On Friday, 5th of June this year, my partner Beck and I were married in Vancouver, Canada. However, since arriving home in Australia, our marriage is no longer recognised, and this has brought significant sadness to our lives, and also to our families who were unable to travel to Vancouver to be with us on our special day. 

Davina and Beck on their wedding day. Picture: Davina Storer (not to be reproduced without permission)

Beck and I are now in the bizarre predicament, that we are married in a growing number of countries in the world, but not married here in our own country.

Some people find this funny, saying we have the ‘best of both worlds’ we can get on a plane and be married one day, and get off a plane and be free of the ‘ball and chain’ the next. But this situation is far from funny to us. It is heartbreaking because we want to be married all the time, not just in certain parts of the world.

For Beck and I, getting married was the ultimate act of commitment. It was a way to unite our lives and our families together formally, and something that we felt was important to do before we have children.  Marriage is a rite of passage in our society, and a means to strengthen the bond between two individuals and their families. It creates a strong legal relationship to help protect the rights of children within that family. We recently relocated from Melbourne to Tasmania to pursue a simpler life and be closer to family. Much like any other heterosexual couple, marriage was part of the natural progression of our relationship at this stage in our lives.

To have our overseas marriage recognised in Australia is particularly important to us, because the Federal Government has recently introduced law changes that now see same-sex relationships placed on an equal footing to heterosexual couples for tax and other day-to-day purposes.  This is great in many ways, because the Government now sees us as a ‘couple’. But at the same time, the Government refuses to accept that we are actually a married couple.  We feel that this is hypocritical and cruel. This basically tells us that our leaders are happy to treat us equally when it comes to earning more tax revenue or cutting social security, but are also happy to discriminate against us when it comes to giving us the full legal equality other Australians enjoy.

Let’s be clear, I applaud the recent changes made to many federal laws to acknowledge same-sex entitlements. These are long over due and are a great step forward. I believe it is fair that same-sex couples are treated equally to everyone else and that this should also include the fact that we are all taxed the same way. But we deserve to be treated equally in every way, not in a watered down “partial equality” that suits the government, but still separates us from our heterosexual friends and creates a confusing mess of different rules and entitlements in different parts of Australia.

It might be hard to comprehend if you are not in a same-sex relationship, but we are often not even sure what our rights are a lot of the time, especially in different states.  It can be very confusing, and it can be very hard to find information. It is very sad, that in this day and age in Australia, the land of the ‘fair go’, there is still a group of citizens like us, who have to regularly log on to Google and devote significant chunks of time to working out what our rights are in different parts of Australia whenever we want to embark on normal couple milestones.

Try to imagine, if you are not in a same-sex relationship, what it would be like, to live every day with the reality that you have to research your rights whenever you want to organise something significant in your life and that your rights were different depending on the state that you lived in. This treatment would be unheard of, if it were directed towards any other minority group, so it is hard for us to understand why it is still acceptable in Australia to discriminate against same-sex couples. We feel that this is certainly not a positive message to be teaching younger generations of Australians.

The simplest solution to the fact that our rights differ in different parts of Australia is to allow us to marry. Marriage provides society with a common language of love and commitment. It also provides society with a common understanding of legal rights and entitlements. There will be no more need to assert, dispute or google our rights when we can marry.

But worse than the inconvenience of not being able to marry is the message it sends. It just breaks our hearts that our own country doesn’t accept or acknowledge that we should have the same rights as other Australians.  My wife and I work hard, we pay the same amount of tax as everyone else, we are saving as best we can to buy our first home, we love our families and our families love us, we are planning for our first child, we contribute as Australians every day to this nation, and yet still we are made to feel like we are second class citizens in our own country.

The majority of our close friends are heterosexual, and just about everyone we meet at work and in our general lives, seem to think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. From our general interactions, the public seems way ahead of the Australian government on this one. We can also say, that during our travels overseas, people have been shocked and horrified to hear that Australia still does not acknowledge or allow same-sex marriages. Many people simply view Australia as ‘backwards’ in this regard.

We realise that some people find same-sex marriages upsetting due to religious beliefs, but we think institutionalised discrimination towards one group of citizens in a democratic country like Australia can never be justified.  A nation like ours, which says it believes in equality, should put that belief into practice,  Discrimination towards particular groups of Australians is something that the Australian Labour Party, in particular, opposes. We hope that at this week’s National Conference, the ALP will live up to its own principles by recognising Australians are not all equal until there is equality in marriage.

In ten or twenty years time, this debate will be looked back on with shame, much like periods in Australian history when Aboriginal Australians were not deemed to be citizens, or women were not allowed to vote. Many developed countries in the world have already reached this point.

Certainly, during our time spent in Canada, the country seemed to be functioning well, and there was no evidence that having same-sex marriage has destroyed family values or broken down social functions in anyway. Allowing same-sex marriage has not reduced the number of heterosexual marriages, or somehow demeaned the marriages between people with strong religious convictions. Life goes on as usual and Canadians can proudly say that they have true equality for citizens in their country.

While this debate continues to rage, somewhat belatedly here in Australia, all we can do is share our story and say a big thank you to all the wonderful people out there that have shown us so much support. These people are just everyday Australians, from different backgrounds, of different ages, who may not understand or feel particularly comfortable with same-sex relationships, but who have supported us anyway, because they believe in equality and a fair go

For those of you who still firmly oppose same-sex marriage, please try to realise that we are just ordinary Australians like the rest of you, and we just want the opportunity get married, have a family and work hard. We are not asking for special treatment, just equal treatment to everyone else.  Surely that is not too much to ask.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs is currently conducting the first full-scale inquiry into marriage equality in Australia. If you wish to make a submission, or sign on as a supporter of the Australian Marriage Equality submission, go here.

68 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Mark says:

      07:05am | 27/07/09

      We’ve had the wedding. Why doesn’t our marriage count?


      Because you’re gay and people that are gay scare “normal” people. (a quote from my dead grandmother). And it’s also because for some reason countries like Australia have a problem with two loving people of the same sex commiting to each other. I’m heterosexual and I have no problem with gay marriages, and I’m sure the majority of clear-thinking Australians have no problem with it either.

    • Corey I says:

      09:00am | 27/07/09

      Its time to see one of the ALP leadership answer this blog article and explain to the 60% of Australians why same-sex marriage is unacceptable in Australia when it has majority support.

      The apology to the Stolen Generation enjoyed only 55% support before it was conducted. After Mr Rudd took a leadership position on the issue, two weeks later it showed 68% support. Its time for strong, intelligent, secular leadership on an issue that affects a civil institution.

      Noone is suggesting that religious marriage services will be mandated on a religious body who choses not to perform them.

      So in a country where church and state are allegedly seperated - why are we still having this conversation?

      Come on Mr Rudd - blog your next article about equality and why your Government believes its acceptable to support some equal measures but not others?

    • Cherub says:

      10:13am | 27/07/09

      The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, voluntarily entered into for life.  This is the only such union recognised as marriage in the UN Bill of Rights.  Moreover it is entitled to the protection of the law.  Everyone has always agred with this, in all cultures.  THere would be no consensus let alone majority agreement to change the Marriage Act in Australia to provide for same-sex unions.  In countries where these things are allowed, it is almost always because of a decision of an unelected judges to declare the non-inclusion of same-sex unions in the legal category of marriage.  But to settle the issue, why not have a referendum?  Have both sides of the argument put and then let the people decide.  Since marriage and the family is the fundamental group unit of society, it should only be the votes of the people that decide, and not just the votes of the political activists in political parties.  Ans anyway, if it is the majority to rule, then the majority of countries do not recognise same-sex unions as marriage.  Why should Australia conform to the minority.

    • Jimmy says:

      10:35am | 27/07/09

      Whilst I’m strongly against the general discrimination and marginalisation aspects of this issue, over the years I am getting increasingly convinced that marriage its self is the problem.

      Put simply, what consenting adults choose to do with their personal relationships should be of no concern whatsoever for the government.  The state should only ever view adults as individuals, and should not respect nor recognise ‘marriage’ or any other civil union arrangement.

      Historically, marriage used to legitimise sex and hereditary lines.  Quite why in the modern world people feel they need the state’s permission to have sex is beyond me.

    • pete m says:

      10:46am | 27/07/09

      Mark - while I agree with you, I don’t agree on the “normal” people point.  I have no problem with someone wanting to keep marriage to the way it is, and likewise, personally, I have no problem with people wanting to widen it to include gay relationships.  While I support the change, I’m not convinced you do this by attacking traditionalists / religionists or anyone else who thinks otherwise as abnormal.  Let’s get rid of downgrading people who may disagree with you and just work on dealing with the issues as legitimate concerns and seeing what society as a whole thinks.

    • Eric says:

      10:57am | 27/07/09

      Heterosexual married couples are not telepathically provided with full knowledge of their legal rights. It’s no disadvantage to have to reasearch your rights—everyone needs to do that if they want to know their legal standing.

      No issue of discrimination here.

    • Ben says:

      10:59am | 27/07/09

      I have absolutely no problem believing that you and your partner are like many other Australians. I also think its wonderful that you have both found someone to love and be cherished by.
      What I fail to understand is why you are so interested in telling the rest of us about it. One irrefutable reason why gay people should be not discriminated is that their sexuality, like that of heterosexuals, is only one part of who they are and it should not be a criteria on which they or anyone else should be judged.
      Yet when it comes it marriage, many gay couples wish us to place their sexuality front and centre.
      It is outrageous if gay couples do not enjoy the rights that other life partners enjoy around things like superannuation, carers entitlements etc etc etc.
      An event to symbolically mark the beginning of a gay couple’s life together is hardly likely to result in the all but the most nutty of social conservatives manning the barricades in opposition. They should also be recognised by the state to faciliate the rights referred to above.
      But why do you insist that you be entitled to a ‘marriage’. Like it or not, marriage in most human civilisations throughout history, and certainly in the west, marriage has been religious ceremony between a man and a woman. The religious faith which has faciliatated marriage as we know it emphasises that the ceremony is to be between a man and a woman. Does this bother you so much? Does Christianity play such a significant role in your lives that you cannot bear to be excluded a second longer from recognition by mother Church?
      Choice seems to be raison d’être of today’s society and you have made yours which is entirely fair enough but why is the choice of the majority of the community which says that ‘marriage’ is a heterosexual institution?

    • Andy says:

      11:36am | 27/07/09

      “choice seems to be raison d’etre of today’s society and you have made yours”

      Part of the issue here is the fact that so many people think that being gay is a “choice”- I’m a gay man and most definitely know I was born this way.  Believe me, I definitely would not “choose” to be treated as a second class citizen as I have been for my whole life, a situation that is now thankfully beginning to change.

      I applaud The Punch for posting these blog articles.  It’s about time these issues were taken seriously.

    • R.E.L. says:

      11:43am | 27/07/09

      Any two people - whether of the same or opposite gender - should be allowed to declare before a magistrate that they are dependent on each other and be entitled to all the same financial rights and benefits issued by the state.

      That does not make their arrangement a marriage. You cannot change the definition and purpose of a marriage to suit your own needs. It would be like the Japanese whale hunters redefining whales as fish and removing them from the endangered species list so that they can continue killing them. This would not change the reality that whales are mammals and an endangered species.

      Those who understand the analogy will understand the point. Those who do not, do not deserve to understand the point.

    • William says:

      11:59am | 27/07/09

      Eric,

      In response to your ‘No discrimination here’  comment…glib responses such as this miss the fundamental point.

