Page 1621 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
celebrants; it only recognises the first marriage, unless it was annulled by the church. People like me, in a second marriage, are, in the eyes of the church, living in sin, committing adultery and are destined to go straight to hell. This is because the Pope has already abolished purgatory, or so I am told. I cannot wait for him to abolish hell; it will make life, and death for that matter, too, a hell of a lot easier. I do not live in sin with my wife. We are married because we wanted to shout from the rooftops that we were of one heart. And we did just that. Opposition to this government’s legislation is denying a certain part of our community that same right.
We are very proud these days of the way in which we embrace equality for women—most of us are. The former Liberal Greg Cornwell may take a different view, which is why the Gregs were named after him. But that is another debate, I suppose. Those of us with consciences are proud of our stance on the indigenous people of this land and our opposition to the discrimination and vilification they suffer. We are proud of our opposition to the discrimination against people with a disability. But discrimination against people that want to share their lives in every respect with someone of the same sex continues. There are those that want to deny them the same basic rights as the rest of us, even the most underprivileged in the community, enjoy.
I am reminded of the plight of Negroes in the American south in the early 1800s. They were enslaved by and before the law. They were enslaved by a concept of being lesser people. This law breaks the shackles of slavery. It removes the notion of slavery of a part of our community. It gives freedom to the non-heterosexual people who are an inherent and valued part of our community.
This legislation is about recognition of the union of two hearts. It is not an attack on anyone. It is not an attack on the institution of marriage, whatever that is. Is it the concept espoused by religions, prime ministers or the courts? Who cares? Not so long ago, anyone seen as being homosexual faced eviction from their home, dismissal from their job and verbal, if not physical, abuse. Thankfully, those days are behind us. But mere tolerance of our gay and lesbian fellow citizens is not enough. And I hate the word “tolerance”. It is just not acceptable.
This legislation gives couples the right to celebrate their union publicly with their families and their friends and the wider community. It gives people the right to be regarded as the most significant other half in an established relationship. It brings people that hitherto had no rights into the same status as the rest of us. They can openly celebrate their unions and have legal rights.
We extend rights to people who live in de facto relationships. Why is this so? Because we recognise that this is a couple that do not want the trappings of a religious service or sanction by the state, but they have rights, enshrined at law. These rights are a recognition that they are a couple and that they have rights of inheritance, access to superannuation and to be regarded as next of kin. Is it not odd that a same-sex couple can join a business partnership and purchase assets but are denied the same financial security heterosexual couples enjoy?
We regard de facto relationships as de facto marriages—at least I do. I intend, indeed, Mr Corbell, to regard civil unions as registered de facto marriages. I do not give a damn what John Winston Howard thinks about it either. He wanted to open the 2000
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .