The Commonwealth’s challenge to the A.C.T.’s Marriage Equality Bill has left many same-sex couples hoping to marry in limbo. (Shawn Gearhart – Getty Images)
With the High Court set to decide whether the ACT’s same-sex marriage laws can survive, Di Martin follows the highs and lows for a group of same-sex couples as they wait to see if their plans to marry in Canberra can go ahead.
When the ACT government passed its marriage equality law last month, many same sex couples quickly began to plan their weddings, hoping to make use of the law before it faced a High Court challenge, or repeal in Federal parliament.
But already the window of opportunity for these couples may have closed. The High Court will hear the case before any marriage can take place in the ACT.
Marriage equality advocates doubt the law can survive the High Court, and have criticised the ACT government for passing a law that strays into territory covered by the Commonwealth Marriage Act.
But in the lead up to the December 3 High Court hearing, ACT Attorney General Simon Corbell told Background Briefing he is confident about the looming court battle. Mr Corbell says while others have gone public with their criticisms, his government is at a disadvantage in spelling out what he calls a ‘robust’ defence.
‘We are not in a position to disclose our legal opinion in the advance of a High Court case – to do so would be to waive our professional legal privilege and provide it to those who are seeking to have our law struck down,’ he said.
The legal tussle over the law has cast a pall over hundreds of couples who’ve indicated they want to marry in the ACT.
Background Briefing spoke with several couples planning a group wedding, and found the court case is simply the latest in a long history of roadblocks placed in front of their relationships.
For one member of that group, Veronica Wensing, those challenges have included dealing with deep religious objections to homosexuality from within her community and being outcast by her family.
When Veronica came out to her staunchly Roman Catholic family in Canberra, the reaction was immediate and dramatic.
‘[I was] completely cut-off. So I was left completely isolated,’ she said.
Veronica says religion is at the heart of a lot of homophobia she’s experienced.
The Catholic Church says that homosexuality is a disorder, and it’s a sin for gays and lesbians to have sex. The former Pope Benedict even called it ‘an intrinsic moral evil’.
Yet the Wensing family has begun to move past this religious prejudice. Veronica tells the story of her sister in law, Kerry Wensing, who reacted negatively to Veronica’s coming out, even banning Veronica from visiting her children.
‘And yet a few years ago we were invited to the family Christmas, which in itself was a big shift. And prior to the Christmas meal, [Kerry] said a prayer… but astoundingly in that prayer, she apologised for the Pope at the time and his homophobia,’ Veronica said.
‘It really brought tears to my eyes. I couldn’t believe what I had just heard.’
Kerry Wensing agreed to talk to Background Briefing about the family rift, and its cause in her Catholic faith, which she said reaches back to her childhood.
‘I have attended my mass every Sunday all of my life, and it just meant everything to me. It has been my world,’ she said.
Kerry says she remembers clearly when she found out her sister in law Veronica is a lesbian.
‘When I found out who she had left her husband for, I was just astounded. I couldn’t deal with it. Because it was wrong. In the eyes of my church it was just a sin. It was bad. It was wrong.’
Kerry says members of the family tried to convince Veronica to return to her then estranged husband. When that didn’t work, the family refused to see or speak to Veronica. Kerry looks back on that decision with regret.
‘I think we have a lot to answer for. I think in hindsight if… I knew now what I didn’t know then, [that] it was about allowing people to be who they are. And God loves us all. Who am I to judge how somebody else lives their life?’ she said.
Kerry’s turning point in her relationship with the Church came not with Veronica, but when her own son, Alex, revealed he is gay three years ago. She said accepting her son has meant forsaking her church.
‘That has certainly been the most difficult thing I’ve had to do. In my life. Because my faith and my church meant everything to me. But at the time when I needed them most I didn’t feel they were there for me.’
Kerry approached several members of Canberra’s Catholic clergy for support.
A promised home visit never eventuated, and she gradually gave up hope of assistance. She said it’s taken years, but she has now reconciled her faith with her son’s homosexuality by separating her faith from the teachings of the Church.
‘The church has its own rules and regulations and I still respect that. But our relationship primarily is with God. And I have to trust that God knows Alex is gay and God still loves him,’ she said.
‘And I prayed for ten years that God would find a lovely partner for Alex. And he did. And I have a sister in an enclosed order in a convent and she also prayed for 10 years. And she said this must be right because he is loved by God.’
Kerry has not been to mass for two and a half years.
‘It never occurred to me that I would ever look for a different church other than the Catholic Church. But I soon need a community now that will embrace me and my family. [And] I will look everywhere for that.’
This article represents part of a larger Background Briefing investigation. Listen to Di Martin’s full report on Sunday at 8.05 am.