      Straight people do not need to research on the internet or elsewhere whether or not they can get married in Australia.  They can.  As a gay man, in a committed long term relationship, paying taxes and contributing to society, I can not.  This IS discrimination.  I didn’t choose to be gay - why would I choose to be discriminated against?

      How does the removal of this discriminatory law threaten the sanctity of marriage?  More than 50% of straight marriages end in divorce - how does that maintain the sanctity of marriage?

      The majority of opposition to gay marriage comes from a deeper issue of discomfort or bigotry against gay people.

    • Michael says:

      12:02pm | 27/07/09

      The big problem here is the fact we have the State presiding over what should not be a state function.  Lets remove the idea of the state being able to preside over a marriage.

      Let’s create one class of legal partnership - a civil union.  That is what the state and law could recognise, whether your a man and woman, woman and woman, or Man and Man Let ‘Marriage’ remain a religious title.  That is where it started. 

      All relationships which fit a criteria of commitment - not sex, should have equal recognition under law.  There are far too many religious and moral connotations associated with the word marriage for there to be a true consensus.

    • Mark says:

      12:02pm | 27/07/09

      @ pete m - mate that was a quote from my deceased grandmother. I consider everyone normal. Except for me, I’m waaaaay subnormal raspberry

    • Josh says:

      12:08pm | 27/07/09

      I was reading ‘The Great Gatsby’ the other day and was amused to see a character talk, with great distain, about the possibility of interracial marriage. It seemed so archaic and outdated in reading that (though the character himself was meant to be viewed in that light).

      I bet in a few decades when we finally get past all this, people will wonder what all the fuss was about with us recognising same-sex marriages.

    • Mondo Rock says:

      12:24pm | 27/07/09

      But why do you insist that you be entitled to a ‘marriage’. Like it or not, marriage in most human civilisations throughout history, and certainly in the west, marriage has been religious ceremony between a man and a woman.

      Ben - Davina is not ‘insisting’ she be entitled to a religious marriage.  Far from it - she is insisting she be entitled to a marriage that is recognised by the Australian government

      We are not a Christian nation and our laws are administered entirely without reference to religious norms/standards.  Marriage in our society is not a religious concept - it is a formal legal status that confers additional rights to those Australians who choose to enter into it.  Given that this is the reality of marriage in modern Australia do you really not understand why Davina insists she be allowed access to it? 

      Would you like it if someone took away your right to marry while retaining it for other categories of Australian?  If you can answer that question then you can understand Davina’s position.

      Denying one class of people the ability to choose to marry, and thereby obtain the additional state-based rights and recognition that come with marriage, is discrimination - pure and simple.  Don’t pretend that it isn’t.

      Denying those same rights because you personally disapprove of the sexuality of those whose rights you are seeking to suppress is more than just discrimination - it is rank prejudice.

    • James says:

      12:24pm | 27/07/09

      To chime in on Pete M, Mark, William Eric and I’m sure many other conversation/comments that have a defensive tone to them perhaps you should look at the positives for society of allowing gay marriages rather than falling into the well worn trap of ‘it’s always us versus you’.

      I’m straight, and all for gay marriages that can strengthen our relationships and communties.
      If it truly is love, then marriage is the symbolic expression of your love. And as we’ve seen from so many people who’ve been in long term homosexual relationships, the symbology is hugely important, but will never be a deterrant to participating in a loving and fulfilling relationship.
      This should be applauded in a society corroded by the idea of endless choice, “that the next one will be right for me” and that “ill settle down soon”; a society that sadly has a divorce rate of 50%.

      If two people can love each other through good and bad good luck to them.

      I find it odd that I’m agreeing with Rob Mills who posted on Punch a week or two ago about this but he’s plain right. Get over it and support people who strengthen our communties.
      There are bigger fish to fry.

    • Jayne says:

      12:26pm | 27/07/09

      Any straight person (and I am straight myself) who thinks that same sex marriage should not be legalised needs to think long and hard about why they want to deny someone else their happiness.
      No straight couple is forced to ask the entire country for permission to marry.
      The only difference between the two kinds of marriage is what kind of sex they’re having.
      So tell me how that is fair.

    • Kelly says:

      12:29pm | 27/07/09

      Ben, marriage pre-dates Christianity and most certainly has not always been a religious institution.

    • Shinsengumi says:

      12:40pm | 27/07/09

      Australia has an exploding Islamic population.  The problem faced by policy makers which they cannot speak of is the fact that, the word ‘Marriage’ is specifically tied to Middle Eastern, Judeo-Islamic Religion.  It was invented inside Abrahamic Middle Eastern religions, its roots are religious, and it will always be religious.

      I live in Paddington, and prior to that the Connaught at the bottom of Oxford.  I have many gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual friends.  90% of them don’t support the push for gay marriage.  Why do you need to seek religious validation from religions you despise?  If you do, the Government HAS to legislate that ALL religions, Christian Priests, Islamic Clerics, have to perform homosexual marriage.  We have 400,000 Muslims now in NSW; do you know what this will do when the Government passes a law that Islamic Clerics must perform homosexual marriage!?  It will blow up like a nuclear bomb!  What a can of worms!  The last thing the GLBT community needs, is to declare open war on the Muslim community.

      However, the point neither I, nor the host of GLTB friends of mine understand, is why do you need validation of your relationship through a Christian/Muslim religious invention??  Why do you need the ‘blessing of the Church/Mosque’ on your relationship?

      Many, many hetero couples are undertaking civil unions because they object to the outdated concept of Marriage.  The question that then arises is, do people who decide to celebrate their love through civil union, have an inferior love to those who get married?  Do married couples love each other more than defacto couples?  Why do you need the tick of approval from, and to submit yourselves under, outdated, archaic, backward religions’ religious customs?

      I fully respect your love for each other, and your rights to be recognised as a couple under our Governments’ legislation; however I don’t see what good can come from trying to force the Government, to force the host of Middle Eastern-derived religions to re-define the religious ceremony called Marriage?  There’s a reason why we have separation of Church and State; that’s so we can have peace.  History rams the lesson down our throat repeatedly; Governments should leave Religions alone.  Every time they’ve interfered, it’s ended up in horrific war :(

    • john says:

      12:41pm | 27/07/09

      who would have though that lesbianism could be so frustrating?

    • Bunny says:

      01:08pm | 27/07/09

      “The majority of our close friends are heterosexual, and just about everyone we meet at work and in our general lives, seem to think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.”

      No - they just say that to your face.  Everyone I know thinks that marriage is between a mana and a woman only.  You are welcome to your own commitment ceremony but dont call it a wedding

    • pete says:

      01:31pm | 27/07/09

      firstly, Davina and Beck, congratulations I hope you are both very happy together.
      secondly, I fully support your right to be in a loving marriage and for that releationship to be recognised legally at the same level as a heterosexual union

    • Sally says:

      02:50pm | 27/07/09

      Firstly - to compare this debate to Aboriginal history is like comparing oranges to apples.
      Secondly - sure, in 10 or 20 years the Australian government may recognise same sex marriage, but it doesn’t make it right. In 10 or 20 years we may be buying and selling babies on e-bay too. You have to think - what has happened to society when (as seen on 60 minutes) 2 gay men can buy a baby from India. When you are talking about gay marriage - you are not just talking about YOUR lives - you are bringing children into the equation.
      We are here to procreate, and to do that you need a female and a male. Simple as that!

    • Sal says:

      03:10pm | 27/07/09

      Bunny, I would suggest that this says more about you and the people you hang around with than anything else. Your instinuation that straight people (of which I am one) lie and are two-faced is also highly indicative. Please don’t place everyone on your own moral plane. Not everyone is so dishonest and bigoted.

    • Brendon says:

      03:28pm | 27/07/09

      Spot on: In ten or twenty years time, this debate will be looked back on with shame.

      In the meantime; have the wedding.  And celebrate. 
      My partner and I did just the same. 

      Don’t think - even for one second- that it doesn’t count.

    • Fiona says:

      04:05pm | 27/07/09

      Sally, if all we’re here on earth to do is procreate why are you wasting time posting a comment? there’s babies to be making woman! let’s not dilly dally!

    • Bunny says:

      04:37pm | 27/07/09

      Actually Sal, I am a lesbian and have a wide range of friends who are gay, straight and everything else in between.  This topic came up in conversation and after much debate the majority agreed that a “wedding” is a hetrosexual event.  I’m not saying that hetrosexuals lie - just that when confronted by this issue by a work colleague they would more than likely just appear to agree and keep their opinions to themselves.

    • iansand says:

      04:49pm | 27/07/09

      I understand and agree that partners in committed same sex partnerships should have all of the rights that heterosexuals should have.  I also understand that there should be some state recognised ceremony to formalise these partnerships.  I do not understand why the word “marriage” is so important.  Insistence on the application of the word to single sex couples seems designed to create controversy, division and friction in the larger community, which may be the point.

    • Damon Schultz says:

      04:58pm | 27/07/09

      Wow so many strange opinions here, I think Sally’s - “We are here to procreate, and to do that you need a female and a male. Simple as that! ” - is by far the strangest and most pessimistic view of human existence I have ever read grin

      More seriously, I thought the point about needing to Google to establish one’s rights is interesting. The founding fathers [they were men] made marriage the responsibility of the Commonwealth rather than the States (s51xxi). This would seem a deliberate decision, and I wouldn’t have thought it too far a stretch to infer that they felt it is good public policy to have a consistent set of arrangements covering family arrangements including children throughout the Commonwealth.

      What we have at the moment is a two-tiered system, where opposite-sex couples can choose whether they want the protections provided by the consistent arrangements of the Commonwealth Marriage Act (or not); on the other hand same-sex couples have no right to this security.

    • davido says:

      05:16pm | 27/07/09

      There are so may more important things to be worried out than this.

    • Phillip Malone says:

      05:46pm | 27/07/09

      Can I ask an ignorant question?
      Do same sex couples want the “Marriage” as the main thing or would having the ability to have everything exactly the same as marriage but called something else (that perhaps was made the legal contract (so to speak) that laws were made around and then we could make Marriage just one form of that contract) be a happy alternative/compromise?

      To be honest I don’t have strong feelings on either side of the argument but it seems to me that there is the group of people that are just totally against same sex lifestyle at all, there are some that are okay with it, but don’t think marriage should be changed to allow for it and then there are some that are for marriage for same sex couples. I could totally understand if the answer from Same-sex couple is that they want Marriage, full stop, no compromises, but in reality perhaps it is more likely and more palatable for some people if it is marriage but under a different name.

      JMTC
      Good luck with your fight. If there was ever a referendum, I would vote for the inclusion (of Same Sex couples in Marriage laws).

    • Phil says:

      06:14pm | 27/07/09

      Damon, Really? You think it strange to hold the view that biologically we need a man and a woman to procreate?  Happy to explain the birds and the bees for you if you don’t understand where babies come from. 

      As for it being pessimistic..  please explain?  Are YOU able to procreate without a man and/or a woman?  What does pessimism/optimism have to do with it?  It’s just a FACT.  Science may be getting good, but it ain’t that good just yet.

      Look out… the machines will be taking over soon…

    • Andrew M. Potts says:

      10:05pm | 27/07/09

      Phillip Malone- I’ll give you a question in response. How would you feel if someone asked you to unmarry your wife and take up a civil union in it’s place?

      It’s about our relationships being treated with the same honour and respect as everyone elses.

      Shinsengumi, I write for Australia’s largest circulation gay community newspaper and we receive easily twenty times more letters in favour of the right to wed than from gays who don’t want it. Maybe the fact that you live stumbling distance from Arq has affected the variety of your straw poll.

