If empathy and tolerance is your perspective, then marriage should be defined to include same-sex unions says Charles Sturt University (CSU) constitutional expert, Dr Bede Harris.

 

Federal Parliament is due to debate three Bills relating to same sex marriage in coming weeks.

 

Dr Harris believes the fate of Bill, or compromise between the Bills, hinges on two important factors when it comes before the House of Representatives.

 

“It depends firstly on whether the Coalition will follow Labor in allowing its MPs to have a free vote, and secondly on whether MPs who personally support same-sex marriage but who come from conservative electorates will be swayed by public opposition from their voters,” says Dr Harris, who is a legal academic with CSU’s Faculty of Business.

 

“It is unfortunate that an issue relating to equality rights has been politicised. This issue is not political – it relates to fundamental rights which should be protected, irrespective of prevailing public opinion. 

 

“Same-sex marriage is just one dimension of a broader proposition that the law should not discriminate against people on grounds of inherent human characteristics. Just as we do not tolerate discrimination on grounds of gender, race and disability, we should not tolerate discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation – which, like the other characteristics, is immutable. 

 

“One way of addressing discrimination is to ask voters to put themselves in the position of someone who has the characteristic being discriminated against. 

 

“Asking ‘How would you feel if nature had given you same-sex orientation and you were not permitted to marry’ is no different from asking, ‘How would you feel of you were an Indigenous Australian and were refused entry into a pub?’ 

 

“If we view the issue from the perspective of empathy and tolerance, it is obvious that marriage should be defined to include same-sex unions,” Dr Harris said.