Sunday 8am, as part of Sunday Extra Repeated: Tuesday 2pm Presented by Jonathan Green
Author: Di Martin
Researcher: Anna Whitfield
Publication: ABC Radio National
Original article here:
Date: 22 November 2013
Transcript
Di Martin: Hello, and welcome to Background Briefing, I’m Di Martin.
Judy Aulich: Hello Di.
Di Martin: Hello Judy, I’m pleased to meet you.
Judy Aulich: You too, come in.
Di Martin: Judy Aulich is a marriage celebrant based in suburban Canberra. Judy Aulich has 19 same-sex couples on her books wanting to be married, and today she’s meeting with one of those couples.
Judy Aulich: Now, shall we talk ceremony, which is the fun bit?
Susan Nicholls: Yes.
Judy Aulich: It’s fun and easy to plan your ceremony. What you’ll get is this folder to take away and keep…
Di Martin: With Judy are Susan Nicholls and Christine Healy, a Canberra couple who leapt on the chance to marry after the ACT became the first jurisdiction in Australia to make it legal.
Susan Nicholls reads from a ceremony she’s been working on for many years.
Susan Nicholls: And this is what Judy might say: ‘Chris and Susan met in Sydney in mid-1985. They became the first same-sex couple in the ACT to enter into a civil partnership. Now, before friends and family, after a long legal struggle they are able to formalise their relationship as a married couple, 28 years after they first met.’
Di Martin: That long legal struggle, however, is far from over. The Abbott government has taken the ACT to the High Court, saying Federal Parliament is in charge of marriage law. And the Commonwealth Marriage Act says that only a man and a woman can wed.
But the ACT says because its marriages aren’t between a man and a woman, its law can live alongside the 1961 Commonwealth Act. The Full Bench of the High Court hears the matter next week.
Celebrant Judy Aulich explains what the new ACT marriage definition will sound like.
Judy Aulich: This is the one that I have to say under the Marriage Act 1961. Marriage according to the laws of Australia is the union of a man to a woman.
Christine Healy: So what’s the wording now?
Judy Aulich: This is what I have to say: ‘Under the law, this wedding recognises that you are voluntarily entering into a lawful and binding union for life, to the exclusion of all others. As an authorised celebrant under the Marriage Equality Same-Sex Act 2013 I would now like to formally recognise that Party 1 and Party 2 are now married. Congratulations.’
Di Martin: Susan Nicholls and Christine Healy’s marriage is unusual for a couple of reasons. They also plan to marry as part of a group, friends who met through their shared love of singing.
This is Qwire. Spelt Q-W-I-R-E, as in queer choir.
[Qwire singing “Same Love”
And I can’t change
Even if I tried
Even if I wanted to
And I can’t change
Even if I tried
Even if I wanted to
My love
My love
My love]
Today Background Briefing follows this group as they prepare to marry. From the initial euphoria following the passage of the ACT bill, we trace a rollercoaster ride for these four lesbian couples as their wedding plans get caught in the machinations of the state and its laws.
(“Same Love” Macklemore &Ryan Lewis
Till the day that my uncles can be united by law
When kids are walking ’round the hallway plagued by pain in their heart
A world so hateful some would rather die than be who they are
And a certificate on paper isn’t gonna solve it all
But it’s a damn good place to start)
This is a story about a hard transition across a largely symbolic divide. Most legal discrimination against gays and lesbians has been addressed. Polls say a clear majority of Australians support same-sex marriage. But marriage is a most conservative institution, and conservatives are fiercely contesting the shift, like a group of seven Canberra church leaders who issued a statement opposing the ACT law. From the Catholic Archdiocese here’s Monsignor John Woods.
John Woods: While affirming the inherent dignity of all human beings, our faith traditions also affirm the traditional concept of marriage between a man and a woman as being for the good of the individual, the family and society.
Di Martin: Many religions still oppose homosexuality. In fact former Pope Benedict called it ‘an intrinsic moral evil’, which leaves Catholics like Kerry Wensing in a difficult position. Her sister-in-law is in a long-term lesbian relationship.
Kerry Wensing: When I found out who she had left her husband for, I was just astounded. I couldn’t deal with it, because it was wrong. In the eyes of my church it was just a sin. It was bad, it was wrong.
Di Martin: In retrospect how do you feel about that time?
Kerry Wensing: Who am I to judge? Who am I to judge how somebody else lives their life?
Di Martin: Kerry Wensing echoes the words of Pope Francis, when he spoke recently on homosexuality. The comments have been called revolutionary, and are already influencing same-sex marriage debates around the world.
41 countries now allow same-sex couples to marry, including Canada, New Zealand, France, and recently the UK and Scotland have voted in favour. There’s also been a flurry of activity in the US, with Hawaii and the mid-western state of Illinois the most recent to change their laws.
Yet in Australia, Federal Parliament has voted down several attempts to change the Commonwealth Marriage Act. Prime Minister Tony Abbott is personally opposed to change, and three years ago had this to say about homosexuality to Channel 9’s Liz Hayes.
