when did the bible become law, must have missed that class

What a time to be alive in Australia for the LGBTQI community. It’s been almost five years since the Labour Party amended their platform to allow a conscience vote on the issue. In that time the debate has gone on, we have continued to tell people in same-sex couples we respect their relationships and them as human beings but we don’t want to give them the right to marriage. I am sure that everyone is over this whole debate, especially those in the LGBTQI community that would rather the politicians and country’s time was better used to solve difficult problems. This isn’t one of them. This is about discrimination. It’s about equality before the law. It’s not about a group of conservatives who have decided some people in the community should be excluded from the right to marry because it makes them uncomfortable. Nelson Mandela once said “to deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity”. Every day we in Australia decide to debate same-sex marriage instead of allowing it we continue to permit a society where we place one group above another.

In the debate about same-sex marriage, conservatives and religious groups keep saying we must value all opinions equally, that all opinions are important and none are right and wrong. Don’t tell me there is no right and wrong opinions on this issue. There is right and wrong - equality is right, discrimination is wrong.  Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, because of a personal characteristic protected by the law. By not allowing a group of people to marry based on the fact they want to marry the same-sex is discrimination. So whomever tries to justify their opposition to marriage equality, are only trying to justify their discrimination and prejudice.

Equality before the law is a crucial element of democracy. Australia likes to espouse it’s a young, open, modern democracy, yet we are lagging behind the world regarding marriage equality. Canada have allowed same-sex marriage since 2005, and it’s now also legal in other Commonwealth counties - England, Wales, Scotland, South Africa, and New Zealand. The “no” to marriage equality side of the argument in Australia has been characterised as being Christian churches, and other religious conservatives. The United States, a country with a Christian religiosity of over 70 per cent, has marriage equality under the law. Ireland, a highly religious country where homosexuality was illegal until 1993 and divorce until 1996, and where abortion is still banned in most circumstances, voted for same sex marriage in 2015. This year Colombia became the fourth country in Catholic-majority South America to legalise same-sex marriage, following Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil.

Those opposing gay marriage based on religion may think they are giving a worthy opinion when they are just rearranging their prejudices. The interpretation of texts written thousands of years ago does not trump another person’s human rights. Even if you choose to be religious, it doesn’t mean you are anti same-sex marriage. I know Christians, Muslims and Hindus that support marriage equality because they support human equality. Beyond that, you aren’t born a religion, but you are born gay. It’s called marriage equality because it means giving all consenting adults the right to marriage. What makes Christians think they own ‘marriage’? It’s a legal concept in Australia. If you don’t agree with marriage equality, you don’t agree with equality under the law.

The Australian government won’t legislate to eliminate discrimination to protect human rights, instead they are adamant this is the only social issue that we must “all” vote on. Australia has held three national votes that qualify as plebiscites. There were votes on Conscription in 1916 and 1917, and a vote on a National Song in 1977. That means we didn’t have a plebiscite when Prime Minister John Howard changed the Marriage Act in 2004 to include marriage as the voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Why do we need one now? To keep the religious groups and conservatives happy? The only people this is an important issue for the LGBTQI community. They are the only ones whose fundamental rights and freedoms the current discrimination under the law effects. In Administrative Law there is the principle of “Standing”. Standing means that the person or group must have a special interest in the subject matter of the litigation, to the extent that their interests are adversely affected by the decision or conduct being challenged more than other citizens. So you can’t oppose a fence on someone’s property when you live one hour away just because you don’t want the fence to be there.

The direct cost of the plebiscite is estimated at $158 million. Additionally the government has allocated $15 million in public funding for the “yes” and “no” campaigns. It is estimated that there will also be further monetary and social costs to the health and wellbeing of LGBTQI community. Why, so we can debate the worth of a group of people in this country and whether they deserve equality? So we can further isolate a group that is far more likely to experience depression and anxiety and have higher levels of suicide? This issue doesn’t affect me individually, like it doesn’t affect Christian fundamentalists who hijack the debate because they think god is anti-gay and somehow allowing gay marriage will pull apart the fabric of Australian society. It does however directly affect many of my best friends, who will continue to encounter those they treat them as lesser because they love someone of the same sex. Giving another person equal rights does not infringe or take away rights from others, it just makes it illegal to enforce prejudice and discrimination.