Legalizing same-sex marriage in Australia has been a major issue of debate for many years. The general public, political class, and the religious leaders have always remained sharply divided over the matter. People cited various reasons for their varied standpoints over the issue. Majority of the people who took an opposing point of view based their arguments on the teachings of the religion about marriage. According to the group, the Holy Bible, as well as the Holy Quran, point out clearly that marriage should only be between people of different sex; a man and a woman. According to the religious point of view, legalizing same-sex marriage was against the teachings of the holy books. On the other hand, the majority of folks that advocated for allowing people of same sex to marriage argued that prohibiting them was against their rights and violation of people's rights is against the constitution. Some also argued that religious point of view cannot be used to illegalise same-sex marriage because people have autonomy in religious practices (Gallagher 68).
Some people took a neutral position and their decisions regarding the matter were only swayed after consulting widely. Despite the heated and endless debates concerning the matter, same-sex marriage in Australia was made legal in 2017. The legalisation of same-sex marriage received the majority votes in the Australian parliament and it received a royal assent from the Governor-General. Under the federal law, gay and lesbian couples are also recognised as de facto relationships (Harris 62). The couples are subjected to same rights as other couples. The matter went through a long process before same-sex marriage was finally legalised. The civic engagement played a major role in the process that led to the legalisation of gay and lesbian marriages in Australia. The essay will mainly focus on the role of civic participation in the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Australia (Puplick and Galbraith 56). The discussion will revolve around the political and non-political roles that resulted in making the controversial issue legal.
Interested parties felt that the issue was of national importance because of the population of people that were affected by the lack of a legal framework for same-sex marriage. The number of people that fell in the gay and lesbian category had risen drastically in Australia and there was a need to legalise the issue. One of the major obstacles was that majority of the citizens did not understand the magnitude of the issue and how other people's rights were being violated through the continued prohibition of same-sex marriage. The civil rights organizations addressed the matter through advocacy and education to the general public. There were clear indications that the matter will end through the ballot and there was the need to educate people about why the issue was important to everyone. The engagement through advocacy and education played a major role in making people understand why their standpoints over the matter were crucial. Civic education relied on a number of channels like the social media platforms to enlighten people about what they wanted to comprehend the concern. Some of the avenues that the team used were through petitions to convince the parliament and government to give it the necessary attention (Gallagher 63). The interested parties also addressed letters to the relevant government agencies in order to convince them to take proper actions as an option to enhance the network coverage.
Civic participation played a central role in legalising homosexual marriage through forging cross-sector relationships. One of the key aims of civic participation was to bring different sectors on a roundtable to address the matter collectively. The cross-sector relationships were fundamental for sourcing diverse ideas from the members concerning how to address the matter properly. Various organisations came on the same table and they defined their shared objectives concerning what they wanted to attain. The groups also formulated various interventions regarding how they were going to approach the issue. Several organizations had been formed in the previous years but they lacked effective intervention strategies to address the matter. A collective action by the different organisations marked a turning point in the efforts to legalise gay marriage because the parties started to receive necessary attention from the government (Harris 63). The formation of cross-sector associations was also fundamental because it initiated trust and coalition building. The initial interactions between different sides that were interested in the matter lay the groundwork for a collective impact initiative. The efforts aimed at achieving a legal nod for homosexual marriage gained momentum after launching a collective action.
According to the Australian constitution, a vote was not necessary to change the law to accommodate the rights of gay couples. The Australian parliament has the autonomy to alter the law on matters that attract national attention. However, the gay matter had been in existence for long and the national assembly had failed to make the change without pressure from the general public. The idea of calling for a nationwide was the initiative of the civic organizations to compel the parliament to change the laws in order to legalise same-sex marriage. A nationwide vote was the most appropriate way to make sure that all citizens participate in the process and the outcome of the vote was the true reflection of what the majority citizens believe in relation to gay marriages. Civic engagement helped to build awareness and creating a sense of urgency concerning the matter. People were made to understand the necessity of the countrywide and mobilization was done to ensure a high turnout during the voting. The gay rights groups engaged the pertinent government agencies, for instance, the national electoral commission to facilitate the voting process. In addition, the civic groups came up with different plans to campaign for the legalisation of same-sex marriages. Campaigns were rolled out through arranging public rallies where the public was updated about the importance of the issue and why it is should not be limited to the gay and lesbian people alone. Campaigns were also conducted through social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, and other platforms like Instagram. The general public was well prepared before the voting date and many people voted after making proper deliberations.
The public also contributed to the legalisation of same-sex marriage through turning up in large numbers during the demonstrations that were called by various lobby groups. Picketing in a peaceful manner was always viewed as the most appropriate strategy to mount pressure on the government and other bodies to make changes concerning issues that affected its citizens. The issue about gay marriage had sharply divided the country and there was the need to engage the right processes that would solve the subject. Few days prior to the voting day, various organisations that advocated for the rights of lesbians and gay people conducted rallies in various cities including Sydney to sway the voting patterns in favour of the legalisation as well as pressurising the government through the parliament to effect the necessary amendments after the voting. Other groups that were of the same sex marriage also conducted their separate demonstrations and campaigns across the country to educate voters about the negative impacts of legalising same-sex marriage. The groups included the coalition for marriage, in addition to the Australian Christian Lobby and other religious groups.
The voting process marked the civic engagement through political involvement. The campaigns were conducted like other normal campaigns with different sides divided basing on their ideologies about the matter. Like the government politics, campaigns were properly staged and the two sides expounded on why they had taken their standpoints and gave the citizens an opportunity to make their final decision through a political process; voting. Civic participation helped to form groups that engaged different channels to influence the process of legalising same sex marriage. Most of the groups were mainly constituted of the gay and lesbian people and they presented their concerns directly to the departments involved with human rights in Australia. The lobby groups were also on the frontline to enlighten the public about the enormity of the subject as well as the necessity of making the desired changes. The groups acted as the collective voices of the affected people across the nation (Puplick and Galbraith 119). Before the voting, the groups used a section of parliamentarians who supported the issue to initiate parliament discussions that determined the final decision after the voting process.
Works Cited
Gallagher, Maggie. Debating Same-Sex Marriage. 61-87., 2012. Print.
Harris, Bede. "Human Rights and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate in Australia." Journal of Politics and Law 10.4 (2017): 60. Print.
Puplick, Christopher, and Larry Galbraith. "MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS: GUARANTEEING SECURITY AND CERTAINTY FOR EVERYONE." (2014): 1-241. Print.
