When the delegates at the ALP National Conference sat down on Saturday to discuss the issue of same-sex marriage, there’s one question that should have loomed large in their minds: “Which side of history do you want to be on?”

Gay marriage: more and more countries are saying I do.

Despite the result, same sex marriage is inevitable in Australia - and a quick analysis of two factors makes this blindingly obvious. The first is the international situation.  Seven countries have now introduced same-sex marriage, along will six states of the USA.  Just like so many other waves of social reform before it (giving women the vote, decriminalizing homosexuality, etc.) same-sex marriage will spread throughout the western, liberal democracies eventually reaching Australia.
 
The second factor that makes same-sex marriage inevitable is the demographics. 

A Galaxy poll in June showed that 60% of the Australian population now supports it.  This figure increases to 71% of people under 35 and 74% of people under 25.  With numbers like that, it doesn’t take a genius to see where we’re headed.

Of course, there might be some stepping stones along the way.  A possible compromise position is national civil unions.  This would be a parallel institution to civil marriage, set up to give same-sex couples all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, but without using the “m” word. 

Yet even if the ALP eventually decides to adopt such a policy, it will just be postponing the inevitable.  The groups that protested for marriage equality throughout Australia on Saturday will be back next year and every subsequent year until they get it.  The “m” word, that is.  For them, the issue is one of simple equality.  They want the same choice to marry that the rest of society has.  Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont all introduced civil unions first, before moving on to full marriage.  If Australia gets civil unions now, marriage will eventually follow.
 
Another reason why the same-sex marriage tide is unstoppable in Australia is that there is simply no rational argument against it.  If two people of the same sex get married, that takes nothing away from anyone else.  That couple is happy and no one else is affected in any way.  It is, as they say, a “no-brainer”.

And that is really the clincher for most people; same-sex marriage poses no threat to anyone.  Just take a look at what’s happened in countries that have had it for several years now.  Between two and three per cent of all marriages every year are between people of the same sex.  That’s it.  Two to three per cent.  And these are people who value the institution of marriage and enter into it freely and willingly and for all the same reasons as any opposite-sex couple would. 

So where’s the threat?  Obviously there is none.

To raise religious arguments against same-sex marriage misses the point.  We’re talking about civil marriage here; the secular institution regulated by the federal Marriage Act.  Religions also use the word “marriage” to describe their holy union, and most of the time the two ceremonies, civil and religious, take place together, which often causes a blurring of the two concepts in people’s minds.  But civil marriage and religious marriage are two completely separate institutions.

Some faiths perform religious same-sex marriages.  Some don’t.  The argument by certain religious groups that allowing civil marriage will somehow interfere with their freedom to practice religion is completely unfounded.  Civil same-sex marriage will have no effect at all on what religions are able to do.

Finally, to all those who think that allowing same-sex couples to marry somehow devalues the institution of marriage; it doesn’t.  Marriage remains the same legal institution with all the same rights and responsibilities attached.  Nothing changes except that a sector of the population that has traditionally been discriminated against is now allowed to marry. 

If certain people find that that devalues their own marriages, that is only in their minds.  And their subjective and irrational discomfort can hardly be a valid reason to deny a fundamental right to hundreds of thousands of people.

Society evolves.  Social attitudes change.  The issue of same-sex marriage is going to increasingly come to be seen as the “no-brainer” it is.  To future generations the prohibition on same-sex marriage will seem as unfathomable as the prohibition on interracial marriage seems today. 

Labor should recognise that the writing is on the wall and ask itself the question again -  which side do you want to be on?

Most commented

29 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      08:22am | 03/08/09

      When did “The Punch” become “The Gay Marriage Daily”?

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      08:36am | 03/08/09

      I agree that gay marriage is inevitable. Labor are probably worried about faction splits and offending the powerful christian lobby, plus the fact that the Prime Minister is a christian. The Greens might pick up a few votes from this debacle though.

    • Jeremy says:

      09:12am | 03/08/09

      Very well argued. And you’re completely right.

      The question for Labor is - if you can see that marriage equality is inevitable (and if you can’t, you have your heads in the sand) then why are you determined to make this generation of gay people suffer discrimination in the meantime?

