Australia’s prohibition on same-sex marriage can harm same-sex couples and their families in very practical, day-to-day ways.
Because same-sex couples are not able to marry, they can miss out on the superannuation, taxation, employment and health-care entitlements heterosexual couples take for granted. Worse, they can be prohibited from visiting each other in hospital, and even excluded from each other’s wills.
While it’s true that most states offer rights to de facto heterosexual couples, these rights are limited, and can be hard to qualify for and easy to challenge.
Having a marriage certificate is still the simplest and most effective way for partners to access and protect their spousal rights.
The symbolic costs of marriage discrimination are just as great.
This discrimination sends out a powerful message that the love and commitment in same-sex relationships is second-rate and of no social value. It says partners in same-sex unions are not mature or responsible enough to shoulder the responsibilities of life-long commitment.
It reinforces prejudice and stigma against same-sex couples, their families, and most of all, their children.
Decades of research has shown same-sex relationships are as enduring as those of heterosexuals, are just as important in providing support and care, and that children raised by same-sex couples are as well-adjusted as their peers.
So why not allow partners in same-sex relationships both legal equality and an opportunity to officially celebrate and affirm their union?
Opponents of equality, like Rev Kevin Webb, say it’s all about fertility, religion and tradition.
Rev Webb believes only heterosexual couples should marry because only they can have children. This ignores the fact that we currently allow people to marry who are infertile, past child-bearing age, or have no intention of raising a family.
It also ignores the fact that as many as 20 per cent of all same-sex couples already care for children.
These children deserve the same legal protections and social opportunities as other Australian children, including the possibility of growing up in a household headed by a married couple.
Rev Webb goes on to cite Australia’s Judeo-Christian heritage as a reason to keep gay couples from marrying.
But what he fails to mention is that divorce is allowed in modern Australia, despite being expressly forbidden by Jesus, while polygamy is outlawed, despite being often practised in the Old Testament.
This reflects the fact that for almost 300 years, there has been a strict distinction between marriage as a religious sacrament and marriage as a civil institution.
The overwhelming majority of Australians have no wish to see this distinction blurred.
Rev Webb also fails to mention there are some churches which would marry same-sex couples if the law allowed.
Removing marriage discrimination would not force churches opposed to same-sex relationships to act contrary to their beliefs, but it would allow churches that support these relationships the freedom to solemnise them.
Thirdly, Rev Webb refers to tradition. Marriage, he believes, is eternal and unchanging.
In reality, marriage has changed remarkably over the years.
Not so long ago, marriages between Aborigines and whites were prohibited in some states, and frowned upon everywhere if they were between people of different religions.
Not long before that, a married women forfeited all her legal rights to her husband and was considered his property.
Clearly marriage has changed to reflect changing social values, and should change again if it is to reflect society’s growing understanding and acceptance of same-sex relationships. Far from damaging marriage, such gradual change benefits it.
Imagine if marriage was the same today as it was 50 or 100 years ago. Very few modern Australians would want to be part of an institution that enshrines or encourages prejudice against women, blacks or Catholics.
In other words, marriage remains important in modern Australia, not because it is unchanging, but precisely because it has kept pace with social change.
Countries where same-sex couples can marry, like Canada, Belgium or Spain, prove the point.
After a long decline, the numbers of heterosexual couples marrying in those countries has increased, in part because allowing same-sex couples to wed has made marriage a more relevant and contemporary institution.
Ending discrimination benefits couples. It benefits marriage. But most of all, it benefits society.
In the face of social forces like materialism and globalisation, traditional loyalties and social networks are breaking down, leaving isolation, loneliness and anxiety in their place.
People like Rev Webb respond to these problems by trying to turn back the clock, but I think a more realistic response is to foster love, care, commitment and selflessness wherever these precious things exist, including in same-sex relationships.
Marriage should be about love, not hate.
It should be about hope for the future, not a fear of change.
It’s time for Australia to remove discrimination from our marriage laws so no Australian family is treated as second-class and so marriage itself is resilient and relevant enough to meet the challenges of the new century.
Rodney Croome is a committee member of Australian Marriage Equality. He was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2003 for his gay rights advocacy.