Page 4788 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Civil partnership is not a wedding, and the laws that hopefully we will pass today have been framed to avoid conflict with the commonwealth Marriage Act. I am left wondering why it is that same-sex partners are not able to stand up in front of their family and friends and to receive the formal blessing of the state for their union.
Gays and lesbians are part of our community. We are not nameless, faceless people. We do not live on the margins of society. We deserve respect and the same dignity that is afforded to others. And we deserve equality. Legal equality is not only functional and practical but it is highly symbolic. It allows us to hold our heads up high as equal members of the community and to celebrate our relationships. Fundamentally, it is about dignity. I can see no good argument for allowing only opposite-sex couples to formalise and celebrate their relationships and then to deny that right to same-sex couples.
Those who oppose gay marriage or civil partnerships frequently talk about its alleged dire effect on families. I think this ignores the fact that gay men and women have families too. We are sons and daughters, we are brothers and sisters, we are cousins, we are aunts, we are uncles—indeed, we are parents. So let me say how pleased I am that this parliament will seize the opportunity to support family and to plainly say that no-one deserves to be excluded simply because of his or her sexual orientation.
This is about drawing a line in the sand. It is about standing up for your principles. What I find remarkable in the contribution from Mrs Dunne is that there was no real comment on the principle at stake here. On one level I just wish the Liberal Party would clearly state their view on the substance of the issue and not seek to hide behind politicking around the relationship between the ACT and the commonwealth. That is a pretty weak position to adopt. The relationship between the ACT and the commonwealth is robust enough to survive this sort of debate, and principles are what matter. In the end, I think the commonwealth government will respect the fact that this parliament and this government are prepared to stand up for those principles.
Before closing, I must say let us hope that today is not the final word on the recognition of same-sex relationships in Australia. As I said at the beginning of my speech, a lot has changed, and it has been really positive. But this represents only one part of this country, and it is still the case, in the amendments that the Attorney-General will be moving, that there is a distinction between marriage and civil partnerships. I know there are many who will continue to campaign for full legal equality and for the definition of marriage to be opened up to all couples in this country. That fight will continue. I think that the decisions we take today send an important message not only to the Canberra community but to the rest of the country that these issues will not go away. The direction of social change is only going in one way, and I think that is another thing to take from today’s debate.
I am thrilled that the Tasmanian government is taking further steps to recognise same-sex relationships in their jurisdiction. The changes that they propose have greater constitutional protection than we have as a territory, and that is important. I called 18 months ago for Victoria and Tasmania, as the two other leading jurisdictions in this country, to take further steps, and both governments, both Labor governments, have, and it is to their great credit.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video