to. My wife holds a similar view, and it is difficult for my family to accept a law that promotes inequality firstly within our society, but also within the confines of our family.

As I said in my first speech in this place, I know the anguish that the current law that prohibits gay marriage causes, not only for Katie but also the rest of our tightly knit family, as it is as if in the eyes of the law she is a second class citizen—which she is certainly not.

It is time for our society to truly accept that homosexuality is a reality and that homosexual couples should be able to have their relationship, their commitment to each other and their love recognised under secular law in marriage, just as any other heterosexual couple can. As you can see, Mr President, the issue of same-sex marriage has a significant impact on my family as well as many other families in Australia, and as such it is no surprise that I fully support the Hon. Tammy Franks' bill without hesitation, and I urge other members to do likewise.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT