Tasmanian same-sex marriage push makes an honest nation of Australia

I personally experienced the full necessity for marriage equality only recently. In the sunny town of Lamego, Portugal, my dear friend Nina was married to her beloved Marcos. She was the first of my friends to be married. Witnessing her exchange vows with the one she loved surrounded by her friends…

97jsw7rm-1344219783
Joyous photos such as this one of Phyllis Siegel, 76, right, and Connie Kopelov, 84, marrying in New York could soon flood out of Tasmania. EPA/Michael Appleton

I personally experienced the full necessity for marriage equality only recently. In the sunny town of Lamego, Portugal, my dear friend Nina was married to her beloved Marcos. She was the first of my friends to be married.

Witnessing her exchange vows with the one she loved surrounded by her friends and family, many of whom, like me, had travelled far and wide to be there, was a moment of pure love, joy and affection. This is something I wish to experience one day, like my parents did 32 years ago.

The fight for marriage equality here in Australia has recently gained ground with the news that the Tasmanian Labor government has vowed to act on marriage inequality.

Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings has said that if the federal government doesn’t pass same-sex marriage this year, then her government will endeavour to do so. It is unclear whether she will be successful, but the endeavour is one to be praised.

The consequences of Tasmania allowing same-sex couples to marry will be far reaching. These ripple effects are more than just the economic boost the pink dollar would bring to Tasmania’s tourism industry.

Using wedlock to break the deadlock

First, the move will shed new, negative light on the frustrating situation Julia Gillard has put her government in over the issue. This will be well-deserved. Gay marriage in Tasmania will dramatically increase pressure on the federal government to act.

At the Labor State Conference, Giddings stated:

Just as we have responded to other forms of discrimination throughout history, there comes a time when no amount of excuses should stand in the way of doing what is right.

Gillard’s excuses, and her pandering to the Australian Christian Lobby and conservative union bosses, such as Joe de Bruyn, will be shown for what they are: co-opting civil rights in the pursuit of power.

States of the (civil) union

Tasmania will also set an example for other states to follow.

Premier Campbell Newman’s conservative Queensland government will seem even more socially regressive. His amending civil union laws, along with his government’s failure to scrap the “gay panic” defence and the withdrawal of funds from the Queensland Association for Healthy Communities has lead The Star Observer’s Drew Sheldrick to label this the “most significant attack on gay and lesbian rights in the Western world".

A comparison between Tasmania’s socially progressive image and Queensland’s lack thereof will only further drive Queenslanders to voice their discontent.

Who could say no to such happiness? EPA/Justin Lane

When I was abroad recently I was quite surprised to find that various Europeans I had met assumed we had marriage equality here in Australia. Being able to get married in Tasmania will bring Australia closer to the esteemed company of other countries who allow gay marriage. Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden all do.

While having one state that allows same-sex marriage doesn’t match these countries, it is at least a start.

Happily ever after

Finally, and indeed most important, are the wider social implications.

By legislating equal social recognition for same-sex couples, a supportive social environment is created for young people who feel insecure and unsure of their sexual and gender identity.

Marriage equality is by no means the end goal. Support groups and strategies to fight homophobia in schools are other essential means to help support our young people. But removing the ban on same-sex marriage will undoubtedly help fight the stigma associated with being gay.

I sincerely look forward to all the snapshots of newly married couples celebrating their right to tie the knot because, ultimately, the biggest consequence of Tasmania passing equality will be that there won’t be very many drastic changes at all, aside from these moments of pure love, affection and joy.

Many opponents, who are worried this move will erode the institution of marriage, need only to look at these photos and see that indeed the sky isn’t falling. In the end, it’s really just about happiness.

Articles also by This Author

Sign in to Favourite

Want to follow The Conversation?

Sign up to our free newsletter to get the day's top stories in your inbox each morning, with a special wrap on Saturday.

Spinner
Help us have better conversations — donate

Join the conversation

13 Comments sorted by

  1. Grendelus Malleolus

    Senior Nerd

    Oh my - the wedding plus honeymoon packages that Tassie can sell to not just Australia, but the world!

    report
  2. Chris Caley

    Research Professional & Taxpaying Voter

    Fantastic article Stuart! Great summation of the state of play, with a great positive message. I have become a marriage equality advocate due to the injustice of my brother not being afforded the same marriage rights I have, in the country we were both born in.

    Keep up the good work mate!

    report
  3. Luke Weyland

    logged in via Facebook

    I support equal marriage but thanks to Mssrs Howard and Rudd Marriage is defined as a discriminatory action between a male and a female.
    Wouldn't S109 of the Australian Constitution ensure that this definition would over-ride Tasmanian Law?:

    report
    1. Chris Caley

      Research Professional & Taxpaying Voter

      In reply to Luke Weyland

      Luke yes this has been raised, and may be the case, it would seem it depends upon whether "marriage" is determined to be legislated for heterosexuals only (therefore the states can legislate for groups outside this), or covers everyone and is allowed to discriminate.

      See this article:

      http://www.equallovecampaign.com/news/gay-marriage-in-high-court/

      With this comment:

      "Of course, as has been rightly pointed out, Section 109 exists to strike down State legislation which operates contrary…

      Read more
  4. Philip Dowling

    IT teacher

    Tasmania, the mendicant state, once again manages to put the irrelevant ahead of the important.
    GST should be allocated to states according to their input.

    report
    1. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      "GST should be allocated to states according to their input."

      Philip, if you were a state of your own, your main mountain range would be called "The Grumpians" and you'd be in debt several billion dollars.

      I see you are not fond of the constitution or the approach of horizontal fiscal equalisation.

      report
    2. Philip Dowling

      IT teacher

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Actually, I would be hawking Tasmania around to China and the Gulf States as it has long ago been anything other than a sheet anchor to the Australian economy.
      Even refugees who are offered asylum in Tasmania flee as soon as they relise that they have been duped.

      report
  5. Gil Hardwick

    Anthropologist

    What's interesting here is the way these roadshows manage to travel about from New York, Los Angeles, all sorts of weird places, to everywhere they perceive 'conservative governments' to be in power, in a vain effort to embarrass them.

    What's relevant, on the other hand, is the fact that the issue involves miniscule numbers of people getting vastly disproportionate media coverage on no more substantial merit than the idea they have sex with one another.

    Boring, boring, boring. Everyone has…

    Read more
    1. Chris Caley

      Research Professional & Taxpaying Voter

      In reply to Gil Hardwick

      Gil where do I start? As an anthropologist I would have hoped you would have a more insightful, constructive and factually supported comment rather than relying on bigoted colourful language and conjecture.

      It wouldn't BE an issue if gay and lesbian couples (these *minuscule* numbers...) had the same right as heterosexuals to be recognised and legally benefit from marrying the person they love, regardless of the type of sex (queer or otherwise) they have. And yes, the same right to burden the…

      Read more
    2. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Gil Hardwick

      "Maybe just go away, do whatever you want, nobody else cares"

      You cared enough about the issue to commenet vituperatively. Not caring about an issue to comment in the way you have is actually expressing that you have strong opinions about it.

      Lets have a couple of facts in relation to your comments however:

      1. This is not an issue about sex - even your lurid descriptions of it, this is about allowing same sex couples (already in a relationship) to formally describe their relationship as marriage.
      2. "apart from the extra burden on the Family Court" Same sex couples already have access to the Family Court in recognistion of the fact that they are in a relationship - so even if the divorce rate of future married same-sex couple approaches the 50% of heterosexual couples they will not be any additional burden whatsoever.
      3. If you really don't care why are you opposing gay marriage.

      report
    3. Stuart Richards

      PhD candidate in Screen and Cultural Studies at University of Melbourne

      In reply to Philip Dowling

      Philip, I usually don’t feed internet trolls but I feel the need to address your biphobia here. An individual who identifies as bisexual in a same sex relationship (or an opposite-sex relationship) is still bisexual. Your comment hints at bigotry.

      report
  6. Peter Gerard

    Retired medical practitioner

    A recent article in the Quadrant magazine raised an interesting point regarding the question of 'gay marriage'.
    If we take all forms of human relationships, the superordinate, then defacto relationships are one form, polygamy another, gay unions another and marriage between a man and a woman another and so on. These are all hyponyms of the superordinate. They all have obvious differentiating characteristics and no one relationship is equivalent to the others. In varying situations they are all equally legitimate.
    The mistake advocates of gay marriage make is to regard 'marriage ' as the superordinate, and heterosexual marriage and gay marriage and other types of co-habiting as examples of this general term
    It isn't possible; "apples aren't 'oranges'. Let's have 'gay union' but not marriage; apart from the undeniable love/affection between people of the same sex , if you think about it and put aside the sentimentality this subject is steeped in, it is nonsensical.

    report