ACT Civil Union Act

Howard and Ruddock intervene…

In mid June, the Australian Government successfully invalidated the ACT Civil Union Act, resulting in the removal of legal rights given to homosexual couples in a civil union. The legal reason for the invalidation was that the law substantially interfered with the Commonwealth’s marriage laws. The ACT Civil Union Act extended property, economic and social rights to homosexual partners in civil unions insofar as to establish equality with married couples. While the action was ‘correct’ in a strict legal sense, I think we need to look beyond this façade to appreciate the real reasons why the law was invalidated. Accordingly, I want to outline the main reasons politicians have used to oppose gay marriage and civil unions and laws such as the ACT Civil Union Act. After all, it isn’t fair to reject these arguments unless we analyse them first!

Argument 1: ‘society must outlaw same-sex marriages and civil unions in order to protect families.’

While this is a classic argument, there is no explanation as to what aspect of the family society wishes to protect. If the family plays a reproductive role, then it is only logical to extend the exclusion to infertile individuals or couples who don’t want kids. Alternatively, if the protection is about the structure of the family (that there must be a father, a mother and one or more children), what do we say about the ever-growing group of single mothers, single fathers, or parents who have re-married? If the family is an economic structure, what’s wrong with a househusband or the female as the primary breadwinner? All in all, it is a nice sounding argument to rev up the emotions and have us all nodding in agreement, but quite flimsy in reality.

Argument 2: ‘society must outlaw same-sex marriages and civil unions to protect children.’

In a similar vein to the first argument, opponents of same-sex marriages appeal to society’s instinct for moral panic. This argument can be taken to mean two things. Firstly, it could mean that homosexuals are poor parents or child abusers. Opponents of same-sex marriages should be challenged to present any authoritative research or statistics to support this. Secondly, it suggests that children with same-sex parents will suffer long-term emotional or psychological damage. While potentially there could be some value in arguing that children need both male and female role models, no such criticism is levelled towards single parent families. What about families where the dad is working on an oilrig or the mum is a flight attendant? The strong counterargument here is that no child lives a bubble; there are other role models beyond parents—siblings, grandparents, teachers, sports stars and so on.

Argument 3: ‘marriage is a long-held tradition between a man and a woman.’

Once upon a time, it was tradition for women not to have any rights. Once upon a time, it was tradition for Aboriginal Australians not to be considered citizens of this country. How times change. People who cling onto the idea of marriage as heterosexual union ignore the fact that marriage is a changing institution. Explicit class boundaries, wealth and the sexual division of labour have been dominant motivations for marriage in the past. These have replaced by different motivations—love, it seems, is a dominant factor now.

Argument 4: ‘we must protect the sanctity of marriage.’

This argument implies that homosexuals should not get married because it will dilute the holiness of marriage. The only way this argument can be valid is if marriage is seen as something which is precious because of its heterosexuality. Naturally, no one dares to stand by this because it is blatantly homophonic. If the argument meant sanctity in terms of the quantum of love between two individuals, I agree by all means. That way, we can perhaps solve, among other things, the overrepresentation of Hollywood celebrities in divorce courts.

So why oppose same-sex marriages and civil unions?

Think about the number of children in this world who have heterosexual parents. Now, imagine if 10% of these children had parents who were gay. Give that one generation and you have hundreds of millions of children who have gay parents. ‘Outrageous!’ the opponents cry, ‘we can’t have that! It will destroy the world!’ Yes it will destroy the world as we know it, a world where heterosexuality is seen as the only sexuality-based norm. Imagine the fear on the faces of the opponents when young children are brought up thinking homosexuality is normal. Imagine the shock when the reaction is an ambivalent ‘so?’ instead of a surprised ‘what?’ If anything, the push to maintain heterosexuality as the dominant sexuality is an exercise of power. Ok, but why?

I believe the opposition to same-sex relationships comes from a need to maintain the dominance of heterosexuality as something which is normal—it’s about power. We are brought up seeing heterosexuality as normal: our parents tell us it is normal to be ‘straight’; they have been told this by our grandparents. More potently, we are never told explicitly that heterosexuality is normal. Instead, we unconsciously learn this from a young age, when we see our mum and our dad or when we see male-female love scenes on television. What is seen as normal is nothing more than our acceptance of what we see as something that is presented as a matter-of-fact, over some other alternative.

Now if marriage included same-sex relationships, it would pose the initial problem of a greater recognition of homosexuality. More profoundly, think about this example: If there are two husbands in a family, and one is forced to stay at home and be a househusband, this subverts the traditional roles of a family. Suddenly it is demonstrated that the man can stay at home and that he can look after the children! Conversely, a wife might be out with a career, climbing her corporate ladder. At the birth of her child, she asks for paternity leave. All of a sudden same-sex relationships have destroyed the traditional description of a family. Gender divisions of labour are no longer adhered to.

What I am trying to say is that the opposition to same-sex marriages is not just about the protection of heterosexuality as the dominant form of sexuality. It is also about other social struggles, such as the sexism and sexist divisions of labour. Beneath the façade of protecting marriage, there is a bigger fish that is being fried.

How do I know this?

AAP, ‘ACT to fight to keep gay law’, Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/act-to-fight-t... June 7, 2006 (accessed 3 July, 2006)

Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, ACT to legislate for Civil Unions, http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.asp?medi...§ion=24&title=Jon%20Stanhope,%20MLA (accessed 3 July, 2006)

Rauch. J., ‘Who needs marriage?’ in Corvino. J. (ed), Same Sex, Rowman & Littlefield, 1997, Lanham, pp304-316.

Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia, Family, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family

Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia, Same Sex Marriage, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Marriage