> Relationships Register Bill 2010

>

> Speech from Hansard of 12 May 2010

>

> Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [9.10 p.m.]: I deeply appreciate the

> contributions made by previous speakers and the respect they have been

> shown for their differing opinions on this very important matter. The

> purpose of the Relationships Register Bill 2010, to which I speak on

> behalf of Family First, is to provide for the legal recognition of

> relationships of couples, regardless of sex, by registration of the

> relationships, including those registered interstate, as de facto

> partnerships for the purposes of State legislation. The membership of

> Family First has been very vocal on this issue. Hundreds of people

> have contacted me and I am pleased to represent their views as

> strongly as I can. I do respect the views of other members who hold different beliefs.

>

> Under this legislation homosexual couples and unmarried heterosexual

> couples will now be able to register their relationships so they can

> access and receive all the same legal entitlements currently given to

> traditional, male-female, married couples. Some time ago I discussed

> the personal, moral and legal issues over lunch with former High Court

> Justice Michael Kirby—whom I am pleased to call a friend—and I thank

> him for his insight, gained from his personal experiences as well as

> from his vast legal repertoire. The New South Wales Government is

> simply introducing legislation modelled on other jurisdictions, such

> as the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Tasmania.

>

> The proposed Relationships Register will help remove discrimination

> faced not just by unmarried heterosexual couples but also by those in

> same-sex relationships. The New South Wales Registry of Births, Deaths

> and Marriages will administer the Relationships Register, as I believe

> is quite appropriate. I am glad there is no provision for legal

> celebration of same-sex relationships, although there are no

> restrictions on celebrations separate from the registration of their

> relationships. To be eligible to register a relationship on the

> Relationships Register couples must be in a committed, exclusive

> relationship, not be married or in another relationship that is

> registered or registrable, be 18 years of age or older, and one person must be a resident of New South Wales.

>

> I note that in a survey of 7,862 homosexuals the 2003-04 Gay/Lesbian

> Consumer Online Census in the United States of America found that of

> those involved in a “current relationship” only 15 per cent described

> their current relationship as having lasted 12 years or longer.

> Relationships are notoriously brief in the homosexual male lifestyle,

> and are rarely exclusive even then. The lifestyle choices and patterns

> for lesbians differ but lesbians still go through many changes of

> partner during a lifetime, according to the census.

>

> Dr Timothy Dailey, a senior fellow at the Centre for Marriage and

> Family Studies of the Family Research Council, found that even in

> so-called “committed” homosexual relationships commitment typically

> does not include sexual fidelity. It is clear that when homosexuals talk about “marriage”

> they are not talking about what society has traditionally defined and

> valued as marriage—being based on a foundation of a lifelong

> commitment and the expectation, more often than not, of raising a

> family. Such marriage is a social good of great value. Society rests

> upon the strength of its marriages, families, homes, and preparation of the new generation.

> Homosexuals, generally speaking, are not talking about that at all.

>

> Although we in Family First support the removal of many barriers faced

> by unmarried and same-sex couples, our primary concern is for the

> welfare of the traditional family unit. Children have a right to be

> raised by a mother and father, not just two adults of the same sex, no

> matter how loving they may be. Marriage between a man and a woman is

> the most sophisticated of all human relationships. It is

> understandable that many couples cannot sustain such significant, close intimacy.

>

> We believe that the Government is sugar coating this move by saying

> that it will remove discrimination and injustice for same-sex couples.

> I wish, for the Government’s sake, that it were as easy as that. But

> there is already adequate protection for same-sex couples’ rights

> under all the laws protecting de facto relationships, whether of

> same-sex or different partnerships. Having the New South Wales

> Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages administer the Relationships

> Register is, I believe, just a backdoor attempt at marriage. I

> recognise that many members of this House want to be seen to be

> supporting this legislation because they want society to be fair to

> homosexuals, lesbians, and transgender and intersex people. I want

> society to be fair primarily to children—and marriage is the only

> guarantee of fairness and justice for children. That is why Family First does not support this bill.

To: Rev the Hon Dr Gordon Moyes AC MLC.

Dear Gordon,

I read with some interest the copy of your speech that Leslie was kind enough to send to me. Indeed I agree with your final statement “marriage is the only guarantee of fairness and justice for children”.

It disappoints me to read that you are “glad there is no provision for legal celebration of same-sex relationships” but given your position to deny equality and to continue the discrimination that exists within the law, I guess this is hardly surprising.

In any survey it is important to ask the right questions. Of those

7,862 people surveyed – how many were asked whether they considered their relationship to be equal to ‘marriage’ and wish it could be recognised as such. Many single people, regardless of their sexual preference, enter into and leave relationships without ever seeking the degree of commitment that would be equivalent to ‘marriage’.

To use the duration of short term relationships as a justification to deny the right to marriage is as sensible as suggesting that someone should immediately marry the first person they fall in love with.

I also note there is no comparison in your speech with the average duration of legally recognised marriages. I am sure the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages can provide information on the proportion of marriages in the 1980s and 1990s that lasted, less than 5 years, less than 10 years, less than 20 years etc.

It would be enlightening to see just how long term legal marriages are in this country. What sort of picture does this paint as to what modern society defines and values as marriage? If Family First believe it should only be based on a foundation of a lifelong commitment then should you not be advocating that divorce should not be allowed?

Generalisations are no excuse for discrimination, and no justification for denying those ‘exceptions’ the right to have their commitment to a lifetime together recognised under the law. This is particularly true now that the federal government has moved to recognising same-sex relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships when it comes to Centrelink benefits, superannuation and many other areas of law. To recognise the relationship in some ways and to deny them in others is more insidious than denying them altogether.

As a member of Gay Dads NSW, I can tell you that those members of our group who are in a relationship and are considering raising children together, see their relationship as committed and longterm. The decision to raise children together is not taken likely and when you are in a male same-sex relationship it is much harder to achieve. As such the commitment and decision of these men are likely to be at least as strong as the vows a heterosexual couple make when marrying, so why should there not be legal recognition to ensure the responsibilities undertaken, remain at least for the duration of their children’s lives?

All the members of Gay Dads Australia groups have the strong desire and expectation to raise a family. Many are already raising children. Some as single parents. Some as divorced parents. Others as a committed partner in a long term relationship. I am equally aware of the many lesbian members of Rainbow Babies NSW and other groups around the country who wish to or already are raising families, yet the law fails to recognise our existence.

We most firmly agree that society rests upon the strength of its “families, homes, and preparation of the new generation”. Indeed we are proud, as parents, to be part of this. Our children will be raised to the best of our abilities, with as much love and care as we can bring, ensuring they have beliefs and values that include equality for all.

Certainly, I concede, homosexuals generally do not speak about raising a family. But those of us who do, should not suffer because we are a minority within a minority.

Once upon a time it was considered the world was flat. That it was wrong to allow women the vote. That the Indigenous peoples of Australia were seen as savages and their children were taken from their families for their own good. One by one these have changed and the Prime Minister has gone so far as to say “Sorry” for the actions by the government of the day.

When will it be time to recognise that the ‘same-sex family’ is part of modern society and we too deserve an apology?

To ‘maintain the traditional family unit’ you will have to outlaw divorce, but this will not ensure children are raised by two loving parents, or even the presence of a mother and a father. Modern society is not the same as life 50 years ago and in many ways the ‘traditional family unit’ is an anachronism not reflected in modern society.

Children have a right to be raised in a loving home, by loving parents. Statistics show how many children are raised by their genetic mother and father within a single family home – a significant minority. Is it not better then to act in the best interest of all the child being born and raised today, regardless of their family structure, so that society tomorrow benefits?

By providing legal recognition of the same-sex relationship you are ensuring that both the people who enter into a relationship with the intention of raising a family, continue to have a legal responsibility for the children of that relationship, at least until the child reaches majority.

Whilst there is already significant “protection for same-sex couples’ rights under all the laws protecting de facto relationships, whether of same-sex or different partnerships” this does not equate to equality. More importantly the current laws do not recognise our children and their special circumstances in terms of identifying who are their legal parents.

Our children deserve the same rights as other children. This includes the right to having their parents and their parents’ relationship recognised under the law.

You said “I want society to be fair primarily to children — and marriage is the only guarantee of fairness and justice for children”.

So for the sake of our children support Same-Sex Marriage and recognise their family.

Yours Faithfully

Anthony Brien

Wentworth Point, NSW