Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am most delighted today to stand here and support the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010. I would like to thank the chair, all members of the committee and indeed all those who gave evidence and made submissions to this inquiry so that we could have a robust debate.

As the report highlights, marriage is an important institution in our nation. It is an important institution that many couples who are currently excluded from feel strongly that they would like to participate in. It is important to note that it is not just same-sex couples who are excluded from this institution; the exclusion affects people whose biological sex cannot be clearly classified as male or female. It also affects couples who may identify as opposite sex but where one partner is transgender and has been unable to have their gender legally recognised.

It also affects married couples, including some with children, where a partner has transitioned from one gender to another and has been unable to have their gender legally recognised because to do so they would first be required to divorce and break up their family. Such things in this day and age are simply ridiculous.

So many couples gave heartfelt evidence to our committee about their marriages which have not had the legal recognition that they deserve but, nevertheless, the couple have celebrated a lifelong special commitment between themselves and their family and they would like the same legal recognition as other couples.

As this report shows, marriage is far more than a promise of love between two people. It is about public and legal recognition of couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life. It is also about the recognition of their children and their wider family. If marriage is so important in our society, I simply do not understand why people would want to exclude relationships that are marriage-like in every way from being recognised.

I note that the LGBTI Health Alliance argued in our inquiry:

Marriage is positively associated with a large number of outcomes including better mental and physical health for adults, improved cognitive … physical well-being for children, and greater economic advantage for family members … marriage affords social recognition and thereby improves health, socioeconomic achievement, civic participation and involvement with extended family members …

Personally I have to admit that some of the so-called evidence put forward at our hearings made me somewhat upset and angry. Some anti-marriage-equality advocates attacked what they saw as homosexual lifestyles that they argued were promiscuous, at the same time as excluding the very same people from an institution that is seen to engender stability and commitment for couples. It simply makes no sense. If you are pro marriage, it makes no sense to be anti marriage equality. Allowing all couples to marry, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity will only, in my view, strengthen the importance of marriage.

It is important to note that the committee firmly recommended that all parties allow senators in this place a conscience vote on this important matter. I strongly believe in the committee's recommendations that the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill be amended as suggested by our committee report and passed into law.