"When any society says that I cannot marry a certain person, that society has cut off a segment of my freedom." - Martin Luther King Jr, 1958. This provocative statement, in reference to interracial matrimony during the fight for black civil rights in America is unfortunately once again significant, however this time in reference to marriage equality in Australia. The failure of the law to allow all couples regardless of sex to marry, and furthermore refusal to acknowledge marriages conducted overseas, is a disgrace to the nation supposedly know as accepting of difference and intolerant to discrimination.
Among innumerable reasons why marriage equality should be legalized in Australia, a prominent one is that restricting the option to marry any citizen is discriminatory and unconstitutional. This sort of treatment not only deprives every-day people of their dignity, creating a second class of citizens, but also suggests that LGBTI+ people are somehow unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society. A lack of opportunity to formalize same-sex relations implies that these relationships aren 't of equal standard, exacerbating unjust prejudice and intolerance. This impression is promoted through the lack of financial, medical and social rights associated with marriage to individuals in a civil union, the supposed 'adequate equivalent ' for marriage. Although the legalisation of marriage equality would have no impact on non-LGBTI+ communities,
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
For Australian law to be effective it must be dynamic so it can reflect changing societal views, which law reform can help attain. A significant area of recent social change is the acceptance of same-sex relationships in Australian society. To mirror this, current law reforms have been somewhat effective in achieving just outcomes regarding the recognition of same-sex relationships in Commonwealth law. The combination of official recognition of same-sex relationships to an extent, attempts at removing discrimination in legislation, and the delay of justice denotes this. Considering the achievement of justice and the protection of individual’s rights, it is evident that law reform has significantly improved recognition of same-sex relationships, but there are more essential responses that need to be enacted.
The history of marriage in Australia is the history of flawed plans to control who people wed. The White Australia Policy “meant that servicemen in occupied Japan were once refused permission to marry local Japanese women or if they married anyway and were unable to return to Australia with their Japanese wives” (Croome, R,2011) furthermore Aboriginals were once denied freedom to marry the partner of their choice not because of their sexual orientation but because of their Aboriginality, their race (Williams, T, 2011).
Equity and respect for others are two of the main values that are instantly presented to the audience. Wong makes it clear that they are two beliefs of hers that are not displayed frequently enough in Parliament, as if same sex couples were in a world where they were treated with a sense of egalitarianism and respect, then gay marriage would be unquestionably legalized. Improvement is also a prominent theme displayed by the author, who utilizes quotes such as ‘marriage equality is both necessary and overdue’ (Wong, 2016) and ‘gay and lesbian Australians can vote, serve in the military, represent our country on the sporting field, teach in our universities, preside as judges, staff our hospitals, and be a member of the federal cabinet. Yet we cannot marry the person we love’. (Wong, 2016) These two quotations are clear demonstrations of the author’s conviction that Australia can be undoubtedly improved with the introduction of new laws that allow citizens of all sexualities to
The history of United States is drenched in the fight for equality in the society. From women to gay rights but it is undeniable that the black civil rights was the bloodiest and most violent among them. Two methods were used to bring message to the people: the violent or the non-violent way. Most activists and civil rights group like Martin Luther King Jr., NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) at that time chose for the latter but one did not follow that lead: the infamous Black Panthers Party. Each method had its effect on the history for the equality of African Americans.
As human-beings we understand your frustrations as a black man. Your people have been oppressed in decades by white people, and your own father was killed by white supremacists. So we understand your thirst for revenge and your feeling of impotence. We see that you, Malcolm X, favoured violence in the struggle for black equality - and perhaps even supremacy - as he distrusted ideas about racial integration. Our settlement is not violence but a open discussion. This debate can be really complex in relation to the black and white history. Because of your position as a well-known human rights activist and Muslim minister your voice can change a lot in the race debate. Therefore, we recommend you to fight for black people's’ rights through a debate,
In the past, the definition of Marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but not anymore; today it has changed to a union between two individuals. Times have changed Mr. Prime Minister and the term of Marriage has been redefined. Society has come to learn and accept that being gay is not a choice or a sickness and that gay couple should have the right to be legally united with the ones they love. We live in the land of which my generation’s great grandparents have been fighting to establish, a county which they can be free in. We must promote equality rather than creating second class citizens. Sadly, these individuals are being deprived of their right to marry. We work, vote, and pay taxes. Just like I have my civil duties Mr. Prime Minister, I should have my civil rights. When this basic right is being prevented from these equal individuals, it sends a wrong message to the
There is a debate regarding whether or not gay marriage should be legalised and whether or not the constitution should be changed in order to allow for gay marriage. Marriage in Australia can be defined as the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman voluntarily entered into for life. This is known as the Australian Marriage Act of 1961 and it is a law made by the Australian Parliament. This law specifically excludes any other forms of marriage, including traditional Aboriginal marriages, same-sex marriages and polygamous marriages but has since 2009 recognised de facto relationships. (Wikipedia the free encyclopaedia, 2015).
Today in Australia, there are thousands of people wanting their opinion to be heard, in relation to same sex marriage. However the Government reckons that by undergoing a study of social factors in society, that same sex marriage has the least priority, and that there are more important issues at hand. The government say that the decision for same sex marriage is a divisive issue. They also don’t want Australians rushing in to make a rash decision, when they don’t know what impact it will have on society. They also state that the right for same sex marriage is not looking after the best interest of children in society, they are concerned about the impact that this would have on children in future generations.
As society has revolutionized and with democratic ideology denominating has the western world, liberation and equality campaigns stemming from “third sector” (Keane 1998) lobbying groups, stand as a key component to the operation a “civil society”(Keane 1998). Carrying an objective to influence legislators or regulatory agencies, these political advocacy groups play a critical role in the operation of a healthy liberal democracy. In contemporary society, the notion of Same-sex marriage has polarized public opinion worldwide and is recognized as one of the most controversial non-economic issues to ever confront the Australian
In a national wide election that will end on November 2nd, Australians are invited to vote on the question of gay marriage, an issue that has dominated the political discourse in the country for years. On one side same-sex marriage activists argue that it is time for Australia to join the list of developed countries that have legalized gay marriage, whilst the Coalition for Marriage stands in strong opposition. The Coalition has pointed to Canada’s policy on the matter claiming that legalized gay marriage has threatened religious freedom in the country. Notable in this line of thinking is Steve Tourloukis, a Canadian father of two who has appeared in campaign advertisements prepared by the Coalition for Marriage, prompting Australian to vote against same sex marriage, warning against a potential of parents losing rights over their children’s education.
Why is gay marriage feared by a wide variety of heterosexuals, when it doesn’t take anything away from them? 44% of Australian residents opposed gay marriage in this years vote to legalize it. A little less than half of Australia opposed, when gay people being married won’t harm them in any form or fashion. "When he said that letting gay couples marry would harm the state’s ability to encourage heterosexual marriage, she said “How could that be? ... You’re not taking anything
Gay marriage is one of the most questionable issues in the modern world. For the past thousand years, marriage has been recognised as the social gathering between a man and a woman. In most cultures across the globe, homosexuality was viewed with disapproval, and marriages between same-sex couples were forbidden. Gay marriage in Australia should be legalised because, of the hospital visitation and medical rights, gay marriage will increase the number of orphans adopted and it will decrease the numbers of young adults/teen’s depression with who they are.
Therefore, viewed from religious and conventional thinking perspective, same-sex marriage is an outright immoral association of two people against natural and divine morals. However, despite the fact that the society continues to deny existence of same-sex marriage, gays and lesbians continue to practice their ‘marriages’ behind the scenes as evidenced by legislations adopted by various countries signifying their recognition of such practices in the society. Proponents of the same sex marriage argue that denial of same-sex marriage in the society amounts to discrimination based on people’s sexual orientations and thus unacceptable in the modern world of freedom and democracy. “Gay-rights advocates are intensifying efforts to gain legal recognition for same-sex unions saying that gay and lesbian couples need and deserve the same symbolic and practical benefits for their relationships enjoyed by heterosexuals” (Jost, 2003, p. 723). Gays and lesbians maintain that it is their inalienable right to enjoy same-sex marriage as their counterparts in opposite-sex marriage.
The aim of my individual research project was to find out whether or not our local community would like to see equal marriage rights for Australian same-sex couples. I created and conducted interviews and surveys based around the question of “Marriage Equality. Should Australian same-sex couples be allowed to marry?”
Equal marriage has always been a contentious issue in society. The legalisation of same sex marriage in New Zealand in August 2013 via the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act has been a source of pride for those in some parts of our society and a source of horror for those in other parts. This issue split the country, and those in power, right down the middle, with some people taking sides that didn’t necessarily align with what would be expected of their political leanings. The issue of same sex marriage is a cause that divides people and can easily cause a lot of irrationality and confusion on both sides of the debate. For the purposes of this essay, religion-based arguments will not be discussed, as they often can become tangential and problematic, no matter what side of the debate an argument is coming from.