Denying marriage to same sex couples is like restricting 'senator' title, MP says
|
Version 0 of 1. A Western Australian senator has likened marriage to the right to be called a senator, saying people are not discriminated against merely because they don’t fit the criteria. Chris Back, a Liberal party senator who opposes same-sex marriage, also said his ineligibility to describe himself as a person of Indigenous descent did not mean he was a victim of discrimination. He was one of eight senators to speak during a debate on Thursday about a symbolic motion affirming the right of people “to marry the person they love” in accordance with equality and ending discrimination. The motion proposed by the Greens did not proceed to a vote, and would not have the force of law even if it had passed the Senate. Back said he believed marriage was “between a man and a woman, but this of course does not preclude, hasn’t precluded, shouldn’t preclude, and won’t preclude other people in same sex relationships from entering into unions but they just don’t meet the definition of marriage”. “There are 76 of us who enjoy the title senator – not 77, not a whole stack of other people out there,” he said. “Are we in some way advantaged? No. Are others discriminated because they’re not called senator? No. “But the term senator has a meaning, it has a legal framework and reference, it has historic connotation. “We know that if you’re an Australian citizen, you don’t have a criminal record and you’re silly enough to stand and expose yourself and your family and spend 80-odd hours a week, either doing what we do or travelling, then you too can place yourself forward for selection, preselection and however you get here, if you’re one of the 76 you’re entitled to call yourself senator and the day that you submit your resignation to the president of the Senate you are no longer then eligible to call yourself by that title. “So there’s nothing unusual about titles, except to say in this circumstance that there are also criteria by which a person, a couple can be referred to as married, and that’s what I support. And in no way at all do I have any difficulty – I have friends in same-sex relationships, I have friends with children in same-sex relationships. I admire them. They are very very good parents but in my mind they are not eligible to be married.” Back then raised the issue of racial identity. “I can’t call myself a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent because I don’t fit the criteria and I’m not being discriminated against as a result of not meeting those criteria. The simple fact is I don’t,” he said. The Greens senator Rachel Siewert moved the motion in a bid to continue to build momentum for changing the Australian Marriage Act following the Irish referendum that endorsed marriage equality. The motion said: “That the Senate affirms that people should be able to marry the person they love, in accordance with the principles of equality and personal freedom, to end discrimination, and to support the mental health and wellbeing of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and their families.” Janet Rice, of the Greens, began the debate by saying the Irish referendum was “an incredible turning point for our collective humanity” but also “a stark reminder of how far behind we are” in Australia. “We know that it is love that makes a family, not biology,” she said. The Queensland Liberal National party (LNP) senator Barry O’Sullivan opposed the motion, saying the institution of marriage had more stakeholders than the partners. “It is for children; it is for children yet to be born who have a right to a mother and a father,” he said. “They have a right as nature dictates or convictions held from other sources to grow up in a balanced environment where they can gain the gifts provided by a father and a mother.” O’Sullivan noted that his deeply held conviction was in accordance with his party’s formal position. Many Liberals and some Nationals want to be granted a free vote on same-sex marriage legislation so that each MP and senator can act in accordance with their conscience, but conservative members are pushing back against that proposition, arguing an abandonment of the traditional definition of marriage would alienate the Coalition’s supporter base. The Labor senator Sue Lines dismissed calls by some conservatives for the issue to be put to a referendum, saying constitutional change was not required. “What’s required here is for the parliament to act,” she said. “It seems we’re prevented from doing so. The conservatives are pushing for us to wait - wait for what, I ask. We’ve been waiting far too long on this issue.” Lines said children deserved a “safe, secure, loving environment however that is provided”, whether by grandparents, sole parents, a mother and a father, two men, or two women. “I believe and I stand for human rights, I believe and I stand for human dignity, I believe and I stand for fairness, and I believe and I stand for justice, and as long as we don’t change our laws to enable marriage for all our citizens we deny these basic human rights,” she said. Related: Senate debates same-sex marriage motion – politics live The Australian Motoring Enthusiast party senator Ricky Muir reaffirmed his support for changing the Marriage Act, saying the feedback he had received after announcing his position was overwhelmingly positive. “For me I think a good starting point is to acknowledge that everybody is different. We need to become more aware and accepting of this and not pass judgment quickly,” Muir said. “I am proud to put on the record my support of marriage equality and I’m even prouder to stand in this chamber to say so.” The New South Wales Nationals senator John Williams said people who wanted to retain the existing definition of marriage were sometimes described as homophobic and he took offence at that accusation. Williams said nobody had come to his office in Inverell to raise the issue of same-sex marriage, suggesting that his constituents placed a higher priority on other issues. The Labor senator Doug Cameron, a supporter of same-sex marriage, emphasised the importance of the separation of church and state. Cameron said he had been in “a marriage based on love” for the past 44 years and “that should be the right of every Australian”. Christine Milne, the former leader of the Greens, said parliamentarians should be celebrating the fact that people loved each other enough that they were prepared to make a commitment to marry. She said one of her proudest moments was marching with her gay son at Mardis Gras. “I have two boys. One was able to marry. One isn’t. How is that just?” Milne urged people to stay strong “because the day is coming when we will end this discrimination in Australia”. The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, introduced a marriage equality bill to the House of Representatives on 1 June, but the prime minister, Tony Abbott, said any decision ought to be owned by the entire parliament. Liberal party supporters of same-sex marriage are working on a similar bill that would be co-sponsored by members from across the political spectrum. They have spoken about introducing such a bill after the winter parliamentary recess, but still face an internal battle to secure a free vote. |