University Case Study: Human Rights and Social Advocacy in Australia

This case study examines the challenges faced by a gay couple, Sam Peterson and Michael George, in Sydney, Australia, as they sought to legally marry in 2012. Despite their religious beliefs and professional backgrounds, they encountered significant resistance from religious institutions, legal authorities, and the government, which at the time did not support same-sex marriage. The couple's attempts to obtain a marriage license were repeatedly denied, highlighting the legal and social obstacles. The analysis reveals how the government's stance significantly impacted their efforts, emphasizing the lack of support from legal and religious institutions. The assignment concludes with recommendations to protect the human rights of same-sex couples, including legal reforms such as redefining de-facto relationships, recognizing adopted children, destigmatizing homosexuality, and promoting civil society organizations. It also suggests providing legal protections, fostering awareness, and integrating gay rights law into legal education, alongside counseling services for same-sex couples.

Running Head: HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ADVOCACY
Human Rights and Social Advocacy
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ADVOCACY
Introduction
The concept of same sex marriage in Australia is one that is hotly debated, with the
government on several occasions have refused to legalize gay marriage in many different states.
Yet what remains unchanged is the fact that Australia as a country is home to many same sex
couples, all of whom tend to express their love as freely as openly as possible and require the
consent of the government in order to be able to live together legally, just like man and wife, the
way conventional couples do. Homosexuality has been present in human beings and in animals
since time immemorial (Joslin, 2017). The perception of homosexuality as something that is
perverse and which deserves to be shunned or looked down upon, is a rigid and conservative
view which the Australian government cannot afford to take, if it is to suitably administer large
populations of queer or same sex couples who are simply yearning for the right to be heard and
to live the way that they desire (White, 2015). A case study analysis reveals how difficult it was
for a gay couple in Sydney to obtain the consent of the government around six years ago, to
acquire the permission to get married. This assignment outlines the case study details and
concludes with recommendations as to how best same sex couples can be protected and looked
after in Australia, in the event that they face any discrimination from government authorities or
even from civil society.
Case Study
On the 5th of June, 2012, in Sydney, Australia, a gay couple, Sam Peterson and Michael
George decided that they had lived together with each other as partners long enough and that the
time had come for them to exchange vows and live their lives as a married couple. Sam Peterson
worked as a doctor while Michael George was a lawyer by profession. Being a legal

2HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ADVOCACY
professional, Michael George was well aware of the rigid stance of the Australian government at
the time towards same sex marriages. Even then, he advised his partner to take a chance and to
approach the nearest parish in their vicinity to get married just like conventional couples would.
They met with resistance every step of the way, at times feeling compelled to let go and
surrender instead of continuing with their efforts.
To begin with, Sam Peterson and Michael George were denied vehemently at the parish
that they approached, the right to be married under Roman Catholic tenets. Being devout
Christians , the couple wanted to get married by following all religious protocols and
conventions, but were denied the right to do so by the clergymen whom they approached over
the matter. Sam Peterson and Michael George continued to try their luck at other parishes and
churches in Sydney for help and support in this matter but to no avail. Out of sheer desperation,
the same sex couple even reached out to a Jewish rabbi in the hope that he would help them out
in this respect, but he too denied the couple their respect.
After facing a lot of rejections from religious authorities, Michael George decided that
the time had come to reach out for legal support on this matter. Firstly, it was decided that a
petition would be submitted in one of the district courts of Sydney to acquire a license that would
enable the same sex couple to get married under the supervision of legal counsels, with a priest
being present on the occasion as well to grant them their blessings. All the petitions that were
submitted by Michael George for this purpose were rejected, with none of the city courts being
willing to grant the couple the legal license needed to get married. The matter was taken up by
well known gay rights activists and lawyers in Sydney, who tried their level best to push the
matter to apex courts, just so that the incident could be recognized and a solution provided. What
kept coming in the way of Sam Peterson and Michael George’s efforts, is the fact that the

3HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ADVOCACY
government was not inclined to support same sex marriage, and since it wasn’t, there was no
social or legal institution in the city, or any religious institution for that matter that was willing to
support the marriage of Sam Peterson and Michael George. The same sex couple tried their luck
in other Australian cities and towns as well, but were not successful in their efforts, as the social,
political, legal and religious institutions in these cities and towns also held rigid views on the
matter, largely because of the fact that the issue of gay marriage was not something that was
regarded positively by the government of Australia at the time.
Case Study Analysis
It is evident from the above case study analysis, that the fact that the Australian
government was not supportive of same sex marriage had an important role to play in Sam
Peterson and Michael George not being successful in their efforts to get married. While they
loved each other deeply and were able to reside together in a civil union, they could not get
married in the religious or in the legal sense, in spite of being conventional, well to do, religious
and conscientious citizens who wanted to abide by all the rules and regulations of the
government (Franklin, 2014). Even the support provided by the gay rights activities and other
members of the civil society did not come to the aid of the same sex couple as they tried
desperately to become a couple in the religious and legal sense, instead of being together only as
partners. This is because the legal and the constitutional framework that was in place at the time,
did not give counsels and government authorities for that matter, the permission or the scope to
give gay marriage, the dignity, the sanction and the legal status that it deserved in the most
rightful sense (Fejes, 2016).

4HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ADVOCACY
The case study also reveals that no attempt was made on the part of legal authorities and
the clergy in Sydney, as well as in the other cities and towns that Sam Peterson and Michael
George approached in order to get married, to protest against the rigid stand of the government
on the subject of gay marriage (White, 2015). Had some opinions been expressed very strongly,
had efforts been made to go against the diktats of the government, even at the risk of facing legal
or penal action upon doing so, is something that could have gone a long way in fighting the
conservative stand of the government (Rhodebeck, 2015). Sam Peterson and Michael George had
the empathy of civil society and humanitarian activists who tried to bring the matter to light as
much as possible, but they did not get the backing of the legal and religious institutions in the
country to give them the status that they were looking for. What this case study makes all the
more evident is that it is the government and the government alone that can bring about a change
in the lives of the same sex people living on its light by introducing new and progressive
religious and legal measures that recognize and acknowledge the existence of homosexuality and
give it the sanction of approval or legalization that it so terribly needs (McLean, 2017).
Recommendations for Protecting the Human Rights of Same Sex Couples
There are a number of different ways by which the rights of same sex couples can be suitably
guarded.
 New definitions of de-facto relationships and de-facto partners can be introduced in the
federal law. Both definitions should be those that cover a number of important aspects
such as inclusiveness, flexibility, consistency and evidentiary guideline (Asal & Sommer,
2016).

5HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ADVOCACY
 The law of the land should be one that recognizes the legal status of children who are
adopted by same sex couples. This will not only give same sex couples the incentive to
have children and create families in the same way that heterosexual couples do, but will
also help in creating a legal basis for marriage. When a court of law sees a gay couple
successfully raising children in a safe and caring environment, where the children are
nurtured and loved, then the same court will be encouraged, or rather, will have every
reason to accord this couple the right to get married under the laws of the land (Cain,
2018).
 An understanding of homosexuality and what it entails should make its way into the law
of the land. Efforts should be made not to stigmatize homosexuality by considering it to
be yet another form of sexuality that people relate to identify with rather than deeming it
as something illegal, and more importantly, as something that is against God and nature
(Carbado, 2017).
 There should be a proliferation of civil society organizations or institutions that will work
actively to make sure that gay rights are recognized as much as possible all over the
country and that gay couples get the platforms needed to express their voices and their
dissent as and when they want to (Engel, 2018).
 Protection should be provided by law and order authorities to same sex couples who feel
particularly vulnerable in neighborhoods where the population is predominantly
heterosexual, rigid and conservative, and where attempts are often made to harm gay and
lesbian couples in some form of the other. Such law and order protection should be made
available round the clock so that gay couples can call on such support as and when they
require it, in order to keep themselves and their loved ones safe (Fejes, 2016).

6HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ADVOCACY
 Efforts should be made on the part of legislators in the country to recommend penal
action being taken against those who actively try to harm gay and lesbian couples. Same
sex couples should be protected in the same way that people are protected from issues
such as racism. There should be every attempt made on the part of law and order
authorities to come to the aid of same sex couples in the event that they are being
physically harmed or attacked and strict action being imposed on those try to harm them
in the first place (Galligan & Morton, 2017).
 Civil society, legislators and human rights organizations in particular need to foster
awareness about gay and lesbian rights, so that people are duly made aware of the fact
that these are human rights, and are not meant to be violated. Film makers and artists
need to come to the fore and spread awareness about gay rights, so that people are
naturally made to understand that such rights deserve being protected and that same sex
couples are not to be targeted or harmed as they are not doing anyone any wrong by
showing or expression their love and affection (Maclean, 2017).
 Gay rights law needs to be made a subject as a part of all curriculum and coursework
related to legal disciplines. Those enrolling in law schools should be allowed to take up
gay rights law or same sex laws as a subject of specialization so that they can practice
this in a court of law in the future. By making same sex law an important subject of
study, gay rights and lesbian rights can be sufficiently protected, especially if such a law
is allowed to be practiced at the district, local and national levels all at the same time.
(Joslin, 2017).
 Counseling centers need to be set up that will specialize in providing gay couples or same
sex couples with the therapy that they require in the event that they go through trauma

7HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ADVOCACY
after being discriminated against. This will help gay couples to fight the challenges that
they face and will also play a role in defending their rights and their status in society. Gay
people are human beings just like everyone else and they have the right to turn to
counselors or mental health professionals who can give them the clinical support that
they need to combat their anxiety, depression and trauma, among other issues (Hunter,
2017).
Conclusion
Thus, protecting same sex couple rights is something that is absolutely imperative if
society is to progress and to advance in the best way possible. It is only when the government of
a country recognizes the rights and the status of each and every one of its citizens, that it can be
regarded as doing a capable job of protecting them and of being a good government in general.
Sexual minorities such as same sex couples deserve the right to be acknowledged in the society
in which they live, and to be accorded the same rights or legalities that are granted to
heterosexual people. Gay love is as rightful as beautiful as conventional love and gay couples
need all the support from the government and from legal authorities to take recourse to measures
and mechanisms that will give them some status in society. By allowing same sex couples to get
married, a government will suitably look into the interests of its gay population, ensuring that
their human rights and dignity are well preserved and protected and that no harm will come to
them simply because of their desire and intention to express their love for one another.

8HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ADVOCACY
References
Asal, V., & Sommer, U. (2016). Legal Path Dependence and the Long Arm of the Religious
State: Sodomy Provisions and Gay Rights Across Nations and Over Time. SUNY Press.
Cain, P. (2018). Rainbow Rights. Routledge
Carbado, D. W. (2017). Black rights, gay rights, civil rights. InSexuality and Equality Law (pp.
305-328). Routledge.
Encarnación, O. G. (2016). Out in the periphery: Latin America's gay rights revolution. Oxford
University Press
Engel, S. M. (2018). Dynamics of Constitutional Development and the Conservative Potential of
US Supreme Court Gay Rights Jurisprudence, or Why Neil Gorsuch May Stop Worrying
and Learn to Love Same-Sex Marriage.Constitutional Studies, 3, 1-40.
Fejes, F. (2016). Gay rights and moral panic: The origins of America's debate on homosexuality.
Springer
Franklin, C. (2014). Marrying Liberty and Equality: The New Jurisprudence of Gay
Rights. Virginia Law Review, 817-891.
Galligan, B., & Morton, F. T. (2017). Australian exceptionalism: Rights protection without a bill
of rights. InProtecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights (pp. 27-50). Routledge.
Hunter, N. D. (2017). The sex discrimination argument in gay rights cases. In Sexuality and
Equality Law (pp. 175-194). Routledge
Joslin, C. G. (2017). The gay rights canon and the right to nonmarriage. BUL Rev., 97, 425

9HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ADVOCACY
Koppelman, A. (2014). Gay Rights, Religious Accommodations, and the Purposes of
Antidiscrimination Law. S. Cal. L. Rev., 88, 619
McLean, J. (2017). Legislative Invalidation, Human Rights Protection and s 4 of the New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act. InBills of Rights (pp. 237-264). Routledge
Mehra, B., & Hernandez, L. (2016). Libraries as agents of human rights protection and social
justice on behalf of sexual minorities in India: An action-based manifesto for progressive
change. In Perspectives on Libraries as Institutions of Human Rights and Social
Justice (pp. 147-182). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Nava, M., & Dawidoff, R. (2014). Created equal: Why gay rights matter to America. St. Martin's
Griffin.
Rhodebeck, L. A. (2015). Another issue comes out: gay rights policy voting in recent US
presidential elections. Journal of homosexuality, 62(6), 701-734.
Symons, J., & Altman, D. (2015). International norm polarization: sexuality as a subject of
human rights protection.International Theory, 7(1), 61-95
White, H. R. (2015). Reforming Sodom: Protestants and the rise of gay rights. UNC Press Books
Yeo, T. E. D., & Chu, T. H. (2018). Beyond homonegativity: Understanding Hong Kong
people’s attitudes about social acceptance of gay/lesbian people, sexual orientation
discrimination protection, and same-sex marriage. Journal of homosexuality, 65(10),
1372-1390