In August 2004, around the same time as the Howard Coalition government banned same-sex marriage, the religious right held an anti-gay marriage forum at Parliament House in Canberra. It was attended by about 2000 people.
The speakers described gays as "shameful, vile, moral terrorists". They claimed that "children raised by homosexual parents ... suffered from shame and guilt", and that same-sex relationships were "unnatural", "harmful to children", "highly promiscuous" and "inherently unstable".
Four years on, how far have we come?
Gay marriage and gay relationships are still seen by law-makers as a threat. While the Rudd government said it will repeal 100 pieces of discriminatory legislation (including laws affecting tax, social security, immigration, workers' compensation, hospital visiting rights, superannuation, health and aged care), it is still refusing to accept that it is the right of same-sex couples to hold a legally recognised ceremony. It even forced the ACT government to back away from plans to introduce such legislation. Its position seems to be that it's OK for queer couples to exist as long as their love isn't celebrated publicly!
Sexual "non-conformity" is a threat to the powers-that-be, because to accept homosexuality is to accept that the nuclear family, as we know it, is not inevitable. They need an ideology to justify sexual repression — which is where the (wrong) idea that homosexuality is a "sin" stems from. For the ruling class, society needs monogamous, heterosexual marriages, or de-facto relationships, to reproduce and maintain the family unit.
While the ruling class can withstand pockets of non-conformity, it cannot allow it to become normalised. The family unit, in which society has essentially privatised the work of raising the next generation, is needed by a system which places profits rather than community needs at its centre.
People of the same gender should be allowed to marry one another if they so wish. Trying to deny any group the democratic right to marry another consenting adult is an attack on that group: it deems them lesser beings than the rest of society, and it works to reinforce a public prejudice against them.
The Rudd government is only allowing registry schemes for same-sex couples. In this context, winning the demand for civil unions would be a significant reform.
Whether you agree with the institution of marriage or not should not affect whether or not you believe people should be allowed the choice.
I am an atheist, but still believe people should be free to choose their religion. Similarly, while I may not want to get married, I support allowing same-sex couples the right to decide whether or not they wish to be married. Homophobia and gender stereotyping are not valid arguments against people claiming this right.
The ALP environment minister Penny Wong was asked on the ABC's Q & A on July 31 about why she, as an open lesbian, wasn't pushing the government to allow same-sex marriage rights. She asserted that the "community" didn't support more than what the ALP was already doing.
Yet, according to a Melbourne Age readers' poll on May 2, 79% of respondents supported gay couples being allowed to marry. Compared to an SBS World News poll in 2004, when just 38% of Australians were in favour of same-sex marriage rights, this is a big advance in consciousness.
With the tide on our side, we'll continue to build a movement that will overturn the reactionary laws and take steps forward in eradicating homophobia forever. We will work to reach the remaining 21% of Australians and convince them that the government has a responsibility to legislate rights for all. This is the only effective way to remove prejudice and homophobia.
[Rhiahnon Kennedy is a member of the Perth Resistance branch.]