'I Don't Believe in Discrimination But. This Is Just Too Far': Political Discourse in the Australian Marriage Equality Debate

By Matthews, Natalie; Augoustinos, Martha | Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, December 1, 2012 | Go to article overview

'I Don't Believe in Discrimination But. This Is Just Too Far': Political Discourse in the Australian Marriage Equality Debate


Matthews, Natalie, Augoustinos, Martha, Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review


Abstract

This paper examines how heteronormativity operates in the context of debates over marriage equality, despite an apparent underlying ethos of egalitarianism. The data analysed in the present study were a corpus of 44 transcripts from Australian politicians who oppose the legalisation of non-heterosexual marriage. We utilised a synthetic discourse analysis to identify a predominant discursive repertoire that constructed opposition to non-heterosexual marriage as non-discriminatory, often coupled with a subject position that portrayed politicians as heroes rather than oppressors. Although politicians opposed to non-heterosexual marriage were found to openly agree that non-heterosexual people deserve rights, their accounts functioned to depict marriage for non-heterosexual people as being a step 'too far'. In positioning themselves as non-discriminatory heroes, politicians' views against marriage equality were depicted as the only means in which to protect mainstream society from the 'perils' of non-heterosexual marriage. Our analysis highlights the subtleties of contemporary prejudice as a practice which no longer focuses on the deficits of the oppressed group, but rather solely on the more highly prioritised needs of the heterosexual majority. In the marriage equality debate this enabled politicians to appear as egalitarian and non-prejudiced whilst simultaneously arguing against laws that would grant non-heterosexual individuals greater rights in Australian society.

Keywords: marriage equality debate, Australia, discrimination, discourse analysis, heteronormativity.

Introduction

In 2004, the Howard Liberal Government of Australia amended the Marriage Act of 1961 (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2009). The amendment was specifically aimed at defining marriage so that it excluded any relationships other than those between one man and one woman.1 In doing so, people in nonheterosexual relationships became legally restricted from participating in the institution of marriage. To date, this controversial amendment still stands. However, more recently both political and public debate has arisen over the need to change the Marriage Act so that it no longer excludes non-heterosexual relationships (The Age, 2010). The debate has been fuelled from increasing international pressure, as nations such as Canada, Norway and some states of the U.S.A. lift bans on non -heterosexual marriage, as well as a shifting public attitude towards non-heterosexual marriage. For example, a 2012 public opinion poll conducted as part of a Senate inquiry on marriage equality found that 64% of 276,437 respondents were in support of marriage equality (Australian Marriage Equality, 2012). Nonheterosexual communities have taken varied views towards the issue, with some queer theorists purporting that as marriage is historically an oppressive and cruel institution, nonheterosexual people should take no part in its celebration (see Marsh 2011 for a more comprehensive discussion of this). Overwhelmingly, however, non-heterosexual people have seen the prohibition of marriage as just another instance of discrimination (May, 2011).

Yet despite this slow shift in public attitudes and the desire of many in non-heterosexual communities to marry, resistance to marriage equality continues, including amongst Australian politicians. Many researchers (e.g.. Brow, 2009; Harding & Peel, 2006; Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 2004) have suggested that this ongoing resistance to marriage equality extends far beyond the act of marriage itself, and is instead, at its core, part of a broader heteronormative ideology prevailing in Western society today. The term 'heteronormativity' is derived from Rubin's (1984) theorisation of the sex-gender system, and explains the fact that in Western society the monogamous heterosexual relationship is given the greatest value. According to Rubin, Western society has an implicit, hierarchical system of sexuality, conceptualised in a pyramid-like fashion, whereby social status progressively decreases from the tip to the base, as illustrated in Figure 1. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

'I Don't Believe in Discrimination But. This Is Just Too Far': Political Discourse in the Australian Marriage Equality Debate
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.