This entry was originally written on the 24th June, 2012.

This afternoon my housemates and I unwittingly drifted into a debate about marriage equality which, if nothing else, revealed some surprising facts about my housemates.

It is not just in my living room, though: Unless you have been living under a rock, you will have noticed the increasingly heated debate surrounding marriage equality in Australia. As one would expect, every man and his dog has an opinion and everyone believes their opinion to the be the only correct one. So, how do we get past this Mexican standoff? How about walking around it…

What seems to be ignored almost entirely by both sides is not how pivotal symbolism is in this debate, but how crucial it is to understand what symbolism really is.

Marriage has been around for thousands of years — it predates the standard religions of western society and has continued to evolve, reflecting changes in society. What has remained constant is that marriage has always been a legal contract administered by the state — even if a church has, at times, also been in authority of the state. I am not about to get into the details and specifics of the many naunces and changes to the definition of marriage over the years, there are enough contradictory blogs, websites and youtube videos on the internet for that already. Instead, I am more interested in marriage of our generation.

Symbolism is the act (often unwillingly) of attributing meaning or emotion to something. This means that our response to symbolism is visceral — it is something deeply personal that resonates within each of us. If you play a song to someone, it may symbolise a moment in time where they were the happiest they’ve ever been. If you play the same piece to someone else, it may be symbolic of tragic circumstances. Both are correct. Both are infallible. The song stays the same.

Symbolism is specific and applies to the individual. On the other hand you have laws, that are (typically) broad and apply to all. Law is supposed to provide a structure that ensures equal treatment of all citizens, yet understands and allows people to have their own symbolic values. Take freedom of speech: It allows Australians to voice whatever opinion they may have, regardless of whether it is shared or not. Naturally, it doesn’t encompass hate speech or the like, but does allow free interpretation of symbolism. As an example, someone may relate a lack of jobs in the country to migrants: To them, migrants symbolise a failed economic and immigration policy. Australian law allows them the opportunity to freely voice that opinion — even if it may be systematically incorrect. We would not be the free and democratic nation we are if we curbed people’s right to express their opinion and their symbolic values.

If you asked any 10 people on the street what marriage symbolises to them, you’d likely get 10 different answers. If you asked the friendly folk over at the Australian Christian Lobby, they’d probably give you an answer along the lines that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman entered into for life, to the exclusion of all others, in the sight of a Christian God, that provides the correct environment in which to raise children. And that’s great. That is their instinctual, emotional response and is their symbolic value of marriage. It just so happens to be more extensive than the letter of the law, but that’s fine.

I have friends who are hindu and are married. Their marriage was also a religious affair, but in the sight of completely different Gods.

I have friends for whom marriage was a civil union entered into for life solely in the sight of the state. They had three children prior to getting married.

I have friends who were married primarily for the legal benefits — as he is from overseas. Yes, of course they love each other and marriage solidifies that bond, but they are a couple who, quite happily, could have taken or left marriage.

Up until very, very recently the marriage act of Australia legally defined marriage as union between two people, to the exclusion of all others entered into for life. Similar to freedom of speech, this law is broad enough to allow people to bring their myriad of symbolic values to their own marriage. This, of course, was changed under the Howard government to explicitly dictate marriage be between a man and a woman. The fight for marriage equality is simply to allow consenting adults who are already in a partnership to legally formalise their union in the eyes of the state. That’s it. That is as much control and jurisdiction the marriage act allows — to legally recognise a union between two people. The couple is then free to attribute whatever symbolic meaning they choose.

A common argument from the religious side of the debate — again, let’s use the ACL as an example considering they’re the most vocal, even if they’re not the most representative of Christians — is that allowing same sex couples to marry will affect their own marriage. According to the law, no it won’t — the protections the act offers will remain the same. Therefore, the issue is that someone else is attributing different symbolic values to marriage than their own. In which case, they should be as outraged by each one of my friends’ stories above. That’s the flaw in using that argument as according to every single person in Australia, marriage symbolises something different. In my opinion, if you’re in for a penny, you’re in for a pound — you cannot say that one person’s symbolism devalues your marriage while another does not. Even if same sex couples marrying does affect the way people like Wendy Francis view the symbolic value of their own marriage, then that is a personal matter, not a matter for the state.

Law must never mimic the symbolic values of any one group or individual — it exists to provide a consistent legal framework for everyone — from which, individuals are then able to define their own symbolic meaning.

I can hear the argument rising that if the fight for marriage equality results in nothing more than legal equality, then why not allow same sex couples to enter a union that affords all the legal protections of marriage, yet call it something else?

In the 1950s in America, there was a policy introduced that followed this same logic — it was called “Separate but Equal”. To quote from Wiki:

“Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law that justified systems of segregation. Under this doctrine, services, facilities and public accommodations were allowed to be separated by race, on the condition that the quality of each group’s public facilities was to remain equal.” (1)

The picture below demonstrates the Equal but Separate policy in the form of segregated drinking fountains.

This is a policy that by today’s standard would be laughable were it not so abhorrent. To allow state-sanctioned segregation based on age, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical or mental ability is inherently unequal. The laws of a democratic and free country must be equal for all citizens. To have a civil contract, like marriage, available to some but not others based purely on sexual orientation, is blatent discrimination.

Whether marriage is technically a legal “right” or not is irrelevant — giving blacks access to the same drinking fountain in a public building was not a legal “right” either, but it was the decent bloody thing to do. By denying same sex couples the right to marry, or by defining a separate law that “mimics marriage” you define a group of people as “worthy of segregation”.

Segregation is discrimination and discrimination is segregation.

Segregation already plays a huge role to those in the LGBT community. This is a group of people who are consistently marginalised by society. Below are just a few quotes, all of which have been made this year:

“We’re dealing with the noxious problem of homosexuals” (2)
(Brisbane Times Website, 2012)

“I know what to do: Build a great big fence and put and all the lesbians in there. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so that they can’t get out” (3)
(Pastor Charles Worley, 2012)

“Homosexuality is an insult to God, society and nature” (4)
(Australian Christian Lobby Website, 2012)

“You’re unable to provide a reasonable defense for your [homosexual] behaviour” (5)
(National Organisation for Marriage Website, 2012)

“These are dysfunctional families that are not proper” (6)
(Referring to same sex couples — Rightwing Watch, 2012)

The federal government not sanctioning marriage equality is silently supporting the notions above that same sex couples are not normal and deserve to be treated differently. The symbolism of federal government not allowing marriage equality screams at those who carry any level of empathy.

In a country where the rate of suicide amongst LGBT teenagers is fouteen times higher than their straight counterparts (7), and where members of our community are bombarded with hate and vitriol for nothing more than loving someone of the same gender, the support of socially just laws is not only deserved, but required.

The quotes above also raise the question as to whose opinion should actually be considered when defining laws. We live in a democratic country — everyone has the equal opportunity to be heard and to be counted. But should we hold some people’s views with more credence than others?

It’s duly noted in the press that there are some religious bodies that oppose marriage equality, yet many of those same bodies also oppose the act of homosexuality. A group such as the Australian Christian Lobby, who is often quoted in the press as representing Australians Christians as a whole, believes that being gay is a choice, that is inherently sinful, evil and should be stopped.

This is a poor analogy, but isn’t that akin to asking a white surpremacist to be part of an interracial marriage debate? If these groups cannot even dignify the LGBT community with common human respect, then how can their opinion on “higher level” topics such as marriage equality be given any weight? Even the Major of the Salvation Army, one of Australia’s largest religious charities went on record, only days ago, admitting that he believes that those who are involved in perfectly legal homosexual relationships and engaging in perfectly legal homosexual acts should be killed (8). The gravity of that statement is incomprehensible in a 21st century Australia, yet the man who said these things has the same opportunity to weigh in on the marriage equality debate as anyone else. Of course, he is entitled to an opinion, yet we should be entitled to disqualify his opinion regarding lawmaking when he condones murder of those the debate is about.

I fear the marriage equality debate will be a far more drawn out process than anyone would like it to be, though as we continue to weather the increasing “shit-storm” from both sides, I would like to hope that more people take the time to consider the difference between symbolism and law. Both of which are equally important, yet play two critically different roles.

-Lee Crockford

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal
2. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/budget-south-bank-of-the-south-to-go-ahead-20120621-20pik.html
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU
4. http://www.acl.org.au/2012/05/mr-acl-calls-on-nsw-upper-house-mps-to-reject-same-sex-marriage-motion/
5. http://www.nomblog.com/24520/
6. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/pastor-gay-parents-devastating-history
7. http://www.samesame.com.au/support/5987/Wear-It-Purple-to-support-gay-youth-at-risk.htm
8. http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/06/26448/