Why the Herald Sun supports a Yes vote on marriage equality

AT the very heart of the same sex marriage issue is heart. We must insist on equality regardless of gender or sexuality. This is why the Herald Sun supports a Yes vote.

In each country which accepted gay marriage, mayhem and societal breakdown have not ensued.

THE issue of same-sex marriage has divided Australia into three distinct categories.

There is widespread passion, and on almost all polling, a majority support for a move to change the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to wed.

An opposing number of Australians believe in the traditional or historically Christian and other religious definition of marriage as restricted to heterosexual couples, a man and a woman.

A third category of Australians have an open mind on the issue, either undecided or relatively ambivalent because it is an issue they see as not specifically effecting them or an issue that does not rank as an urgent national priority.

Of course, convictions run deep in the opposing yes and no camps.

Both advocates for change and those against have valid arguments that deserve to be respected.

Sadly, in recent months that respect has often been missing.

Threats, vandalism and aggression have been mirrored by extremist elements on both sides of the issue.

Where tolerance should have been a driving force in divergent views, intolerance has festered at the sharp edge of debate and activism.

While marriage equality supporters have held sway across the social media spectrum and have been backed by many in the corporate world, including the AFL, those who support retaining marriage as being between a man and a woman have often had their views unfairly disparaged and mocked as lacking progression or accused of being homophobic.

What has been lost is the simple truth that advocates for retaining traditional marriage are overwhelmingly good and caring people, many of whom have sympathised with the current inequality but hold to the conservative or religious history of marriage. Others worry about what further social change or erosion of tradition will follow.

Where tolerance should have been a driving force in divergent views, intolerance has festered at the sharp edge of debate and activism.

Already in Australia, recent years have seen federal and state laws adopted to grant legal recognition to same-sex unions and the Australian parliament in 2008 and 2009 passed a suite of reforms to provide entitlements across social security, employment, taxation and superannuation measures in relation to same-sex couples.

In basic terms, same-sex couples currently have the same protections and rights as de facto couples.

Yet the term marriage has remained to date a bridge too far in closing the equality gap.

Since the Netherlands became the first nation to allow same-sex marriage 17 years ago, there are now 26 countries that have laws supporting same-sex marriage.

Ireland is the only nation to have adopted same-sex marriage by popular vote, and the postal vote Australians are now being asked to complete would make this country the second direct vote if the yes response wins.

It may surprise some that legal same-sex marriages have been happening in Australia since 2014.

Spain, Canada, South Africa, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, Malta, France, Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, New Zealand, the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland), Ireland, the United States, Luxembourg, Colombia, Greenland, Finland and Slovenia all have laws allowing same-sex marriage and Germany and Taiwan plan laws this year.

It may surprise some that legal same-sex marriages have been happening in Australia since 2014.

Because the UK allows same-sex marriage, the British Foreign Office through its embassies has carried out at least 250 same-sex marriages in Australia for those with British family or citizenship rights in that period.

In each of the countries that accept same-sex marriage, mayhem and societal breakdown have not ensued. During the current debate, as an electorate we must find the maturity and pragmatism to strip away emotion and misplaced angst.

At the very heart of this issue is heart. Any government attempt to regulate love and dictate which consenting adults deserve the right to marriage based on gender is an anachronism.

Certainly, if same-sex marriage is carried in Australia, the federal parliament must ensure full protection for religious institutions, for churches, mosques and temples and the schools and community organisations with religious affiliation, to continue to teach and practise according to their traditional beliefs.

As the November 7 deadline for postal votes to be received approaches, before results are announced at 11.30am on November 15, Australians yet to vote are encouraged to reflect on what type of Australia they want and what type of Australia they believe we have.

We are, at our core, a democracy based on egalitarianism. The fair-go catchcry is by definition a reflection of our equality regardless of race, of position, of wealth, of whether our family ties have been here for 200 years or 40,000, or whether we arrived last week.

That ethos must also insist on equality regardless of gender or sexuality. In 2017, we should not want to remain a country that retains a law that discriminates against a section of our society. Same-sex couples seeking to marry and to be legally recognised as making that heartfelt, lifelong commitment are discriminated against and, in the eyes of the law, are not now treated as equal. It is time to remove this enshrined discrimination. The Herald Sun supports a yes vote to change the Marriage Act.