Hobart Mercury endorses marriage equality

This media release was issued by the TGLRG on 11.11.10

Tasmania's largest selling daily newspaper, the Hobart Mercury, has thrown its weight behind marriage equality.

In today's editorial the Mercury says,

"It is difficult for many people to accept and it may take time to adjust to the idea but, given that marriage is now simply a legal definition, it would be pure discrimination to say that same-sex couples are not allowed to be treated equally before the law. The law should be changed to remove that discrimination and same-sex marriage must be recognised."

The Mercury's support for marriage equality comes in the wake of the introduction of same-sex marriage bills into State Parliament by Greens' leader Nick McKim, endorsement of marriage equality by Tasmanian Premier, David Bartlett, and growing support for the issue across both major parties at a state and federal level.

Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesperson, Rodney Croome, welcomed the Mercury's stance saying it sends a clear message that marriage equality is an important social justice issue that can no longer be ignored.

"The Mercury acknowledges the religious and cultural traditions that inform some people's views on marriage, but makes it crystal clear that marriage as a civil, legal institution should not discriminate", Mr Croome said.

"This sends out the message that what matters most in the marriage equality debate is the fundamental right of all Australians to legal equality."

The Mercury is the first of a large number of Australian daily newspapers owned by media magnate, Rupert Murdoch, to support marriage equality.

The Mercury has a long record of reporting on and supporting key gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender law reform.

For the full editorial visit, www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/11/11/33155_editorial.html or see below.

For more information contact Rodney Croome on 0409 010 668.

*

Editorial: Marriage redefined
THE MERCURY | November 11, 2010 02.00am

LOOK up almost any dictionary and the meaning is clear: a marriage is the formal or legal union of a man and a woman.

While some cultures and religions accept polygamy and other arrangements, the idea of marriage as a monogamous, lifelong commitment between a man and a woman has very strong roots in Western culture and the Christian tradition.

Long before governments became involved, with their official registers of births, deaths and marriages, it was the church which formalised this relationship and kept the records.

The marriage ideal is deeply ingrained and compelling to this day. In Australia most adults still feel the need, at some time, to seek the trust and security of a formalised union with a person they hope will be a companion for life.

The campaign to broaden the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, if successful, would overturn centuries of tradition and alter a foundation of our culture. Traditional heterosexual marriage would not be the only kind any more.

Those who seek this change should appreciate that this requires a significant readjustment for many people. It does their cause no good to be dismissive or condescending about those who baulk at the idea. It is unfair to dismiss all opponents as homophobic bigots.

Yet marriage is not what it used to be. It has been redefined radically in the past 200 years and especially in the past half century. It is no longer exclusively religious. The state has taken over and marriage is now a legal status.

Weddings are still a public commitment of a couple's love for one another and a statement of their hopes and good intentions but a Christian wedding with its solemn vows before God is only one of many options. People can make up their own vows and get married where they like.

Since the passing of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s, it has been much easier to end marriages. One or both partners just have to opt out. Pre-nuptial contracts even anticipate failure. Although bigamy remains illegal and a cultural taboo, it is possible to make and break vows, to marry, divorce and remarry over and over again.

This is far removed from the church tradition of a virtually indissoluble union, for better or worse, until parted by death. Defenders of the Christian tradition cannot reclaim exclusive rights to the word marriage. It is too late for that. Perhaps they need to use a term such as "sacramental marriage" to distinguish its tremendous commitment from what happens in the rest of society.

Every marriage is different. Some produce a lifetime of devotion. Others last a few years or in extreme cases, a few days. All have a similar status in law. The law is not capable of delving into the quality of relationships.

Civil unions, formalised relationships between same-sex couples, already have much the same legal status as marriages. The debate has boiled down to the definition and use of a single word.

To some it is a trivial change, to others it is loaded with meaning but to let same-sex couples marry would not affect anyone else's relationship. It is difficult for many people to accept and it may take time to adjust to the idea but, given that marriage is now simply a legal definition, it would be pure discrimination to say that same-sex couples are not allowed to be treated equally before the law.

The law should be changed to remove that discrimination and same-sex marriage should be recognised.