New Labor MP Stephen Jones rose in parliament yesterday to move an amendment to Greens MP Adam Bandt’s motion to push for a consensus on the issue of gay marriage. He went on to deliver the case on why Labor must embrace the change.
… I do not pretend to be an early activist on this issue. When I think about the issues that I campaigned on this year, they were about dealing with youth unemployment, which stands at around 14% in my area, reforming our economy to make it more sustainable and preserving our planet for future generations. It was about improving infrastructure and access to health and education services.
Now, having focused on the issue and having applied the core Labor values of equality, fairness and dignity, I believe that there is a case for change. Indeed, it was these values that led Labor, in its first term, to conduct an exhaustive review of all Commonwealth laws to identify and remove all areas of discrimination against same-s-x couples. In the last parliament the Labor government amended 86 separate pieces of legislation to this end.
The second observation is that if change is to occur it must be built on community consensus. If legislation is to be changed it will require consensus, which will require more votes than any single party can muster in this chamber. That will not be achieved by a heroic dash but by careful advocacy that respects different views, respectfully. On this issue there are different views. There are some who, on theological grounds, believe that to celebrate marriage of two men or two women is an affront to their religion. I have thought carefully about this objection, and I cannot help but draw the conclusion that the real objection here is not to the marriage but to the relationship.
We can be thankful that we live in a society in which those who hold this view are as free to hold it as I am to say, respectfully, that I do not agree. We on the Labor side are opposed to discrimination. This Opposition is grounded in the value of fairness and equity, and we are opposed to treating people differently because of gender, race, religion or s-xual preference.
There are others who argue that same-s-x marriage is an affront to tradition. I have more sympathy for this argument because I am a great believer in the importance of tradition. It is often the stuff that binds us together, but it can also be the stuff that excludes and impedes genuine progress. We in this place must be very careful of mindless genuflection to tradition, because traditions change over time. There have been many matrimonial traditions which we now think of as absurd, if not abhorrent. Betrothal, dowry and a wife’s matrimonial vow of obedience to husband come to mind as examples.
The third observation I would make is that marriage is an important institution in our society. It is a special relationship where two people say to each other and to the rest of the world that they agree to be bound together in love, exclusive of all others, for life. I believe it would diminish us all as a society if we were to say that we may exclude gay and l-sbian couples from this celebration. That marks them as somehow less worthy or even as biological oddities. I respect the right of religious organisations and others in our community to disagree with this view and to continue to practise in accordance with their beliefs. Indeed, no motion or act of this place can of itself change those beliefs. But it is an entirely different thing to ask of the state to enforce it.
Finally, I come to this place as a representative of my party and my electorate. I will advocate for change, but I will do that in my electorate and in accordance with the rules and processes of my party in this parliament.
The ALP needs more of this, ALP politicians who are prepared to say publicly where they stand on major issues of the day. How odd that Stephen Jones can make this speech in parliament and be reported, even in Crikey (!) but Mark Arbib says publicy that he supports gay marriage and ALP pollies (mostly from the Right Factions of the Caucus it seems) start throwing stones at him for disloyalty to the leader!! Julia Gillard has said she wants more open debate, so where is the disloyalty? To those throwing the stones, leave Arbib alone and start telling us where your conscience lies on the issue of gay marriage.
Bravo, Mr. Jones.
I was very disappointed with the contribution of my MP, Malcolm Turnbull, to last night’s debate on Adam Bandt’s motion relating to same-sex marriage. Seeking reflected glory from his father-in-law’s fine qualities doesn’t cut the mustard with me. Bragging about the Howard Government’s tiny contributions towards equality is silly. Philip Ruddock was an impediment in the process of reform rather than being a facilitator. Malcolm’s fig-leaf (which he held to cover the Liberal Party’s past record of homophobia) was its support for the HREOC reforms when the Liberal Party was in Opposition in 2008. However, coming late to the reform agenda is not the same as showing courage when you are in Government.
Murray Hill and John Gorton are the Liberal Party’s only heroes from the past for homosexuals. Warren Entsch, Mal Washer and Simon Birmingham are today’s heroes, but sadly, not Malcolm on marriage.
In last night’s debate, Philip Ruddock relied on the sentence that “marriage is a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life.”
The phrase “to the exclusion of all others” has been both misunderstood and misrepresented. The “for life” part no longer operates!
The part of the wedding vow which states “to the exclusion of all others” is meant to exclude adultery from one’s marriage, not to exclude same-sex unions from the institution of marriage.
While I respect Turnbull’s personal right to hold on to a traditional definition of marriage, he doesn’t represent his constituents’ rights to have change and progress.
We returned him in 2010 because we thought he might again become the leader of his party and because we thought he would be a progressive leader. Unfortunately, neither came to pass. There is still the possibility of his re-claiming the leadership but I think Wentworth may elect a Green MP next time unless Malcolm Turnbull stands for liberal progress instead of traditional conservatism.
On a very personal note, I have been married to my husband for 35 years.
For the first 25 years, until hormone treatment for prostate cancer rendered him impotent, we made love two or three times a day, most days. That covers “to have and to hold”.
He has had two heart attacks followed by two coronary artery by-pass operations, Type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer and dementia, and a number of other medical misfortunes. I would call that “in sickness and in health”.
We have been finacially sound, then vulnerable, then sound again. I would call that “for richer, for poorer”.
My husband is an alcoholic and he lost his job because of that and rampant homophobia. Nevertheless, there have been many good things about him and many good times shared. I think that covers “for better, for worse”.
We are still married but he turned 80 this year. I suspect we will remain married “until death us do part”. I say that because, unlike those whose marriages are legally recognised, we can’t serve divorce papers on each other, even if we wished. We can only end our marriage by separation and desertion. He lacks legal capacity to do either and I wouldn’t abandon a man with dementia, who is dependent on me financially, physically and emotionally. That would be immoral!
I am no longer my husband’s lover but I am still his carer. That seems to cover “to love and to cherish”.
Some people may think our marriage is immoral. I think we have behaved with the utmost morality.
Come to think of it, I don’t know many straight couples who have demonstrated our level of commitment!
The speech advocates change, when in fact it does nothing of the sort. It basically laid out the argument for and against, and leave the decision to ‘community consultation’.
It’s just spin.
I have no stake in the outcome, and I expect the same can be said for many other Australians. However for the sake of language clarity we should create a new term for homosexual couples who want to get ‘married’. It will relief potential embarrassment for those who turn up at weddings of distant relatives or workmates with the wrong gifts.
I can’t help it ….I’ve got to ask…..just what kind of gifts do you think gay couples would get at their wedding??