    • Ben says:

      10:10am | 03/08/09

      The self righteousness of many arguing in favour of gay marriage has been astounding - so well done Tony for playing a ‘straight’ bat.
      I may have missed it amongst the frenzy of the uber cool and achingly compassionate middle class niceness brigade to assure all the gay couples in the universe that they like them, but if gay couple people who love each other and wish to commit to a life together were able to do so in a civil ceremony which was subsequently recognised by the law as legitmate and carrying with it all the legal rights to property, finances, govt entitlements etc and information on these rights was easily available from official sources - then why would they instead choose undergo a ceremony of a religious faith in a setting holy to that religious faith, in a form of worship which celebrates the beliefs of that faith which does not believe that a couple of same sex can ‘marry’ in their religious faith?
      All the people who say ‘marriage’ is not a religious instituion are simply wrong. If you want to get married in a church as thousands do or by a Minister of religion then its simply nuts to claim that marriage is not religious.
      If you want to commit to each other in a ceremony conducted by a civil celebrant then go for it but why expect that you should have a ‘right’ to be pariticpate in a ‘marriage’.
      Of course marriage pre-dates Christianity but so what? Marriage ceremonies which attach a spiritual significance to the proceedings have always existed universally between a man and a woman.
      Tony is right, the majority of decent human beings don’t have an issues with gay couples having the same rights under the law as anyone else - the question is why, if the rights under the law and information of the same were available would marriage be such as issue??

    • DWest says:

      10:37am | 03/08/09

      Isn’t this a Labor media smokescreen from the botched ‘green’ job creation press release and questions around massive debt issues?  Considering the unholy marriage of Rudd/Labor to large companies why should gay marriage be an issue? And when a fake christian Prime Minister and his party jumps into bed with anyone for cash, why should we care about Labors convenient media morals?

    • wattty says:

      10:47am | 03/08/09

      Why do gays have to get married ? Aren’t they happy in their current relationships?

      Why like many “straights” get married and spoil a good relationship

    • Sophie says:

      11:01am | 03/08/09

      So, what about heterosexual couples who are married by a civil celebrant? Do you consider them to be ‘offically married’, Ben? Following on from your bizarre logic I would assume not.
      I find it so amusing when people trumpet the religious argument when condemning same-sex matrimony, as if all the god-fearing christians out there have a patent on marriage and only they have the right to ‘love, honour and obey’.
      The reality is that same-sex marriage is inevitable, and people the world over will respond with a big, ‘What was all the fuss about?’ when it eventually does happen; it’s impact will be so negligible.
      Btw Ben, I think you meant ‘to be a participant in marriage’ not ‘pariticpate in a marriage’

    • billy says:

      11:08am | 03/08/09

      In the future, we’ll need to have two types of marriages so that all people are happy. One type will be a ‘state marriage” or contract for gays, atheists, and polygamists’ that lasts for as long as both parties want it to.

      The other will be a formal Christian marriage that’s a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman.

      This way Christians won’t have to consider gay marriage legitiment, but gay people can believe their married.

    • Bozo says:

      11:19am | 03/08/09

      Ben I think you should read the article again.  You seem to have missed the poinrt.

    • SimonP says:

      11:45am | 03/08/09

      Ben, you must’ve missed Tony’s point that religious marriage is SEPARATE TO and DIFFERENT FROM civil marriage. But, that’s okay - it must be difficult to read at all with those blinkers on! Tony specifically says: “We’re talking about civil marriage here; the secular institution regulated by the federal Marriage Act [...] civil marriage and religious marriage are two completely separate institutions.” So, the point is to change the LEGAL VERSION of marriage to include same-sex couples, NOT the religious version. Your hypothetical religious couple won’t be affected at all. As Sophie says, there are already many heterosexual couples who get only a civil marriage, and don’t step into any “setting holy to [a] religious faith”.

      Billy, I think we’ll need MORE than just two kinds of marriage… You’ve allowed for one version for “gays, atheists and polygamists”, and another one for Christians, but what about Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and all the other religious faiths? Where & how are they supposed to get married?
      Anyway, it doesn’t matter… you’ve really just restated the obvious in your post. Your comment that “In the future, we’ll need to have two types of marriages [...] One type will be a ‘state marriage’ [...] The other will be a formal [religious] marriage” is the situation which CURRENTLY EXISTS in Australia. So, you’ve predicted a sure thing!