    • Anthony says:

      10:27pm | 27/07/09

      If same-sex marriages are made law, I wonder if there’ll ever be a same-sex shotgun wedding?  Or a same-sex arranged marriage?  Or a same-sex white wedding?  Just wondering…

    • Anthony says:

      11:17pm | 27/07/09

      “...something that we felt was important to do before we have children.”

      Um… How do 2 woman make a child?

    • DennyCraneWHU says:

      12:02am | 28/07/09

      God I’m sick and tired of this debate.

      A marriage is between a man and a woman, or, if you wish between a woman and a man.

      That is the meaning of the word marriage.

      If you want to call your same-sex union a Harbour Bridge, then you can’t: Harbour Bridge means something else. Marriage means something else too.

      This is not discrimination: it is calling two different things by different names.

      If you want for your same-sex union all the same rights and responsibilities of a married couple then I support you whole heartedly.

      Campaign for those rights and duties by all means but please, please stop telling people the meaning of the words they use and how they should use them. Or is there an ulterior agenda at work here?

    • Simon says:

      03:17am | 28/07/09

      Hi Phil,

      No-one is disputing that one requires a male and female to procreate. But this was not the issue. The point Damon was raising was a more philosophical question, noting that surely we are not “simply” here just to “procreate”. This is a very limited and depressing world view to see one’s existence as only being about procreation. Are those people, unable or unwilling to procreate any less?

      Secondly, I’m yet to understand why an institution (that is both religious and secular) should be constrained by the interpretations of a religion. Allowing same-sex marriage would not mean Churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages - Churches remain free to discriminate on whom they will or will not marry, gay or straight. 

      But marriage, as has been eloquently summarised in previous posts is also a secular institution conferring rights and responsibilities. Religions can discriminate, governments shouldn’t - and unless there are fundamental grounds for not treating gays and lesbians equally, they should be given access to marriage. 

      Those who want to deny treating gays and lesbians equally with other citizens, need to provide a demonstrable and profound reason why discrimination should be actively enforced by a Government. I await for such reasons to be provided…

    • Andrea says:

      03:27am | 28/07/09

      DennyCraneWHU, are you seriously suggesting that the term marriage hasn’t evolved over the centuries? Many of us can remember when it was “natural” that marriage meant a white man and a white women, or a black man and black women. The fights against miscegenation laws in the US surely undermines highlights the absurdity of suggesting that terms are immutably fixed. 

      I do note with mirth though, DennyCraneWHU’s bellow that s/he is “sick and tired” of the debate, yet happily reads, engages and offers their thoughts. One must wonder why, if you are so “sick and tired” of this debate that you didn’t just click to a more appropriate topic that would not make you feel sick, nor tired…

    • Lexi says:

      10:29am | 28/07/09

      @Cherub, I think you’re mixing up your definition with the UN’s… See here, Article 16: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

      It doesn’t say that the only recognisable marriage is between one man and one woman - all it says is that men and women have the same rights to marry.

      Others here say they’re sick of this debate, well so are most people.  The difference is, most people are sick of Christians trying to get everyone else to live by their Christian worldview.  This is a secular society and non-Christians should not be restricted by Christian values.  You are welcome to live according to them, but please don’t try to make me, just as I don’t try to make you live by my values.

      I’m always astounded by those people who bring having children into the debate.  I know of straight couples who should have been sterilised.  I also know of gay or lesbian couples who would make wonderful, loving, educated parents.  Strange to think people actually think inadequate straight parents would be preferable to excellent gay ones.  It’s not to say I don’t know plenty of wonderful straight couples, too.  It’s not their sexuality that makes them good parents, it’s that they are good people.

      Great post @Simon!

    • Mondo Rock says:

      11:18am | 28/07/09

      Campaign for those rights and duties by all means but please, please stop telling people the meaning of the words they use and how they should use them.

      Says Denny - who spent the first half of his post telling people the meaning of the words they use and how they should use them.

      What an odd fellow.

    • Pricey says:

      12:42pm | 28/07/09

      I support gay marriage so long as both women are hot. So i support you ladies for sure.

    • DennyCraneWHU says:

      12:45pm | 28/07/09

      Andrea,

      Thanks for your reply. Yours are fine arguments, but that is all they are.

      Just because, according to your argument, a word has already undergone change of meaning does not mean it must therefore continue to change. When enough people don’t want that change then why, to repeat myself, should they be told the meaning of their words and how to use them?

      I am pleased to have made you laugh. I am glad that you “note with mirth” that I can’t be too sick and tired of this debate when I continue it. You’re right, you’ve got me on that one. Although if I were more of the sensitive soul that I am I would perhaps think you were having a go at me rather than at my arguments.

      PS, Bellow? You’re right, I do make a lot of noise but I vainly like to think of it more as a roar.

      Mondo Rock,

      I think I understand you: I am telling you the meaning of the word marriage but at the same time deny you telling me what the same word should mean. A fine point, except it’s not quite the same because you are telling me to change an established meaning when I don’t want to.

      As for me being an odd fellow, I can’t fault you on that, you’re spot on there.

    • Sally says:

      01:16pm | 28/07/09

      Simon - it seems that in the heat of this debate you have failed to read my post correctly. At no time do I suggest that humans are here simply to procreate - but rather that we simply need a man and a woman to do so.
      and Phil - I couldn’t agree with you more, since when does pessimism and optimism have anything to do with the birds and the bees.
      Why must religion come into this debate? I am not religious however I strongly believe that ‘Marriage’ is a word for straight people. Do what you want - but come up with a new word for it - don’t alter the meaning of my word. I support your comments here DannyCraneWHU.  and so far as your comments on parenting Lexi - may I suggest adoption for for Gay couples rather than bringing even more children into the world who are left asking the question “who is my biological Mummy / Daddy and where are they?”

