Why should we allow gay marriage in australia

May 2014

An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the Sydney Social Justice Network’s inaugural PhD conference in November 2013.

Louise Richardson-Self, The University of Sydney

The aim of marriage equality should be the social and legal non-discrimination of sapphic, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people. But how likely is same-sex marriage to lead to social justice? This article argues that, while same-sex marriage is justified, social justice is best served when the normative importance of marriage is undercut.

A frequent argument in favour of same-sex marriage is that, without reform, LGBT people are confined to the status of second class citizens. Take this declaration from Australian Marriage Equality (2013; emphasis added), one of Australia’s leading gay marriage advocacy organisations:

Consider all the other groups in society, along with people of colour and lgbtq+ attracted people, who at one time or another have been denied the right to marry the partner of their choice: women, people from differing faiths, people with disabilities … The gradual acceptance that members of these

Gay marriage good for family and economy

I have a simple message to Australian politicians currently considering gay marriage: the overseas encounter has been an entirely positive one.

Marriage equality is a controversial issue with opponents of reform predicting dire consequences. But when social scientists like myself look closely at those societies where reform has occurred, what we look is very different.

First of all, the impact on same-sex couples and their families has been positive and profound.

A range of studies have shown that marriage leads to improved mental and physical health, findings cited the American Psychological Association when it endorsed marriage equality in August last year.

Allowing homosexual couples to marry has also produced similar positive effects in Massachusetts and the Netherlands, according to studies conducted by my colleagues and me at the Williams Institute at UCLA.

We found that over 70 per cent of married same-sex couples felt marriage had increased the level of commitment in their relationship.

The same percentage of same-sex partners felt more accepted and legitimised within their broader families and communities, with a common

I recently published a small book entitled A Private Life. This provides a number of biographical sketches, although it stops short of deserving the title of an autobiography.

The fourth chapter of the book is named for my partner of 43 years, Johan van Vloten. It tells how we met and how we have stayed together ever since. It has never been formalised by marriage or in any other way. But it is rock solid and a great blessing in my life and in the lives of my family. Anyone who would deny another human being who wants a loving, supportive, intimate companion on the journey through life is not a kind person.

In recent years, Johan and I own discussed whether, were marriage available to us, we would take the plunge. Because our bond has been tested in the furnace of life, including on a limited nasty occasions, we have not hitherto felt the demand for a formal ceremony to inform the world about our relationship. To that extent, I can approach the issue of marriage equality with a degree of dispassion. Both of us are strongly of the view that the legal status of marriage should be available to those men and women who qualify for it. As a legal status, established by federal le

Marriage equality

Decriminalisation of homosexuality

From the 1960s the socially progressive South Australian Labor government wanted to repeal laws criminalising homosexuality.

However, it was not until the May 1972 murder in Adelaide of Dr George Duncan, a law lecturer and gay man, that premier, Don Dunstan, assessed that the community mood was receptive to reform.

Dr Duncan’s murder led to revelations of how commonplace hostility and harassment against homosexual people was.

South Australia’s Criminal Statute (Sexual Offences) Behave, was enacted on 2 October 1975. It was a landmark in LGBTQIA+ rights in Australia because it fully decriminalised homosexual acts.

Equivalent law reform was passed by the Australian Capital Area in 1976, Victoria in 1980, the Northern Territory in 1983, New South Wales in 1984, Western Australia in 1989, Queensland in 1990 and Tasmania in 1997.

Источник: https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/marriage-equality

Australia is progressing towards LGBTIQA+ equality. In 2017 we voted for it. But the backlash to that progress poses a thoughtful threat. The question before us is how accomplish we continue to produce progress despite the backlash?

From Bigots Island to the Rainbow Isle

Thirty years ago, my article for the first edition of the Human Rights Defender explained a ground-breaking appeal I was involved in to the UN Human Rights Committee against Tasmania’s then laws criminalising gay affection with up to 21 years in gaol.

That appeal was ultimately successful. It gave us a platform to seek federal legislation and a High Court ruling against the offending state law, it gave the Commonwealth Parliament a mandate to prohibit anti-LGBTIQA+ discrimination, and it place a precedent for decriminalisation in other countries from Belize to India.

The Tasmanian UN decision has played a critical role in LGBTIQA+ emancipation. But it would be wrong to attribute change in Tasmania and elsewhere solely to that decision. Its ramifications have been greatest where there was already a community-based campaign in place.

In Tasmania this campaign deeply interested everyday LGBTIQA+ people reaching out to potential allies