Erosion by time

Nearly a year ago, on the 27th of May 2004, the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill had its second reading in the Australian Parliament. Phillip Ruddock introduced the bill, stating: ‘This bill is necessary because there is significant community concern about the possible erosion of the institution of marriage. The parliament has an opportunity to act quickly to allay these concerns.' This Bill is an astonishingly slippery and mean-spirited amendment, and should be read by as many people as possible. Ruddock continues:

The government has consistently reiterated the fundamental importance of the place of marriage in our society. It is a central and fundamental institution. It is vital to the stability of our society and provides the best environment for the raising of children. The government has decided to take steps to reinforce the basis of this fundamental institution.

Now, if marriage is a ‘central and fundamental institution’, why does its basis need reinforcing? Because the way it was enshrined in law left a loophole that might be exploited by homosexuals. Ruddock continues:

Currently, the Marriage Act 1961 contains no definition of marriage. It does contain a statement of the legal understanding of marriage in the words that Commonwealth authorised marriage celebrants must say before they solemnise a marriage ... Those words are: 'Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'.

The government believes that this is the understanding of marriage held by the vast majority of Australians. It is time those words form the formal definition of marriage in the Marriage Act. This bill will achieve that result. Including this definition will remove any lingering concerns people may have that the legal definition of marriage may become eroded by time.

Eroded by time? Since when is 'time' a synonym for 'queers'? It is only after all of this foreplay that Ruddock gets to the main game, casually, as if same-sex marriage wasn’t the primary motive for this amendment from the start:

A related concern held by many people is that there are now some countries that permit same sex couples to marry. It has been reported that there are a few Australian same sex couples who may travel overseas to marry in one of these countries on the basis that their marriage will then be recognised under Australian law on their return.

Australian law does, as a matter of general principle, recognise marriages entered into under the laws of another country, with some specific exceptions. It is the government’s view that this does not apply to same sex marriages. The amendments to the Marriage Act contained in this bill will make it absolutely clear that Australia will not recognise same sex marriages entered into under the laws of another country, whatever country that may be.

Ruddock finishes by highlighting the government’s ‘fundamental opposition’ to same-sex couples adopting children, and assures parliament that the bill will prevent such adoptions from taking place.

Of course Australia followed the lead of the US, with its wave of conservatism, and implemented these changes. The funny thing is, Britain has recently allowed gay civil unions. And we talk about the British being conservative! Not anymore. Not compared to us, on this issue.