    • David says:

      02:02pm | 28/07/09

      Pricey says:
      I support gay marriage so long as both women are hot. So i support you ladies for sure.

      Damn Pricey, you beat me to my comment.

    • Mondo Rock says:

      02:10pm | 28/07/09

      I think I understand you: I am telling you the meaning of the word marriage but at the same time deny you telling me what the same word should mean.

      Quite right - the hypocricy is stunning.

      To me ‘marriage’ means the legal partnering of two people.  To you it means something else, yet you feel entitled to demand that I accept your definition in preference to mine.  You justify this demand not with reason or substance, but with strange appeals to non-existant authority and childish fabrications, such as the completely unsupported notion that only your definition is ‘established’.

      Bollocks to that I say.  You’re doing nothing more complicated than making up excuses to justify giving your personal (and prejudiced) opinion primacy over everyone else’s.  It’s no different to the excuses offered by those who sought to deny the legitimacy of interracial marriage 50 years ago.

    • DennyCraneWHU says:

      02:30pm | 28/07/09

      Mondo,

      You’re missing the point, as well as getting over excited: you call it what you want, just don’t try to force me to. What can be more simple than that?

    • DennyCraneWHU says:

      02:32pm | 28/07/09

      PS,

      Thx, Sally,

    • RL says:

      04:20pm | 28/07/09

      Sally says:
      Simon - it seems that in the heat of this debate you have failed to read my post correctly. At no time do I suggest that humans are here simply to procreate - but rather that we simply need a man and a woman to do so.


      Sally - how do you respond to heterosexual couples who seek fertility treatment / adoption etc. Would you also have the Government deem their marriages illegitimate because they are unable to re-produce like a “normal” man and woman do??

      Secondly, those of you dragging up that tired old “religion” debate are also completely missing the point. How many heterosexual couples tie the knot because they are regular church goers who have saved themselves for marriage??
      Marriage is a state recognised secular insitution… Those of you who are prepared to let Australia be dictated by the religious right are probably the same that are quick to judge those fundamentalist societies who do…

    • Mondo Rock says:

      04:33pm | 28/07/09

      you call it what you want, just don’t try to force me to.

      Nobody has tried to force you to do anything Denny - it is in fact you who has been trying to force others to adopt your preferred terminology - as is entirely clear from your post above:

      A marriage is between a man and a woman, or, if you wish between a woman and a man.  That is the meaning of the word marriage.

      You are quite clearly insisting that others adopt your personal definition of ‘marriage’ - and you are equally insisting that they cease using the word to describe gay relationships.  Do you get it now?  YOU are the one making demands about how the word is used, not me.

      And yet you appear to believe that others are forcing you to use language in a way that subscribes to their wishes.  It’s as though you are completely unaware of your own argument.

      I’ll say it again - you’re an odd one.

    • DennyCraneWHU says:

      05:13pm | 28/07/09

      Yes, you’re right, I did start off telling you what the meaning of the M word was. I realised after I wrote my last bit that I’d moved on.

      How about you use it how you want and I to use it how I want? At least until you can get the law changed. Will that do?

    • Mondo Rock says:

      06:01pm | 28/07/09

      How about you use it how you want and I to use it how I want? At least until you can get the law changed. Will that do?

      I’m happy for you use the word in whatever way you want Denny - regardless of whether the law is changed.  It’s a free country after all, and you can bet your arse that I’ll keep using it in the way I want whether the law catches up with me or not!

      You may need to convince Sally “don’t alter the meaning of my word” (above) though, since she apparently considers the word ‘marriage’ to be her personal property.

    • DennyCraneWHU says:

      06:28pm | 28/07/09

      Sally’s is a perfectly valid viewpoint too.

      But enough!

    • Mondo Rock says:

      07:10pm | 28/07/09

      Sally’s is a perfectly valid viewpoint too

      I suppose - if you ignore everything we’ve said and revert back to the initial stupidity of insisting that individuals can petulantly demand that everyone else subscribe to their personal definition of a word.

    • Sal says:

      07:48pm | 28/07/09

      My apologies, Bunny - the wording made it seem as if the last sentence in your comment was your own view.

    • DennyCraneWHU says:

      08:01pm | 28/07/09

      I recognise you now, Mondo, you’re the arguing champion of the world. Nothing odd or petulant in that, I suppose.

      Bye now.

    • flower child says:

      08:31pm | 28/07/09

      Well, I’m a Canadian who listened to this debate a few years ago, when the Courts (not the politicians) there decided that restricting “marriage” to heterosexuals was discriminatory.  They were right.  And, as the ladies point out, Canadian society hasn’t collapsed as a result of recognizing same-sex marriages.

      That being said, a lot of the argument here is about making sure that gay couples have the same rights, benefits and entitlements (and responsibilities to one another) as heterosexual couples.  Personally, I would like to see a simplification of the laws to the extent that any committed relationship, whether gay or straight, whether in marriage or de-facto, has the same status in terms of rights and benefits.  Leave the marriage itself (for those who want it) as either a religious or civil recognition of commitment, but irrelevant to the actual legal status of the relationship.

    • Adam Dennis says:

      10:30pm | 28/07/09

      It disappoints me that so many people lean on external sources for the definition of “marriage”. I’m sick to death of this “everybody agrees that marriage is only between a man and a woman”. It’s clear that everyone doesn’t agree, that we have to discuss and then vote on it. Why can’t we as Australians decide for ourselves what a marriage is? For myself, I believe it’s a state that exists when two people declare their mutual love and commit to sharing their lives in a close and intimate union. It seems to be discrimination that some people can be married to the person of their choice and others can’t. Let’s fix that - surely it can’t hurt anyone to allow any two people over a certain age to marry?

