The Right to Marry - The Australian Government and Its Christian Conscience
Ongoing debate about the issue of same-sex marriage in Australia and whether it should be formally recognised seems to be finding no resolution.
The recent statement from American president Barack Obama that he supported same-sex marriage once again put our Prime Minister in the media firing line.
Most of the conservative political positions rest with the fact that the Marriage Act should not be changed to allow for same-sex marriages as it will somehow affect the sanctity and seriousness with which heterosexual couples make this commitment.
Furthermore, that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The overall impression provided by conservatives is that allowing this bill through parliament would somehow lessen the value of marriage.
In addition to this, some politicians have actually had the courage to express their personal views, stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman because, in essence, that is the only natural union and that is the end of that.
The Greens party on the other hand openly support and are campaigning for the recognition of same-sex marriage, but they have not seemed to shift the consensus in parliament, even though we currently operate under a minority government.
Those in favour of same-sex marriage are angry and feel insulted.
They want equal rights.
Those against same-sex marriage believe in the status quo, that allowing this type of marriage might ruin the foundations of the family unit which is considered by some as the cornerstone of our social fabric.
The real concern seems to be the effect that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage might have on heterosexual marriage.
Could the two co-exist? Most would answer 'yes' to this question.
In fact, there are many people who cannot see any issue at all and are at pains to understand why the government will not just give their blessing and get on with it.
What I find interesting about the whole debate is how complex it actually is.
What are the real reasons that the bill has not been passed and indeed, what lies at the heart of the issue for the government? One influence affecting the government's decision is the pressure from the Christian lobby groups.
It seems surprising but there is evidence that they have more sway in the parliament than most of us realise.
The other issue may simply be a financial one.
After all, allowing same-sex marriage fundamentally increased the amount of benefits that the government is responsible for.
Government financial support for couples and families is provided for a wide range of circumstances including those on a low income, partnering allowance, childcare benefit, rental assistance and various other tax benefits.
However, from July 2009, same-sex de-facto couples were already recognised by the government and were afforded the same entitlements as do other de-facto couples.
One can only presume that the government's view of the extension of this entitlement to allow for same-sex marriage may cost the government more.
If this is the case, it seems to me that the majority of our parliamentarians might not be as concerned with tradition as they are with the financial cost of encouraging same-sex couples to unite in marriage.
Without a doubt and with every decision the government makes, financial concerns are always at the heart of every matter.
So, it stands to reason that financial concerns must have some weight in the decisions regarding this issue.
Indeed, this element is not lost on the pro-gay lobbyist, who has already formed counter arguments to the question of cost.
Websites such as Australian Marriage Equality who lobby for gay marriage rights are attempting to provide evidence of the financial benefits to the economy should the government allow same-sex couples the legal right to marry.
Their argument is that legalising same-sex marriage will send an influx of money into the economy through the following scenario; calculate the amount of couples that would marry in the first three years and multiply that by the average cost of a wedding.
This apparently equates to over 161 million dollars fed into the economy in the first three years.
These claims seem extraordinary, that is probably because that they are.
There is always a danger when we refer to the 'average cost' for anything.
For example, rarely is the 'average wage' any figure close to what a majority of us earn each year.
Taking this into account, one can only accept this type of hypotheses as a broad generalisation.
IBISWorld, one of the statistical resources used by AME in one of their reports, claims that the average spend on a wedding is $36,200.
One would have to argue that a majority of couples today would not spend this and would baulk at this figure.
Averages are easy to use, but as they are essentially sliding scales using data from extreme ends of the spectrum, one cannot really rely on this 'average spend' as an indication of any close estimate of economic benefits to our economy.
However, the gay lobby is conservative in its estimates and only uses one quarter of this figure to calculate the benefits.
To a great extent, the financial angle is a clever position to couch the issue in because most of the time, it is the only language the government can understand.
So, if this strategy is so good for the gay community, why is it that we do not find it at the heart of all pro-gay marriage rhetoric? Why aren't there more reports and campaigns out there using this strategy for the purpose of not only alleviating financial concerns, but to promote the economic benefits of legalisation? One reason might be this.
In order to use this argument, costs and figures need to be accurate.
In the past - and particularly evident in America - the gay-lobbyist used to make claims about the size of the gay community that were completely incorrect and perhaps, deliberately misleading.
Many gay campaigners believed that their argument would carry more weight if the actual numbers of gay and lesbians living in the community were inflated.
Gay marriage campaigners were claiming that the gay and lesbian community made up 10% of the population.
However, there was very little evidence to support this and the figure was, at most, more like 4.
5%.
The proportion of the gay community in Australia can only be determined by Census data.
According to the 2012 Census, there were 33,714 same-sex couples in Australia.
Obviously, there would be more same-sex couples than this, but these are the couples who answered the question regarding living arrangements.
