Sociological Analysis of Same Sex Marriage Legislation in Australia

This essay provides an in-depth analysis of the controversial legislation surrounding same-sex marriage in Australia. It delves into the historical context, political debates, and sociological perspectives that shape the issue. The essay examines the arguments of both proponents and opponents, exploring the influence of religious beliefs, social norms, and democratic values. It discusses the roles of various political actors, including Liberal Senators, Labor, Greens, and crossbench members, in pushing for or opposing the legislation. The essay also explores various sociological theories, such as functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and post-structural functionalism, to understand the societal implications of same-sex marriage. Furthermore, it considers the global context, comparing Australia's approach to that of other countries, and assesses the evolving social attitudes towards same-sex relationships. The essay concludes by highlighting the ongoing debates and the potential future of same-sex marriage legislation in Australia, considering how family codes and norms might evolve with legal acceptance.

Running header: SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION IN AUSTRALIA 1
Same sex marriage legislation in Australia
Student’s name
University

SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION IN AUSTRALIA 2
Same sex marriage legislation in Australia
Same sex marriages popularly known as gay marriages are marriage relationship between
people of the same sex. The issue of same sex marriages has raised a lot of controversial issues
over whether the society needs to recognize such marriages or not. Herek (2006) suggests that
proponents of the idea have been pushing for legislation and recognition of such marriages
within the law. Many countries have faced such issues with politicians and human rights lobby
groups taking sides on the issue. The first law ever enacted to recognize such marriages was
enacted in 2001 in Netherlands. However today many countries have passed these laws with over
twenty countries having passed such laws. Other countries of the world are in the process of
passing such laws due to a rising support of these marriages. Most of the countries that have
passed such laws have made legislative changes on marriage laws.
In Australia, such marriages are treated as de facto unions under the federal law but the
Australian constitution allows each state to create its own laws regarding such marriages. This
gives room for only civil unions but same sex marriages are prohibited by the marriage Act
(1961). This essay analyses the controversial legislation of same sex marriages and how the
Liberal Senators, together with Labor, Greens and crossbench members are pushing for this
legislation. It attempts to look at the sociological reasons behind people and legislators opposing
these marriages. Recognition of same sex marriages is a political, social issue and religious issue
with debates varying across different sections of the population (Roseneil, 2000). The Australian
political environment has been in tussle over whether the laws legalizing same sex marriages
need to be passed or not. However, Perales & Alice Campbell (2017) suggest that pressure has
been building for leaders to make changes in the legislation to allow for such marriages. This led
to the drafting of the bill to legalize gay marriages through postal survey votes.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION IN AUSTRALIA 3
The same sex marriage vote has elicited reactions among the Australian community with
over 20,000 before gathering in Sydney to show their approval of the gay marriages before the
September 12th vote (Perales & Alice Campbell, 2017). Australians will be asked to vote on
whether same sex marriages should be legalized in the country by allowing such couples to
marry or not. Politicians, religious leaders, activists and the Australian community have taken
different stands on whether the marriages should legalized or not. Some like religious leaders
have argued that marriage is based on love and intimacy not sexual orientation of the parties.
The society is divided over whether same sex marriages should be allowed or prohibited.
Different sociological explanations and theories have been used to justify either point of view.
The American Psychiatric Association had initially described same sex relationships as mental
disorders until the rise of such rights in countries like the US (Roseneil, 2000). The recent rise of
same sex relationship support has been seen as an explicit challenge to societal norms. This
means that same sex marriage can be seen as a morality issue rooted in the responsibility of
one’s freedom (Giddens, 2001). Proposers of same sex marriages argue that homosexuality is an
in born powerful trait that cannot be controlled through religion or psychology. It has been
argued that these people at first try to resist this drive but are overwhelmed by the force inside
them to the point of accepting.
Hart-Brinson (2016) suggests that social imagination can be used to explain how society
has recognized these marriages through tracing its history by analyzing how the social
imagination changed twice from mental illness to deviant behaviour and from deviant behaviour
to collective identity. These moments of change formed the turning point of social acceptance of
these marriages. These changes altered societal discourses and practices to recognize

SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION IN AUSTRALIA 4
homosexuality. This led to the development of personal ideas about freedom which led to
development of different personal moral codes like homosexuality.
Post structural functionalists have attempted to understand same sex marriages by
suggesting that subjects are not autonomous creators of themselves and thus they do not have
control over who they become in a social world. People are determined by social relations that
they engage in. Foucault attempted understand different ages that the western societies have
undergone in history. These periods, give rise to different identities that may have given rise to
homosexuality (Giddens, 2001). As people live in a changing society, they tend to identify
themselves with certain identities even if the society cannot accept them. Rosario, et al. (2006)
argue tha the society allows young people to go through sexual identity formation by facing the
sexual identity milestones through questioning, experimentation, and conflict before settling on a
homosexual identity. Once the identity has been selected, the individual embarks on a coming
out process of revealing their identity.
Societal views on same sex marriages vary from society to society to society and culture
to culture. Western societies are leading in acceptance of same sex marriages as compared to
any other region in the world. This can be explained by increased democratic institutions, level
of economic development and the religious context that people live in.
The fight for freedoms and human rights in the western world has led to a permissive
society that is individual centered rather than community centered. As democratic institutions
grow, people become more independent and are ruled by their will rather than the choices of a
few people (Balsam & Rothblum, 2005). This has led to pressure on governments to pass
legislations that acknowledge these marriages. Since the society is developing every time now
and then, social fiber of the society is wearing out allowing people to explore every opportunity

SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION IN AUSTRALIA 5
that they have. In the previous periods, same sex relationships only happened in secrecy but this
has changed over time allowing same sex couples to reveal themselves in public. Today many
western countries have passed laws that allow same sex marriages. Functionalist perspective of
sexuality have been based on recognizing all parts of the social structure and how they work
together to achieve smooth running of the society (Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun,
2006). Therefore functionalists argue that since the society recognizes same sex marriages, then
they need to be legalized to achieve cohesion.
The rise of democracies and the need to acknowledge human rights has moved the
society away from religion. The society should focus on how subjective material can be
addressed to meet the needs of people. Symbolic interactionist argue that people interact and
enter relations to achieve certain benefits that they expect (Bourricaud, 2005). This means that
people have freedom of sexuality to choose the relationship that they can join rather than being
defined by the society. This leads people to choose between straight marriages and gay marriages
so long as the relationship can meet subjective material needs that they have. People who choose
same sex marriages have their own symbolized reasons for being gay.
Giddens thesis of reflective modernization that new personal freedoms are the reasons
behind increased acceptance of same sex marriages. Giddens (2001) states that these are self-
fashioned identities that allow the society of today to enjoy intellectual conditions that came into
existence when religion began losing its hold and science became the order of the day. This
dominant way of thinking led to the development of new ways of thinking making sexuality to
come out as a strong force that had been contained by society (Roseneil, 2000). This led to the
development of different social identities that led to the acceptance of same sex relationships.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION IN AUSTRALIA 6
Critics of same sex marriages base their arguments of religious and theoretical
advancements over the way marriage as an institution should be handled. It is argued that
homosexuality is a deviant behaviour that is a threat to social organization and the heterosexual
norm of the society. According to Hart-Brinson (2016) conservatives argue that marriage is for
procreation, which can only happen when people of the opposite sex have sexual relationships
together. This means that children who will be born out of such unions or raised in them will not
enjoy all benefits of parenting. Same sex partners can act as husband or wife but they can never
be them. Such children will is heterosexual abilities that contribute to the social identity of the
child (Roseneil, 2000). This means that the child has a higher possibility of developing into a
homosexual under same sexual marriage. Socialization is based on nurturing children through
role modelling, critics of same marriages challenge the parenting nature of such parents and the
effects that they have on society. This means that such unions should not be recognized by law as
a way of ensuring that they slowly diminish.
Structural functionalists believe in the existence of society as a complex system with
parts that work together to achieve stability in society. The society exists through a set of
institutions that play different roles to form the existence of the whole society (Fish, 2005). The
family and marriage play the important role of procreation which ensures that there is continuity.
Same sex marriages will pose a threat to this social order by reducing procreation since there is a
limit on sexual orientation of the marriage. Although technology can be used to achieve
procreation, functionalists will argue that it is not as sustainable as the functional family.
Artificial insemination and surrogate mothers undermine the cultural understanding of
reproductive units. Functionalists will propose that same sex marriages need to be opposed by all
means since they are a threat to social existence of the society. Bourricaud (2005) suggests that

SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION IN AUSTRALIA 7
to maintain the social structure of the society, all social functions must be addressed in their
normal form rather than changing to accommodate new forms that threaten the society.
Natural law theory states that humans are guided by the law of nature and their reasoning
to carry out activities that enable them survive and procreate. Good activities conform to this law
while those that work against it are wrong. Helminiak (2000) states that religious people argue
that there is a deity that created laws of nature that need to be respected. For religious and natural
theorists, sex is for procreation and thus can only happen between people of the opposite sex.
Therefore same marriages are wrong since they do not lead to any element of procreation. This
also makes the act unnatural since it is an invention that people have discovered over time rather
than what men and women were born with. This means that the acceptance of same sex
marriages will lead to other new unnatural forms of marriage that may be discovered by humans.
Despite the fact that there are different arguments in relation to same sex marriages. It is
evident that western societies have achieved democratic institution advancement that cannot
allow the rights of people to be dictated upon (Balsam & Rothblum, 2005). Same sex unions
exist within us and the society needs to recognize them and respect the feelings of those who are
in such unions. Increasing public poll in support of these unions indicates that this is a force that
can never be contained. Symbolic interactionism focusses on achieving cohesion through
forming relationships with others. Whether gay or straight, these unions need to be recognized so
long as they can bring harmony to the society.
However, it is also good to focus on the future of society and project how family codes
and norms will look like based on allowing these unions to be legally accepted. With over
twenty-three countries currently having legalized these marriages and Australia being another
one on the line. There is a possibility where the world will experience a situation where all

SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION IN AUSTRALIA 8
countries will legally allow such marriages. This means that the traditional family will lose
meaning since surrogate mothers have taken over child bearing allowing same sex partners to
have children. However, such children are denied opportunities that other children from straight
unions have. The question is what will become of such children and how will they perceive
society or bring up their children. It depends on which of the divide that fall on but as a straight,
religious and an individual who believes in sanctity of marriage. I will go for a no in the 12th
September vote to preserve the family heritage that we have enjoyed and wish to continue
enjoying.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION IN AUSTRALIA 9
References
Balsam, K. F., & Rothblum, E. D. (2005). Victimization Over the Life Span: A Comparison of
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Siblings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 73(2), 477-487.
Bourricaud, F. (2005). The Sociology of Talcott Parsons. London: Chicago University Press.
Fish, J. S. (2005). Defending the Durkheimian Tradition. Religion, Emotion and Morality
Aldershot. Ashgate Publishing.
Giddens, A. (2001). Sociology (4th ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hart-Brinson, P. (2016). The Social Imagination of Homosexuality and the Rise of Same-sex
Marriage in the United States. Sociological Research for a Dynamic World , 2, 1-17.
Helminiak, D. A. (2000). What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. New Mexico: Alamo
Square Press.
Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social
science perspective. American Psychologist, 61(6), 607-621.
Perales, F., & Alice Campbell. (2017, August 31). Who supports same-sex marriage in
Australia? And who doesn't? ABC News.
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual Identity Development
among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youths: Consistency and Change Over Time. Journal
of Sex Research, 43(1), 46-58.
Roseneil, S. (2000). Towards an Understanding of Poatmoder Transformation of
SexualityCathexis. Statistices and Theories for Understanding Social Change.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION IN AUSTRALIA 10