Last month WA Labor voted to change their stance on same sex marriage at their state conference, putting further pressure on Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the federal Labor party. The change of position didn’t come without passionate opposition though, as MLC Kate Doust and union leader Joe Bullock squared off against former Armadale MLA Alannah MacTiernan.
The arguments highlighted that the fight for equality is clearly tied up in emotive language, moral definitions and ultimately electoral math. While many feel that change is at our finger tips, will it really happen if the party that supports change loses power over the issue at the next election?
In April the Labor Party held a public forum as part of their Labor Live series, upstairs at The Brisbane Hotel. Federal politicians Melissa Parke and Louise Pratt were joined by former Democrats Senator Brian Greig for a debate on the topic of same sex marriage.
The debate was somewhat one sided as no-one from inside the Labor party who was against the proposal accepted an invitation to the debate, but an undeterred Parke, Pratt and Greig worked through the arguments against – giving a solid reason why each position was invalid. Then discussion moved on to the underlying question, would a change in stance make a significant change to votes at the next election? Will the voters in marginal electorates, especially those in the outer suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne and Perth accept this proposal?
Last month at the state conference Joe Bullock, head of the WA Branch of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association and former SDA employee Kate Doust, who in 2001 was elected as a Member of the Legislative Council, both spoke against the proposal.
Bullock highlighted the use of emotive language in the debate and argued that marriage is not a question of individual rights but a special and unique institution clearly linked to reproduction and the rights of children.
‘Marriage is special because it provides the stable balanced environment for child raising, the homosexual relationship however is naturally and necessarily infertile, it’s not marriage,’ said Bullock.
He highlighted that in his time as a unionist he had often fought for the rights of homosexual workers on a range of individual issues but maintained that marriage was not a right that could be argued for on an individual basis.
‘No one would question the sincere commitment of many homosexual couples to each other, some may wish to celebrate that commitment or make a lifetime pledge. That pledge is however by definition not marriage, nor can a celebration be equal to marriage, simply because marriage has no equal.’
Kate Doust, MLC for the Southern Region supported Bullock’s comments and also spoke against the motion, highlighting the Prime Minister’s position on the issue and argued that changing the definition of marriage would cause confusion in society.
‘Australian society I think has a very common understanding of what marriage is about and what families are about. When you talk to a person today and you say “Are you Married?†there are a set of assumptions that are automatically made,’ argued Doust.
‘The first assumption is that the man or woman are heterosexual, the second assumption is if they are married that they either have or want to have children…the other assumption is that they understand the value of families within our community and they understand the value of role modelling for our children in having a male for a father and a female for a mother’
Doust also expressed her concern that the views of all parts of society had been sought on the issue and that it may only be popular with inner city residents. She commented,
‘Sometimes I worry that as a party we do respond to these types of issues and we don’t think more broadly about how this plays out into our community.
‘How does this affect people in the suburbs? Sometimes I think we tend to play to what I call “the CBD issues†rather than worrying about what the needs of our people in our suburbs are. What do those people think of these issues?’
Former Planning Minister Alannah MacTiernan gave a strong rebuttal to both Bullock and Doust’s comments.
‘It is true that the institution of marriage first evolved to provide a framework for the rearing of children, that is absolutely true. As our society has evolved our institutions change, our institutions are constantly being moulded to adapt to our new circumstances.
‘It would have been inconceivable that when the institute of marriage was created that we would have the institute of divorce.’
‘We don’t object, we don’t find it repugnant when two 60 year olds, past their breeding phase determine to get married. We understand that is more than just simply about the rearing of children. It is about the expression of a relationship, the desire to have a soul mate, the desire to have a public expression of that commitment.’
‘It’s important for us to understand that more and more gay couples are responsible for the rearing of children.’
‘I have to say having represented an outer suburb for some 17 years, I don’t reckon the punters out there are concerned about this, my view is – out there in punter land – an acceptance of this in so many of our communities, right across. It’s not confined to the inner city, I mean there are gay people in Armadale, there are gay people in Pinjarra, there are gay people in Mandurah, they don’t just all live around Highgate and Vic Park.
‘And quite frankly I think it’s a bit demeaning to those in the outer suburbs to suggest that they are incapable of that degree of sophistication and sympathy and empathy that would want them to acknowledge the full value and equality of those relationships. That those relationships formed between gay people are every bit as good as those formed between heterosexual people.’
In proposing the resolution, David Golcalves, the Co-President of Rainbow Labor expressed his disappointment at the federal party’s recent history, saying that,
‘Federal Labor’s siding with the Howard government on changes to the marriage act not only allowed the passive discrimination that already existed but went further to enshrine active discrimination in law.’ Goncalves called on the conference delegates to consider the core values of the party.
While the motion was passed ‘on the voices’ – not requiring a hand-count, the question remains; if the reported wide spread community support is actually evenly spread through society – will people in the seats that decide elections be making the final choice?
Graeme Watson
***
