At the time, John Howard said :. Fast forward to , and we see a very different attitude being expressed by the current Government. According to the Abbott and Turnbull Governments it is not the elected representatives who should decide whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but rather the Australian people via a plebiscite. Conducting a plebiscite on marriage equality is wrong on many levels. Here are my top 10 reasons why we should not be holding a plebiscite.
Parliament has both the power to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to wed, in just the same way the Howard Government amended it in to block same-sex couples from legally marrying.
Ireland had to have a referendum on the issue because the only way same-sex couples would be able to wed was if the Constitution was amended and that required a referendum. There is no such requirement in Australia. The nature of democracy is that we elect our politicians to make decisions.
It has been observed that our Parliament routinely legislates in respect of socially contentious issues without resorting to plebiscites, including:.
There is nothing special about recognising the right of all couples to marry regardless of their gender that makes it qualitatively different from the above examples.
Supporters of same-sex marriage contend that gay and lesbian couples should be treated no differently than their heterosexual counterparts and that they should be able to marry like anyone else. Beyond wanting to uphold the principle of nondiscrimination and equal treatment, supporters say that there are very practical reasons behind the fight for marriage equity. They point out, for instance, that homosexual couples who have been together for years often find themselves without the basic rights and privileges that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples who legally marry — from the sharing of health and pension benefits to hospital visitation rights.
Social conservatives and others who oppose same-sex unions assert that marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of a healthy society because it leads to stable families and, ultimately, to children who grow up to be productive adults. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, they argue, will radically redefine marriage and further weaken it at a time when the institution is already in deep trouble due to high divorce rates and the significant number of out-of-wedlock births.
Moreover, they predict, giving gay couples the right to marry will ultimately lead to granting people in polygamous and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry as well.
The American religious community is deeply divided over the issue of same-sex marriage. The Catholic Church and evangelical Christian groups have played a leading role in public opposition to gay marriage, while mainline Protestant churches and other religious groups wrestle with whether to ordain gay clergy and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
Indeed, the ordination and marriage of gay persons has been a growing wedge between the socially liberal and conservative wings of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, leading some conservative congregations and even whole dioceses to break away from their national churches. Polls show that frequency of worship service attendance is a factor in the opposition to gay marriage.
The same-sex marriage debate is not solely an American phenomenon. Many countries, especially in Europe, have grappled with the issue as well. And since , four nations — the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and South Africa — have legalized gay marriage. In addition, the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec in Canada now allow same-sex couples to legally marry.
Gay Americans have been calling for the right to marry, or at least to create more formalized relationships, since the s, but same-sex marriage has only emerged as a national issue in the last 15 years. Even though this decision did not immediately lead to the legalization of gay marriage in the state the case was sent back to a lower court for further consideration , it did spark a nationwide backlash.
Over the next decade, legislatures in more than 40 states passed what are generally called Defense of Marriage Acts DOMAs , which define marriage solely as the union between a man and a woman. Today, 42 states have DOMAs on the books.
In addition, in the U. Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, a federal DOMA that defines marriage for purposes of federal law as the union between a man and a woman.
Moreover, it will take away legal protections for committed, long-term couples, such as hospital visitation rights, pension benefits, health insurance coverage, inheritance rights, and many others.
What does the Federal Marriage Amendment say? What does that mean? Hasn't marriage been traditionally defined as between a man and a woman?
Don't the majority of Americans oppose marriage of same sex couples? What's the harm of an Amendment that defines marriage? What about the impact on children? Allowing two people who are in a loving and committed long-term relationship to have legal protections will have a positive impact on the children they adopt, care for, or other children in their communities. Leave this field blank. United States v. Windsor isn't the first time the Supreme Court applied the 14th Amendment to marriage rights.
In , the Supreme Court applied the same standards when it struck down states' interracial marriage bans in Loving v. This interpretation of the 14th Amendment is what led many lower courts to strike down states' same-sex marriage bans, and eventually led to the Supreme Court's final decision to strike down states' same-sex marriage bans and bring marriage equality to all 50 states. Opponents of same-sex marriage argued that it's in the public interest for states to encourage heterosexual relationships through traditional marriage policies.
Some groups, such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cited the secular benefits of heterosexual marriages, particularly the ability of heterosexual couples to reproduce, as Daniel Silliman reported at the Washington Post. Other groups, like the conservative Family Research Council, warned that allowing same-sex couples to marry would lead to the breakdown of traditional families.
But keeping marriage to heterosexual couples, FRC argued in an amicus brief , allowed states to "channel the potential procreative sexual activity of opposite-sex couples into stable relationships in which the children so procreated may be raised by their biological mothers and fathers.
To defend same-sex marriage bans, opponents had to convince courts that there was a compelling state interest in encouraging heterosexual relationships that isn't really about discriminating against same-sex couples. But the Supreme Court rejected this argument, deeming states' same-sex marriage bans discriminatory and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court previously struck down the federal ban on same-sex marriages, deeming it unconstitutional.
In United States v. The landmark ruling forced the federal government to recognize at least some same-sex marriages, and it was seen as a major victory for LGBTQ advocates. The Constitution's 14th Amendment requires the government to apply laws equally for all people. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion , concluded that DOMA violated the 14th Amendment by denying same-sex couples access to federal benefits attached to marriage.
The Supreme Court's DOMA decision led to rulings in lower federal courts allowing same-sex couples to marry in most states. As these challenges trickled back up to the Supreme Court, justices were forced to reconsider the issue — ultimately bringing marriage equality to all 50 states. The role of marriage has widely varied from civilization to civilization and era to era throughout human history. Four centuries ago, arranged marriages were common practice in the West the Americas and Western Europe.
Love marriages — the now-commonplace unions between romantic partners who marry out of their love and commitment to each other — rose to prominence in the West throughout the 18th and 19th centuries , although the practice of arranged marriages remains prevalent in some countries, such as India. In this transition from arranged to chosen marriage, the institution went from one that primarily served collective social interests, particularly those of extended families, to a union that was more focused on the needs of two individuals and their children.
More recently, marriage rights in the United States have become more expansive, as states repealed bans on interracial marriage in the early 20th century. At first, this change was driven largely by a shift in public opinion within states, much like same-sex marriage legalization today. The final blow to interracial marriage bans came through 's Loving v. Virginia , a case in which the Supreme Court deemed bans on interracial relationships unconstitutional.
The evidence that the institution of marriage can change is crucial to the marriage equality debate. If the definition of marriage could change in the past to focus on love instead of familial arrangements, or include interracial couples instead of just single-race couples, it was seen as possible that marriage could change once again to allow unions between same-sex couples. Government recognition of marriage comes with many benefits, such as potentially lower taxes and the ability to make important medical decisions for a spouse.
Legal advice organization Nolo maintains a more thorough list of marriage benefits here.
0コメント