      It’s great that everyone has different opinions about this issue – that’s the benefit of living in a liberal democracy. I just wish some of you were more educated about the situation: it would give your viewpoints a lot more credibility if you knew what you were talking about!

    • Tim says:

      11:45am | 03/08/09

      Tony,
      Your article does not provide any logic as to why there should be gay marriage but instead shows why the government should stay out of the marriage debate entirely.
      There should be a civil union bill in which all people gay, straight or whatever can sign a contract giving full legal status to their relationship.
      And then the couple can have whatever kind of ceremony they want after that .
      And the Galaxy poll you quote from was commisioned specifically to get the result it did. The questions were heavily loaded in favour of the result of gay marriage being acceptable. Most respectable polling has shown support rates in the range of 35-45% in the last few years. To claim majority support at this time would be wrong.

    • Gina says:

      11:50am | 03/08/09

      Billy likes apartheid?
      Gay people can believe they are married like Christians can believe there is a god?
      I think your state marriage might have a more observable existence than the man with the long white beard up above.

    • Olivia Pantelidis says:

      12:37pm | 03/08/09

      The issue is that Rudd made an election promise that he would not change the laws. Most people in the ALP agree it should be changed but will stick with the party and its election promise.
      People keep forgetting this is just about equal rights for every single human being on this earth. That is all. People continue to muddy the argument with their emotional views and beliefs but it is just about the fact that every single human on this earth deserves the same rights as the other. End of Story.

    • Kate Walton says:

      02:04pm | 03/08/09

      Olivia said, “The issue is that Rudd made an election promise that he would not change the laws.”

      That’s hardly a solid argument, though, is it? Politicians and Prime Ministers break their election promises all the time. This just happens to be one people wish Rudd would actually break.

    • Monty says:

      02:19pm | 03/08/09

      Rudd can’t agree to same sex marriage, he’s a christian. The bible says- Leviticus: “man who sleep with man will burn in hell for eternity”
      so how can he support same sex marriage?

    • iansand says:

      02:48pm | 03/08/09

      Giving same sex couples the right to marry is a courageous decision (in the literal and Sir Humphrey senses).  Rudd is not a courageous politician.  He has taken the principles of small target opposing and transformed them into small target government.

    • Sparky_XII says:

      03:10pm | 03/08/09

      I think that this issue does share similarities with the Republic issue. In that we know it will happen, we know it is inevitable, however, we miss the question of what we are changing or are fighting for?

      Too many decisions have been made for the betterment of individual sections of society which, had the issue been looked at differently, could have been for the betterment of the entire society.

      This broad decision needs to stop being an emotionally charged inevitability and become a power to alter the operations of all groups in society. For instance, the government should stand back from marriage all together (Should such an institution overlook passionate relationships?). Civil Unions, encompassing all relationships should be recognised by government, for tax, social services and regulations and nothing else. If you have a Civil Union and feel a cultural or religious ceremony should follow then do so, but if your church does not recognise your right to this then your issue is with the church alone.

      I don’t think that the ALP (A single organisation) should be the deciders of the debate, and although the issue is ‘gay marriage’ i think it is underwhelming for social evolution to limit its range to these sections of society alone.

    • Andy says:

      08:08pm | 03/08/09

      For god sakes when will this website give up its gay agenda? Its now beyond ridiculous, you don’t have the public support and you wont I’ll be teaching all my children that marriage is between a man and a woman strictly. You want a civil union with all the same laws attached? no arguments from me but get your filthy paws away from marriage. This isn’t about equal rights its about wanting something that Christians don’t want you to have, end of story! If it was just about equal rights then why b@tch about calling it a civil union. Oh and by the way gay marriage in that term is most definitely not inevitable it will NEVER happen.

    • Rod says:

      08:22pm | 03/08/09

      Tim (above) wrote:
      “And the Galaxy poll you quote from was commisioned specifically to get the result it did. The questions were heavily loaded in favour of the result of gay marriage being acceptable. Most respectable polling has shown support rates in the range of 35-45% in the last few years.”

      Well, did it?  One can read it for oneself—http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/Galaxy200906.pdf

      Was the question loaded?  I think not.  The question asked was: “Do you agree or disagree that same sex couples should be able to marry in Australia?”  That’s pretty straight forward.  It wasn’t: “Do you believe gays should marry, or are you a redneck bigot?”

