As I enter my late twenties, the wedding invitations are flooding in. Clearly, while marriage rates have declined over the decades, and people are getting married later, many still value marriage: most of my friends either plan or hope to get married eventually. In 2009, 120,118 marriages were registered, representing a steady increase since 2001.
Studies suggest most people don’t believe the institution is outdated. Historically, marriage was an unequal arrangement – the woman was given away by her father, often in exchange for money, becoming the property of her husband. It was only twenty years ago that the High Court overturned a ruling that gave husbands immunity from being convicted of raping their wives.
For this reason, some of the traditional aspects of marriage leave me cold – the bride walking solo down the aisle for the guests’ appraisal, being ‘given away’ by her father, and taking her husband’s surname. But many people still choose to adopt these timeworn rituals, finding meaning and beauty in them, and most no longer see them as sexist.
If marriage can become less sexist, can it also become less heterosexist? I’m still not convinced of the inherent value of having the government certify my relationship, but I like that I have the choice. This is not the case for same sex couples.
In 2004, the Howard government legislated to restrict marriage to a union between a man and a woman, restricting states’ ability to legislate for same-sex marriage. This is not the first time the Australian government has controlled the ability of people from certain marginised groups to marry; in the past, it was convicts and Aboriginals.
On 13 August I went to the Equal Love Rally in Melbourne, a gathering of over 1000 people calling for same-sex marriage rights as part of a national campaign. It was amazing to see so teenagers there; this would have been unlikely when in teenage days.
Speaking at the rally, Greens MP Adam Bandt mentioned that he’d said to independent MP Bob Katter, who’s vehemently against same-sex marriage: ‘If you don’t support gay marriage, don’t marry a bloke.’ In other words, if you’re not into something but it doesn’t affect you, you shouldn’t be able to stop other people doing it – basic libertarian argument. Bandt had moved a motion calling for lower house MPs to report to Parliament on their constituents’ views on same-sex marriage laws.
A few days later, at the Don’t Meddle With Marriage Rally in Canberra, a rally against gay marriage organised by right-wing Christian groups, Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce said, ‘We know that the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband, and I want that to happen for them.’ Aside from harking back to the old-fashioned view of husbands as ‘protectors’, the notion that letting gay people get married somehow threatens heterosexuals is ridiculous.
A week later, when a selection of 30 lower house MPs did report back to the Parliament in accordance with Bandt’s motion, most reported that their constituents were opposed to gay marriage. It’s unclear how reliable these surveys were, given that polls show support for gay marriage at around 60%, although it’s true that support and opposition are concentrated in particular geographical areas (and electorates).
But attitudes towards homosexuality change, and more people come out, almost everyone has a friend, relative, or work colleague who’s gay. For this reason, it seems recognition of same-sex marriage is inevitable – the only question is when.
Originally posted at gelp.com.au.
Finnish Whaler 