    • DennyCraneWHU says:

      01:10am | 29/07/09

      I think I know how to solve this. All the gay and lesbian can call their union a marriage and the rest of us can call our different union something different. 

      Since the rights and duties will be equal for both of the different unions the only difficulty I can foresee is a few people who might just mistake different for discrimination. But I am sure calm heads will prevail.
      Perhaps we could see a show of hands on this, and I’m trying to be modest here, bit of brilliant lateral thinking. We could even hold a competition to name the new name for heterosexual union.

    • Cardinal Pole says:

      06:56am | 29/07/09

      Mr. Dennis, you asked

      “Why can’t we as Australians decide for ourselves what a marriage is?”

      Because marriage is the product of natural law, not positive law.

      “For [yourself], [you] believe it’s a state that exists when two people declare their mutual love ...”

      Love means desiring the highest good for another, and the good is that which suits the nature of the thing desiring it (or do you prefer to make up your own meanings for these terms too?). To enter, in the name of love, into a putative marriage which is based on the spouses doing unspeakable, mutually-destructive things to each other is to tell a monstrous lie.

      “... and commit to sharing their lives in a close and intimate union.”

      But the “close and intimate union” isn’t just any old union—a Platonic relationship, for instance, can be “close and intimate”, but people would laugh at the notion of a purely Platonic marriage. The union involved in marriage is, as everyone knows, a *conjugal* union, and a same-sex couple is constitutionally incapable of attaining such a union; the putative marriage can never be consummated. (And in the case of lesbians, there can’t even be the crudest simulation of a consummation.) So a same-sex relationship can never be a marriage, and nor should the State legislate for same-sex ‘civil unions’, since this would still require State functionaries to co-operate in evil (since the ‘union’ would involve natural-law-defying acts, and the good, of which evil is the opposite, is that which suits the nature of the thing desiring it).

      “Let’s fix that - surely it can’t hurt anyone to allow any two people over a certain age to marry?”

      Including, say, incestuous couples “over a certain age”? And why limit the membership to two? Same-sex marriage advocates are happy to throw around terms like ‘heteronormative’ and ‘homophobic’, but do I detect an underlying mononormative, polyphobic bigotry with you, Mr. Dennis?

      Reginaldvs Cantvar
      http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com

    • Straight says:

      09:59am | 29/07/09

      Dont give it up so easily Denny, no amount of whinging from those supporters will win this one. Rudd has already stated he believes marriage is strictly between a man and a woman and i agree 100% dont like it? leave! go stay in Canada. I also have no doubts that put to a referendum this rubbish would be voted down. I dont have to give reasons why i dont think you should be entitled to marry and neither does our government.

    • jane says:

      12:42pm | 29/07/09

      Why is gay marriage so threatening to some? Will economies collapse if gays marry? Will there be more natural disasters? Will there be more refugees, wars, global warming, rapes, murders, child soldiers, terrorist attacks, starvation and so on and so on?

      If you can answer no to the above questions and probably many more, then obviously gay marriage can’t possibly be a threat to anyone, except bigots, I suppose.

      You are the vanguard for gay marriage and as such have to do the hard yards. Although it’s not much help to you at the moment, most likely in 50 years, gay marriage will be commonplace and raise nary an eyebrow. You and other couples should be around to see the shift in attitude.

    • Louise says:

      12:11am | 30/07/09

      “Because you’re gay and people that are gay scare “normal” people.”

      Actually, it’s because you’re gay and people that are gay are abnormal, as exemplified by the fact that you are some very small proportion of the population and also because you cannot change the definition of marriage just to suit yourselves.

      “Why is gay marriage so threatening to some?”

      Because where it has been tried, marriage in the overall population decreases and decays further and this is bad for the common good. In short, because gaymarriage is bad for society.

      Bigots, schmigots. Come up with an actual argument, Jane, rather than attacking people who don’t agree with you.

      The shift in attitude you prophesy will be at the expense of marriage, family and the common good. It will be to the detriment of children. I realise that most postmodern Aussies believe the Universe revolves around his/her pink bits, but this is not sufficient reason to futher erode society.

    • Pricey says:

      05:59pm | 30/07/09

      Honestly. Is it the name you want or the status in law. I support the status and recognition that should be given to same sex relationships. People in these relationships are entitled to the same family laws that hetero married or de facto people have.
      But you can’t call it our word. Our word is Marriage and all it’s versions. It belongs too us, the straighties.

    • Krammer says:

