One could be forgiven for thinking Webster got that notion horribly wrong when viewing the disturbing level of vindictive and bizarre moralising that has spewed forth in opposition to same-sex marriage, not just here in Australia, but in various parts of the world.
At the outset, I want to declare that I am not advocating for same-sex marriage as a defacto way of pursuing my own personal agenda or life choice.
I am a happily married straight woman with two adult children. My support for same-sex marriage is based on my belief that this is what the majority of my constituents in Brisbane want and my personal view that all people, whether they be straight or gay, are entitled to make that choice for themselves.
While I am in the process of making declarations, I have to confess that the road I have travelled in coming to support same-sex marriage has not been a straight one – no pun intended.
I am on record in 2012 as voting against changes to the Marriage Act because I believed that position was consistent with the assurances I gave prior to the 2010 election and that it accurately reflected the majority of views in my electorate of Brisbane at that time.
"My support for same-sex marriage is based on my belief that this is what the majority of my constituents in Brisbane want and my personal view that all people, whether they be straight or gay, are entitled to make that choice for themselves."
After this election, I surveyed my electorate and found 70 per cent of respondents were in favour of same sex marriage. During the 2013 federal election campaign, many people wanted to know what my conscience vote would be on the issue of same-sex marriage.
At that time, the Prime Minister also gave an undertaking that any vote on same-sex marriage would come before the Coalition Party Room for consideration in this term of Parliament.
I must admit to being reluctant to “come out” on this issue, but I was very disappointed by the shamelessly divisive way in which many people had sought to exploit the issue for political gain during that campaign.
At that time, like now, I also had many people seek to advise me on the basis of what was either a politically expedient or so-called acceptable position to take.
My response to that advice now is as it was then - I will not be bullied into one position or another and I believe in representing people properly, not using them for a political purpose.
It is the nature of human experience that views change over time. My sense of the views of people of Brisbane during the course of my discussions with them during the term of the last Parliament was that they had changed their views about same-sex marriage.
In 2013, I told my constituents that I would support them in those views. Consistent with that support, I am one of a number of parliamentarians who are co-sponsoring a Bill amending the Marriage Act to allow for same-sex marriage.
"I must admit to being reluctant to 'come out' on this issue, but I was very disappointed by the shamelessly divisive way in which many people had sought to exploit the issue for political gain during that campaign."
I am very proud to acknowledge that my office drafted the Bill. But, it is the Bill’s cross party support that is its most important feature and is what distinguishes it from previous Bills.
As I have said before, marriage should not be about party politics. As such, securing cross party support for the Bill was the crucial first step necessary to give the Parliament, as the People’s House, ownership of this issue.
For this achievement, my parliamentary colleague and dear friend Warren Entsch, the Member for Leichhardt, deserves enormous credit and it will be a privilege to see him introduce the Bill into the Parliament today.
At this point it might be opportune to put on the record some things that this Bill does not do.
Firstly, it does not make same-sex marriage compulsory, which will no doubt be a relief to many. Neither does it dissolve heterosexual marriages or create separate classes of marriage.
What the Bill does do is allow two people who love each other to make that statement to the world. It provides absolute protection of religious freedom in that it does not compel ministers of religion or chaplains to undertake same-sex marriages where to do would contravene the tenets of their faith.
So why is it then that a societal institution based on the central notion of love between two people causes so much angst? Why do we care so much about whether Ted should be allowed to marry Barry or whether Emily can marry Rosie? The short answer is because in a democracy we can.
Related reading
Government divided over gay marriage vote
One of the great things about parliamentary democracy is that we are all free to have different thoughts on this or any other issue. What I do not believe we are free to do is dictate how two people, regardless of gender, are allowed to express their love for one another.
If we accept the view that marriage is a statement of commitment made by two people to the world about their love for one another, then why does it matter whether those two people be Ted and Barry or Emily and Rosie? Sadly, I think this is because many of us see marriage as a status symbol of moral superiority as opposed to the simple statement of love that it is meant to be.
As a married heterosexual woman, I do not pretend to understand why same sex couples would want to marry, but equally I do not have to. At times I have been perplexed as to why some of my straight friends have chosen to marry when they have not seemed suited. But in both cases, neither of these choices are for me to make. And it is this freedom of choice that is the crux of the matter – a person’s choice to get married does not belong to me, it does not belong to government and it is not for political parties.
The standard list of objections to same-sex marriage, not just here in Australia but all over the world, includes the notion that it is against God’s law and that same-sex couples should not be able to have children.
"It provides absolute protection of religious freedom in that it does not compel ministers of religion or chaplains to undertake same-sex marriages where to do would contravene the tenets of their faith."
In relation to children, same-sex couples can already be parents under existing laws, so this Bill will change nothing in that space. Rather than being based on any real concerns, these objections seem to be more based on a lack of understanding.
More recently I have read that some additions to the list of objections include that allowing same-sex marriage might impact negatively on our trading relationships and that it’s not quite in tune with the Asian Century.
With respect to the holders of these various views, I cannot find agreement with them on any level at all. In terms of the impacts on international relations, I am not aware of New Zealand suffering any negative fall out to its international trading relationships since it legalised same-sex marriage on 17 April 2013.
Equally, the United States did not appear to be concerned about the possibility of any negative fallout from the appointment of John Berry, who married his partner Curtis Yee in August 2013, as the US Ambassador to Australia. Mr Berry’s appointment does not appear to have damaged to US/Australia trading relations or resulted in the dissolving of the ANZUS treaty.
So, in returning to the perplexing question of why is it that an issue founded on the central element of love provokes such hostility, I am firmly of the belief that this should not be a political question.
"I am not aware of New Zealand suffering any negative fall out to its international trading relationships since it legalised same-sex marriage on 17 April 2013."
My view is that on this issue party political positions should be abandoned in favour of what each person’s conscience tells them. For me, as a Liberal Member of Parliament, that would be democracy in its purest form. This issue is bigger than the individual opinion of one man or woman.
If the Australian people through their representatives in the Parliament vote against same-sex marriage, while I may not agree with that position, I would accept their decision. In a democracy the people are sovereign; all governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.
As such, we should never be afraid to let the people have their voice. As people we are, all of us, more than our sexuality, in the same way that we are more than our racial origin or any disability we may have.
Our worth as people is in no way diminished by any of these characteristics, none of which should be allowed to serve as disqualifying any one of us from one of life’s most fundamental and basic rights – our own choice as to who we love.
Given that for all of us our time on this earth is too short, why would any of us seek to deny another the chance to experience love in their lifetime? Does a gay person need love any less than me?
This is not a politician’s response – I’d like to think of it as a human response. As so many people have said before me, if there was just a little more love in the world then it would be a better place for all of us.
- Teresa Gambaro is a Liberal MP
