Why do gay people have to get permission from non-gay people
to get married?
The campaign to grant legal status to same-sex unions in Australia has been boosted by two events – the Irish referendum which mandated legislation and a decision by the US Supreme Court – both of which cleared the way for gay marriage in those countries. These events have of course ignited debate with same-sex activists renewing their demands for marriage equality in Australia and opponents spouting a flurry of rebuttals.
The arguments adduced by the opponents of same-sex marriage are
all easily dismissed: they are basically nonsense. The real issue is the
question of how the issue should be decided. There are basically three options for
changing the Marriage Act.
1.
A bill passed by a majority of members in both
the House of Representative and the Senate.
2.
A bill passed as above after a plebiscite. (the Irish method)
3.
A ruling from the High Court to strike out the Act as it stands.
At present, most marriage-equality advocates are arguing either
for a conscience vote which would lead to number one, or number two. Oddly, a
large number of opponents, and what might be called agnostics, are also
advocating a plebiscite.
While it is true that a plebiscite would resolve the matter
decisively, and probably in the affirmative, and while it makes sense
politically, there is still something troubling about the process of asking one
group of Australians to rule on the rights of another group of Australians.
The question that troubles me is: why should non-gay people even have a say as to whether gay people can
get married?
A few vocal opponents of same-sex marriage have tried to allege that legalising
gay marriage would have an adverse effect on their own marriages and devalue
marriage in general, thus making them a concerned party in the matter. That
argument is too stupid to even listen to. Gay marriage affects no one but the
couples themselves.
In the end, marriage equality is a legal issue, not a matter of public interest.
Though section 40(2A) of the Sex Discrimination Act exempts
the Marriage Act 1961 from being bound by it, Sections 5 and 88EA of the Marriage Act
clearly contradict the spirit of Section 5A of the Sex Discrimination Act. The Marriage Act also sits uneasily with Section 26 of the Sexual Discrimination Act where Commonwealth “agents” (for example
marriage celebrants, who are technically administering Commonwealth law) cannot
use information gathered to discriminate against people.
If the government cannot be persuaded to put the matter of
marriage equality before the Parliament, a plebiscite is probably the best
strategy to aim for. There is, however, a fundamental principle of democracy
that should be kept in mind:
Democracy is based on a
principle of majority rule but that principle is itself governed by certain conditions.
One of the most important conditions is that the people in the majority must
not their numbers to disadvantage minorities unfairly. An example of
an unfair disadvantage would be those in the majority outlawing something simply because they do not like even though it does not adversely affect them or any third party personally.
It seems a lot of people do not understand that principle.
Thus, my inclination to opponents of same-sex marriage is not to get caught up in refuting their arguments but just say to them, repeatedly, like
Robin Williams to Matt Damon at the end of Good Will Hunting: “It’s none of your business. It’s none of your business. It’s none of your business. It’s none of your
business…. etc etc.”