If we double this to allow for the single gay and lesbian community or for even those who did not wish to answer the question, we would still be left with, at most, 100,000 people.
With the current population of Australia being approx 22,668,000, that is only around 0.
4% of the population.
In addition, according to The Williams Institute report sourced from the gay lobby website, 54% of same-sex couples said they would marry if the law changed.
So, based on the Australian Census data, this would only equate to 17,820 people.
With such inconsequential numbers, it really begs the question as to why the government continues to refuse equal marriage rights to this community.
The Christian websites who denounce the introduction of same-sex marriage often claim that allowing this policy change to the Marriage Act not only destroys the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, but that it may lead to all sorts of combined living arrangements including polygamy.
This potential threat to our society would mean that the Marriage Act would have to be later redefined to allow for the term 'marriage' to include more than two people.
For them, allowing same-sex marriage will mean the end of this sacred union forever.
Not only this, but they are explicitly suggesting that changing the Marriage Act will serve as an open invitation to all sorts of deviates lurking in our community.
This extreme fear mongering from the Christian group seems to be an effective retort, even though it is an outlandish cautionary tale.
It is difficult to determine who in the government believes strongly in religious morality, but their numbers must be in the majority.
This is evident because the Australian Christian Lobby's arguments seem to be holding power and resonating within the psyche of the Australian government.
Indeed, the purpose of the ACL is to have Christian principles and ethics not only accepted, but to be used to influence the way we are governed.
They claim that their mission is '...
to have the positive public contributions of the Christian faith reflected in the political life of the nation.
' If this is indeed their mission, they seem to be succeeding.
Issues of tradition, social cohesion and morality have been raised so far in the debate regarding same-sex marriage in Australia.
However, money and particularly Christian principles seem to be at the core of the matter.
The argument for promoting the economic benefits of same-sex marriage to our economy does not seem to having much effect.
The government remains unconvinced.
Understandably, in the current global economic climate, the government is constantly trying to find ways to cut its spending.
One can only conclude that they perceive the change as an economic cost, not a gain.
However, we should not underestimate the power of the Christian lobby.
Raising the polygamy question strikes fear into the conservative family parliamentarian and threatens the values and the ethical standards believed to be required to sustain a thriving society.
Threatening the future of the traditional family will not be tolerated.
It seems that Christian morality and the public purse are the two elements which are preventing the progress for same-sex couples wanting marriage equality.
However, we may have to concede that the effectiveness of the scare mongering rife in the religious community seems to be the barricade preventing any resolution on this issue for gay and lesbian people and their campaign for equal marriage rights.
The recent statement from American president Barack Obama that he supported same-sex marriage once again put our Prime Minister in the media firing line.
Most of the conservative political positions rest with the fact that the Marriage Act should not be changed to allow for same-sex marriages as it will somehow affect the sanctity and seriousness with which heterosexual couples make this commitment.
Furthermore, that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The overall impression provided by conservatives is that allowing this bill through parliament would somehow lessen the value of marriage.
In addition to this, some politicians have actually had the courage to express their personal views, stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman because, in essence, that is the only natural union and that is the end of that.
The Greens party on the other hand openly support and are campaigning for the recognition of same-sex marriage, but they have not seemed to shift the consensus in parliament, even though we currently operate under a minority government.
Those in favour of same-sex marriage are angry and feel insulted.
They want equal rights.
Those against same-sex marriage believe in the status quo, that allowing this type of marriage might ruin the foundations of the family unit which is considered by some as the cornerstone of our social fabric.
The real concern seems to be the effect that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage might have on heterosexual marriage.
Could the two co-exist? Most would answer 'yes' to this question.
In fact, there are many people who cannot see any issue at all and are at pains to understand why the government will not just give their blessing and get on with it.
What I find interesting about the whole debate is how complex it actually is.
What are the real reasons that the bill has not been passed and indeed, what lies at the heart of the issue for the government? One influence affecting the government's decision is the pressure from the Christian lobby groups.
It seems surprising but there is evidence that they have more sway in the parliament than most of us realise.
The other issue may simply be a financial one.
After all, allowing same-sex marriage fundamentally increased the amount of benefits that the government is responsible for.
Government financial support for couples and families is provided for a wide range of circumstances including those on a low income, partnering allowance, childcare benefit, rental assistance and various other tax benefits.
However, from July 2009, same-sex de-facto couples were already recognised by the government and were afforded the same entitlements as do other de-facto couples.
One can only presume that the government's view of the extension of this entitlement to allow for same-sex marriage may cost the government more.
If this is the case, it seems to me that the majority of our parliamentarians might not be as concerned with tradition as they are with the financial cost of encouraging same-sex couples to unite in marriage.
Without a doubt and with every decision the government makes, financial concerns are always at the heart of every matter.
So, it stands to reason that financial concerns must have some weight in the decisions regarding this issue.