      12:47am | 31/07/09

      Marriage: a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this.
      End of story! Sorry pro same sex supporters, the antis win. Well, for now anyway. How society has normalised same sex relationships and let it come to this, I cannot fathom. Further, how the door was left wide open for an innocent child to be allowed to come into the mix makes me sick. That’s the epitome of selfishness. Do with your own lives as you please, but leave children out of it.
      50% divorce rate that gets bantered around in regards to heterosexual couples is just an indicator of the decay of society. This same sex set up is an even stronger indicator.
      To concrete the point, let’s turn the clock back a little. Not too far, just before recent medicine allowed eggs and sperm to be transferred unnaturally from one body to another. Let’s hit the same sex switch so that’s all of our preference. Hey, there goes the human race. It’s all not so natural, healthy and normal after all. You can’t argue that, that’s just a plain fact. All morality and all other opinions out of it.
      Sorry, no sympathy for this couple here that purposely went to a place where a handful of judges recently changed the basic core unit of society - man, woman, child - so they could try to make themselves feel normal. Perhaps you should have stayed there. Hopefully, here in Australia, we never take that step of decay.
      Honestly, what’s next!? That I fall in love with my german shepherd and want us walked down the isle and it recognised as marriage or else I’m discriminated against?? Oh, and then I want to be able to bring children into the mix.?? My goodness.
      To think that the government has already gone so far in bending over backwards and changing law to make same sex people feel normal and natural, like everyone else, and now you want the title as well to rub it in the nose of a heterosexual person? What’s next!? Oh, I know, then you will want to intrude into the religious realm and make it that the religion of your choice must wed and bless you or that will be discriminating too.
      Give me a break. For the supposed down trodden, hapless, discriminated, hard done by minority you claim to be, you sure as heck have a very loud voice with some people in very high, powerful, law changing positions. To think that society has come to this to want to make recognised the core unit of society, the family, as man/man or woman/woman and child. Hey, you can’t produce them naturally anyway. And never will be able to. God only gave that creating ability to the man and woman that he created and set up as natural and normal. Even if same sex people get the marriage title one day, you will never have that. Never. Two eggs or two sperm don’t make a baby. Science will never be able to get around that one. The best you will ever be able to settle for is one natural parent to a child. The other, a complete non-contributing stranger, with the option always open to just walk out the door and not feel a thing if things ever get tough.
      Oh, and one day, as it comes with all fostered and adopted children, the child becomes an adult and will seek answers. Then you will have the chance to explain how mummy and mummy or daddy and daddy wanted to mimic the natural order so 50% of you was sourced from some unknown stranger on the other end of the earth, at a fee of course, so mummy and mummy or daddy and daddy could feel normal and good about themselves. Good luck!
      And before loosely throwing around the term bigot, here’s a closing definition: a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.
      Careful slinging this one around because it can equally apply to the slinger.
      There might be some lee way in being fair and supposedly non-discriminatory in regards to certain pension, super and hospital choices for same sex people but don’t dare to touch the simplest unit of society which is the family of man, woman, child, through a heterosexual marriage.

    • Straight says:

      09:12am | 31/07/09

      Krammer excellent post and i agree 100% with your statements

    • LJ says:

      04:52pm | 31/07/09

      To read such disgraceful comments from people who seem to have no understanding of humanity i say this;I am deeply saddened at your unwillingness to treat all Australians with equality.
      There is no moral or civil justification for discriminating against Australia’s Gay population through archaic legislation that only serves to isolate a large section of the community. Australia prides itself on being an inclusive country that embraces differences in cultures, ethnicities and philosophies. Unfortunately this does not seem to extend to Australia’s Gay community. It is time to end this hypocrisy.
      In a secular country it is frankly embarrassing that the church still has so much influence in determining who is officially allowed or not allowed to declare their love for each other. Love is not something that you can control (if it was I assure you that, throughout my life, I would have chosen massively more accessible targets); it is a bond that forms between two people, irrespective of gender. To enforce rules around such a thing, to define who is or isn’t allowed to experience this, is to de-value the concept of love itself.
      While I appreciate that they were a step in the right direction, Civil Unions are not an adequate substitute for marriage, by the very fact that they are a substitute. Only a change to the current marriage laws can remove the current conditions and end this patronisation. The fact that two people love each other enough to stand up in front of their friends and family and declare their love to the world should be condition enough.
      Equal treatment is all that we’re asking.

    • Straight says:

      05:48pm | 31/07/09

      LJ you just rejected equal treatment by not accepting a civil union as a substitute, you CAN NOT force people that don’t wish to accept gay life as normal to let you call it marriage. Simple as that no ifs or buts.

    • Bugalug says:

      07:08pm | 31/07/09

      Bunny and Sal,

      I think the point is that saying “my friends say it’s OK/not OK” is not statistically valid, as groups of friends tend to self select people of similar views.  Pointless statement both ways, and all my friends agree with that assessment.

    • Hopium says:

      12:46pm | 07/08/09

      I just got married. I’m not gay so mine is legally recognised. It was a secular celebration in a park. No church or religion involved. Once upon a time, you could not get married this way.

      I shed tears during the ceremony. Not for my beloved (we show love by telling each other fart jokes) but for my best friend. She cannot legally marry her girl.

      And why not?

      It doesn’t change my marriage. I’ll still love hubby. Horses won’t eat each other, the earth won’t explode etc etc.

      So we change a legislative definition. How about “marriage” being between “two consenting persons over the age of 18”? At least then forced marriages won’t be recognised (consenting would obviously need to be defined as at the time of signing the marriage certificate so that marriages aren’t anulled because you no longer consent later on).

      Marriages are more often than not a “behind closed doors” issue. As long as there is no domestic violence, abuse etc - it has no impact on anyone.

      Divorce rates etc are going to happen anyway. Churches can make their own minds up.

      I just want to be able to see my best friend glow with hapiness on the wedding day she has dreamed about.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Ugh. RT @Colvinius: Lord Monckton urging mining owners to buy up papers & TV stations for political influence http://t.co/xRUgErn5

ToryShepherd

@JohnHillMP it's a spectacular part of the world

ToryShepherd

RT @JohnHillMP: “@ToryShepherd: Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/rPrvB4sL” Welcome to my electorate. #enjoy!

ToryShepherd

Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/faYa2ZWq

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

Julia Gillard and her advisers believe they can see a narrow path to victory for Labor at the next federal…

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

As key moments go, it ranked with Gough Whitlam’s dramatic dismissal speech branding Malcolm Fraser…

Working women need to escape the grog bog

Working women need to escape the grog bog

Can you hear a faint sort of teeth-grindy sound? No it’s not the rats in the roof gnawing the wires…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Other stuff to be angry about today (with video)

DOB says:

For the last 2 summers my local beach - which is a kid's beach really (but it has a nice cafe - thats my excuse) - has been overrun by jetskis. So when I go off for an idyllic morning of sun and sand I might as well just go down to an industrial plant and soak up the noise and fumes. My area is a bit… [read more]

From: Match of the century!

Pete says:

Since when has Australia been a land full of whinging, whiney and just plain annoying people. Seriously, we have to take a long hard look at ourselves and notice that we have it pretty damn good and that instead of whinging about every single article ever written we could perhaps be happy and enjoy things.… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

147 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter