Editorial

by Katherine Cummings

(The Gender Centre advise that this article may not be current and as such certain content, including but not limited to persons, contact details and dates may not apply. Where legal authority or medical related matters are cited, responsibility lies with the reader to obtain the most current relevant legal authority and/or medical publication.)

... it is amazing that we are clinging to an outmoded concept of marriage, and tinkering around the edges so that people can be serial monogamists.

The Marriage Act, 1961, defines marriage as "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life". "Man" and "woman" are not defined in this act although almost every other term is ... judge, magistrate, authorised celebrant, minor, overseas country etc. The fact that around half of these marriage contracts fail to go anywhere near being "for life" and that there are legal mechanisms for dissolving marriages, both civilly (often very uncivilly) and religiously, suggests that the concept of marriage as a voluntary lifelong union is flawed and should be re-examined.

To start with, the concept of "man" and "woman" as definable terms is muddy, to say the least (transgenders know this better than anyone) as every definition has an exception and there is no satisfactory rule which can be applied universally, in terms of anatomy at the macro or micro level, in terms of appendages nor chromosomes and genes. Nor can we humanely apply tests such as the capacity to have children since many people are incapable of procreation through accidents of birth, physical accidents or through old age, and these are hardly reasons for denying them the loving comfort and social pleasures of married life.

The real problem is that we are muddling along confusing social policy (i.e. laws and customs devised to make life easier and better for people) with religious dicta, which, in turn, are based on tribal notions of the need to outbreed the tribe next door. With over-population being the biggest single problem humanity faces (where do you think global warming comes from?) it is amazing that we are clinging to an outmoded concept of marriage, and tinkering around the edges so that people can be serial monogamists.

Nor is the concept of "one man, one woman" the only model available to us. Throughout history patriarchal societies have allowed polygamy, almost always in favour of men having multiple wives and even in modern times there are religious sects which allow, encourage or even mandate multiple spouses. Islam permits multiple wives and in some Micronesian cultures it was expected that a man would marry his brother's widows and adopt his deceased brother's children, thus guaranteeing a measure of social security in societies with marginal resources. Surely by now we have reached a point where people can self-define in terms of their own social arrangements. It is possible for consenting adults to adopt marital arrangements outside the narrow confines of the Marriage Act, but they find themselves punished by bureaucracy if they choose to do so. This has been demonstrated in many petty ways through denial of recognition of long term same-sex relationships, through inheritance and superannuation regulations, hospital visiting access, adoption laws and many other failures to recognise the capacity of humans to love and to accept responsibility outside the restrictive norms imposed by those whose only authority rests on numbers and tradition.

The whole marriage question needs to be re-examined. What is wrong with same-sex marriage? What is wrong with polygamy? What is wrong with polyandry? If adults of sound mind decide this is the way they wish to live their lives, and whether or not they intend it to be "for life" or for a fixed term, by what right does government decide to regulate these views? We know that polygamy and same-sex relationships can work. We have seen them work, time and time again. Those who do not believe in such things are operating on the basis of prejudice and stereotypes, the same stereotypes which saw gays and lesbians for so long as contemptible, the same blinkered view that could not see transgenders at all. And now we have moved forward a little and many gays and lesbians have been able to move into the light. Justice Michael Kirby on the one hand, Michael Mitcham on the other. Still not equal, but not as disadvantaged, ignored or persecuted as they once might have been. Transgenders, of course, are still denied many of their rights, to education, to housing, to employment, to health care ... as well as the right to marry in their true gender role.

Perhaps our best strategy to achieve the right to marriage lies not in perpetuating the "one man, one woman" pattern and insisting on recognition of our innate genders, but in a larger reform of marriage which will allow adults to define their own social contracts. One-on-one (never mind the gender), bigamy, threesomes, polygamy; what difference does it make as long as consenting adults agree to the terms and nobody is harmed.

But what about the offspring, the children of these unions? Well, polygamous marriage works in other societies and studies of children of gays and lesbians have demonstrated that they are not disadvantaged. Is there a difference between serial monogamy and polygamy? It is an illusion that we live in a Christian society. We don't, as shown by the latest Census, where nearly nineteen per cent of the population claimed to be atheists (leave aside the flippant doubters who called themselves Jedi or Calithumpians). Our current rules are based on Judaeo-Christian ideas (post Old Testament, of course) but we claim to be a multicultural society. Why don't we try being multicultural, for a change?

Polare is published in Australia by The Gender Centre Inc. which is funded by the Department of Community Services under the S.A.A.P. Program and supported by the N.S.W. Health Department through the AIDS and Infectious Diseases Branch. Polare provides a forum for discussion and debate on gender issues. Advertisers are advised that all advertising is their responsibility under the Trade Practices Act. Unsolicited contributions are welcome, though no guarantee is made by the Editor that they will be published, nor any discussion entered into. The editor reserves the right to edit such contributions without notification. Any submission which appears in Polare may be published on our internet site. Opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor, The Gender Centre Inc.I, the Department of Community Services or the N.S.W. Department of Health.