Indeed, this element is not lost on the pro-gay lobbyist, who has already formed counter arguments to the question of cost.
Websites such as Australian Marriage Equality who lobby for gay marriage rights are attempting to provide evidence of the financial benefits to the economy should the government allow same-sex couples the legal right to marry.
Their argument is that legalising same-sex marriage will send an influx of money into the economy through the following scenario; calculate the amount of couples that would marry in the first three years and multiply that by the average cost of a wedding.
This apparently equates to over 161 million dollars fed into the economy in the first three years.
These claims seem extraordinary, that is probably because that they are.
There is always a danger when we refer to the 'average cost' for anything.
For example, rarely is the 'average wage' any figure close to what a majority of us earn each year.
Taking this into account, one can only accept this type of hypotheses as a broad generalisation.
IBISWorld, one of the statistical resources used by AME in one of their reports, claims that the average spend on a wedding is $36,200.
One would have to argue that a majority of couples today would not spend this and would baulk at this figure.
Averages are easy to use, but as they are essentially sliding scales using data from extreme ends of the spectrum, one cannot really rely on this 'average spend' as an indication of any close estimate of economic benefits to our economy.
However, the gay lobby is conservative in its estimates and only uses one quarter of this figure to calculate the benefits.
To a great extent, the financial angle is a clever position to couch the issue in because most of the time, it is the only language the government can understand.
So, if this strategy is so good for the gay community, why is it that we do not find it at the heart of all pro-gay marriage rhetoric? Why aren't there more reports and campaigns out there using this strategy for the purpose of not only alleviating financial concerns, but to promote the economic benefits of legalisation? One reason might be this.
In order to use this argument, costs and figures need to be accurate.
In the past - and particularly evident in America - the gay-lobbyist used to make claims about the size of the gay community that were completely incorrect and perhaps, deliberately misleading.
Many gay campaigners believed that their argument would carry more weight if the actual numbers of gay and lesbians living in the community were inflated.
Gay marriage campaigners were claiming that the gay and lesbian community made up 10% of the population.
However, there was very little evidence to support this and the figure was, at most, more like 4.
5%.
The proportion of the gay community in Australia can only be determined by Census data.
According to the 2012 Census, there were 33,714 same-sex couples in Australia.
Obviously, there would be more same-sex couples than this, but these are the couples who answered the question regarding living arrangements.
If we double this to allow for the single gay and lesbian community or for even those who did not wish to answer the question, we would still be left with, at most, 100,000 people.
With the current population of Australia being approx 22,668,000, that is only around 0.
4% of the population.
In addition, according to The Williams Institute report sourced from the gay lobby website, 54% of same-sex couples said they would marry if the law changed.
So, based on the Australian Census data, this would only equate to 17,820 people.
With such inconsequential numbers, it really begs the question as to why the government continues to refuse equal marriage rights to this community.
The Christian websites who denounce the introduction of same-sex marriage often claim that allowing this policy change to the Marriage Act not only destroys the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, but that it may lead to all sorts of combined living arrangements including polygamy.
This potential threat to our society would mean that the Marriage Act would have to be later redefined to allow for the term 'marriage' to include more than two people.
For them, allowing same-sex marriage will mean the end of this sacred union forever.
Not only this, but they are explicitly suggesting that changing the Marriage Act will serve as an open invitation to all sorts of deviates lurking in our community.
This extreme fear mongering from the Christian group seems to be an effective retort, even though it is an outlandish cautionary tale.
It is difficult to determine who in the government believes strongly in religious morality, but their numbers must be in the majority.
This is evident because the Australian Christian Lobby's arguments seem to be holding power and resonating within the psyche of the Australian government.
Indeed, the purpose of the ACL is to have Christian principles and ethics not only accepted, but to be used to influence the way we are governed.
They claim that their mission is '...
to have the positive public contributions of the Christian faith reflected in the political life of the nation.
' If this is indeed their mission, they seem to be succeeding.
Issues of tradition, social cohesion and morality have been raised so far in the debate regarding same-sex marriage in Australia.
However, money and particularly Christian principles seem to be at the core of the matter.
The argument for promoting the economic benefits of same-sex marriage to our economy does not seem to having much effect.
The government remains unconvinced.
Understandably, in the current global economic climate, the government is constantly trying to find ways to cut its spending.
One can only conclude that they perceive the change as an economic cost, not a gain.
However, we should not underestimate the power of the Christian lobby.
Raising the polygamy question strikes fear into the conservative family parliamentarian and threatens the values and the ethical standards believed to be required to sustain a thriving society.
Threatening the future of the traditional family will not be tolerated.
It seems that Christian morality and the public purse are the two elements which are preventing the progress for same-sex couples wanting marriage equality.
However, we may have to concede that the effectiveness of the scare mongering rife in the religious community seems to be the barricade preventing any resolution on this issue for gay and lesbian people and their campaign for equal marriage rights.
Source...