      The polling was conducted by GetUp, surveying a sample size large enough to be relevant (1100 people, like Newspoll), and randomly selected.  The margin of error is about 2.9% on that sample size.

      So, Tim, you’re wrong.

    • Sceptical says:

      12:47am | 04/08/09

      Monty, it also says in Leviticus that wearing clothes made from two different fibres woven together is an abomination. 

      Prepare thyself for eternal damnation, wearers of poly-cotton blend socks!!!

    • Tim says:

      08:52am | 04/08/09

      Sorry Rod,
      They also asked a leading question which was loaded, talking about how other jurisdictions had already accepted gay marriage so why won’t we accept their marriage. And giving no option for a “don’t know” or “don’t care” is misleading. This was polling, which, as you point out was commissioned by people with an agenda and they got the result they wanted. I guarantee you if the Catholic church commissioned a similar poll, the result would be on the opposite side of the ledger.
      Most respectable polling agrees this is an issue of very minor importance in Australia. The support isn’t there

      So Rod, you’re wrong.

    • GC says:

      11:36am | 04/08/09

      I don’t understand what this is about. What does ‘marriage’ provide that a ‘civil union’ won’t. Of course it’s unreasonable that the partners in a gay relationship have less rights than in a heterosexual relationship, but isn’t that the point of ‘civil unions’?

      I’m sure it’s not about having a ceremony in a church, but if it is, then you can have that now. The Metropolitan Church has been conducting such ceremonies for decades. And even if gay marriage is legalised, it’s not going to force any of the traditional Christian churches to allow such ceremonies in their institutions.

      Maybe I’m an unlightened bigot, but I really do not understand what this is about.

    • Daphon says:

      11:58am | 04/08/09

      GC,

      No one is pushing for religious organisations to marry same-sex couples against their will.

      All marriages are civil unions in that marriage is a state-controlled institution.  A marriage in a church is simply nothing more than a ceremonial side of a civil union and legally no different to a marriage in a registry office or on a beach.

      As for the terms civil union vs marriage surely it’s just a matter of semantics?

    • GC says:

      12:15pm | 04/08/09

      Well that’s my understanding too Daphon. I am at a loss to understand what it is that is being demanded here. If it’s just that they want ‘civil unions’ referred to as ‘marriages’ then I’m not going to get excited about it.

      I suspect it is about semantics - the usual story of the Left being more concerned with language than outcomes.

    • Chief says:

      12:59pm | 06/08/09

      “All the people who say ‘marriage’ is not a religious instituion are simply wrong. If you want to get married in a church as thousands do or by a Minister of religion then its simply nuts to claim that marriage is not religious.”

      Marriage was first and foremost a secular, civil arrangement. The churches took it over as a source of income and right to exert divine authority over people’s choices.

    • Hopium says:

      03:11pm | 11/08/09

      Ben - my marriage wasn’t religious. At all. I had it in a park.
      So does that mean, by your definition, that I am not married?

      It had no mention of “god”, but threw in some British comedy. Why can’t homosexuals have that?

    • David says:

      10:31am | 01/08/11

      Tim,

      I don’t care if gay marriage has no support. It is a matter of removing discrimination from our legislation and granting equal human rights for a marginalised group within our community. Whether or not gay marriage has widespread support in the community is irrelevant.

    • Richard says:

      05:30am | 07/12/11

      Saturday the 3rd December 2011 will go down as a day of infamy for Australia, when same sex marriage was recognised by the Labor party. Even though it’s not law yet this decision shall remain as a reproach to this nation and a shame to mankind. Same gender marriage is no marriage at all, but a complete and utter mockery, it is to be sure an abomination and will bring Australia no good thing, righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

RT @BusInsiderAU: Tajikistan Blocks YouTube After Video Of Dancing President Goes Viral - http://t.co/QYCQ6f3m8W

Paul Colgan

@JohnBurnsST I will save you the trip mate - back home around the 17th of December for a couple of weeks

Paul Colgan

@JohnBurnsST Do you know if the SBP will publish that Apple story online?

Paul Colgan

French Soldier Stabbed In Neck In Paris http://t.co/FzmOcCx8RN

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter