Why was progress towards marriage equality slow in Australia?

Running Head: MARRIAGE EQUALITY
0
Marriage Equality
Student Name

MARRIAGE EQUALITY
1
Why was progress towards marriage equality slow in Australia?
Marriage equality denotes to the political prominence in which same-gender wedding and
opposite-gender marriage are accepted as equivalent by the law (Cimmings, and NeJaime,
2009). Distinct the word “gay wedding,” the term “marriage equality” is the wider umbrella
term that is comprehensive of weddings between a male and a female, two females, or two
males; in short, among two people (Herek, 2011). Users of this word, however, are nearly
always followers of the wedding for the same-gender pair who trust in the equality of
relations between same-sex pairs and opposite-sex twosomes; and in specific, an equivalent
distribution of privileges and profits to all wedded couples, irrespective of their sensual
orientation or sex individuality. More than 3,000 same-gender pairs married in Australia
between December and 30 June 2018, novel statistics demonstrated (Webb, and Chonody,
2012). By insinuation, those not helping “marriage equality” signify “inequality” in wedding,
specifically adopting the superiority of relations between persons of those of the conflicting
gender over those between those of the similar gender. Religious traditionalists, therefore,
push back in contradiction of this term as creating an inherent charge of their own location as
integrally prejudiced (Herek, 2011). In this particular essay, the reason behind the slow
progress towards marriage equality in Australia will be discussed.
Although the same sex marriage has been pronounced legal in Australia the political view
towards it is not changing that much the progress is still very slow compared to other
countries like Ireland (Healy, Sheehan, and Whelan, 2015). In November 2017 Australian
people overwhelmingly voted in support of changing the legislation to permit the same sex
marriage in Australia (Aviram, and Leachman, 2015). Around 61.6 percent of Australian
population voted “Yes” in favor of legalization of same sex marriage. Before the 1970s,
Australia has some strict legislation that prohibited homosexual activities. However, between
1975 and 1977, the Australian regions repealed legislation prohibiting the same gender

MARRIAGE EQUALITY
2
marriage or relationship and favor for LGBTI right started to flourish (Melby, and Carlsson
Wetterberg, 2009). In 2003, the states and different territories started to grant the domestic-
partnership benefits to same gender couples, involving the privileges for supervision,
acceptance, and the capability to have lawfully accepted same gender mergers. But since
2004, nearly 22 bills have been published to address the same gender unions, and all four that
came to an election were beaten. In 2013, the Australian Capital Territory or ACT legalized
the same gender marriage territory-wide. This the first time a state challenged federal
legislation for the same-gender marriage (Aviram, and Leachman, 2015). In 2015, afterward
many years of improvement, the US Supreme Court rules in support of same gender marriage
(Redwoood, 2013). And in 2017 most of the people voted in favor of same sex marriage.
Therefore it can be said the same sex marriage has been accepted by the law but the progress
of marriage equality is still slow and not progressing as much as it should (Melby, and
Carlsson Wetterberg, 2009).
In the slow progress of marriage equality in Australia, the churches played a major role
(Walls, 2010). There were three factors affect the progress of marriage equality in churches
context, how the read the Bible, how they understand church traditions, and how that view
the relations among the world around them and the life of the church (Carbery, 2010). The
first factor relates to the misinformation that resulted in fear, the fear was that the churches
might be coerced into marrying the same gender unions. This particular was the factor
driving the present inquiry into the religious freedom. The other factor was related to the
policy and practice of the specific denomination ((Walls, 2010). In most of the scenarios, the
episcopal governance travels in close relationships with social and ecclesiastical
conservatism.