Liz Hayes: Homosexuality? How do you feel about that?
Tony Abbott: Awww .. I’d probably feel a bit threatened…
Liz Hayes: I’m not asking if it’s a personal choice of yours.
Tony Abbott: …as so many people do…
Di Martin: Tony Abbott later explained his youngest sister had just come out, and he said it threatened the cohesion of his family.
Tony Abbott still opposes same-sex marriage, although he’s told 3AW that his personal view is not the reason behind the High Court challenge.
Tony Abbott: Because under our Constitution, pretty clearly the Commonwealth has responsible (sic) for marriage and the regulation of marriage. So it’s not a question of being for or against gay marriage, it’s a question of adhering to the Constitution.
Di Martin: The Constitution actually does give states and territories shared power on the question of marriage. However, their law must not conflict, or be ‘inconsistent’ with the Federal Marriage Act.
Both the Prime Minister and Attorney General George Brandis declined to speak to Background Briefing.
Since the Commonwealth says marriage is only between a man and a woman, the states and the ACT are writing laws to create an entirely new category of marriage; same-sex marriage.
Recent votes in New South Wales and Tasmania have been narrowly defeated. Only the ACT, with its tiny 17-member Legislative Assembly, was able to pass a bill into law, by a one-vote majority. And Background Briefing reveals how this casting vote was in doubt over the extent of last-minute amendments.
Car radio: … and in fact the amendments they have proposed I think are good. They’ve made some significant advances towards that goal. But …
Di Martin: Early on the morning of the ACT vote, local radio was full of discussion about the same-sex marriage bill.
The ACT government has just introduced 25 last-minute amendments. It’s trying to address criticism that the bill hasn’t gone far enough to set up a separate category of marriage.
Background Briefing is on the way to the home of Ivan Hinton, deputy director of an advocacy group called Australian Marriage Equality. On arrival, Ivan Hinton is on the phone, deep in conversation with Shane Rattenbury, the only ACT Green in the Legislative Assembly.
Ivan Hinton: Yeah. I’d be more than happy to play that part.
It only emerges later that Shane Rattenbury wants the government to go even further with its amendments. Shane Rattenbury holds the balance of power in the ACT Legislative Assembly.
Ivan Hinton: OK, bye. That’s the hardest calls I’ve had to make.
Di Martin: Why, what was that one?
Ivan Hinton: We’ve had advice that is only appeared overnight and that advice has been very critical of the bill as it sits.
Di Martin: Australian Marriage Equality employed one of Australia’s leading constitutional barristers to look over the ACT bill. Bret Walker’s advice on the last-minute amendments has only just come in. Ivan Hinton again.
Ivan Hinton: And him and his team have come out quite strongly about the wording of this bill and suggested that it’s not fortified from the imminent High Court challenge.
Di Martin: Ivan Hinton says the ACT bill uses the language of the Federal Marriage Act, undermining its attempt to set up a separate legal status for same-sex marriage. So what Ivan Hinton and Shane Rattenbury talked about on the phone is delaying the day’s historic vote for a week.
Ivan Hinton: Hopefully what’s going to happen is that the bill is going to be debated today and there will be an in principle vote in favour of the bill. And then it will be adjourned for hopefully a week, and that will give the writers of the bill the opportunity of just revising the way in which the bill is worded to make sure that it is fortified from the High Court challenge.
Di Martin: Over at the Legislative Assembly, people begin to arrive to witness the historic proceedings. Upstairs in his office Background Briefing asked Attorney General Simon Corbell whether the vote will be delayed so more amendments can be made.
Simon Corbell: Our proposal is to vote on the bill as a whole. We have looked very closely at the issue of these amendments that have been suggested by others and we respect the various views that those groups have put forward and their legal advisors. We don’t agree absolutely. We don’t think the future of this bill will turn on a word or a phrase.
Di Martin: Simon Corbell rejects criticisms that the bill will fail in the High Court.
Simon Corbell: This is an environment inherently uncertain. We don’t know what the High Court will decide, nor do we know exactly the clear path forward because these are untested legal arguments that have never before been to the High Court. So we proceed with the highest level of certainty that is available to us. Is it absolute? No, it isn’t. Is there an absolute truth out there? Not at this stage, not until the High Court reaches a view.
Di Martin: Soon afterwards, the bells ring to summon MLAs to the Chamber.
Simon Corbell: All right, are we ready? Anyone else want to come down?
Staffer: Yes, let’s go.
Staffer: I think everyone…
Simon Corbell: This doesn’t happen every sitting day.
Di Martin: As the Minister and his staff make their way down to the Chamber, Simon Corbell acknowledges the magnitude of this vote.
Simon Corbell: I’m feeling very nervous. But once we get into the debate I will be fine I think. Thanks Di.
Di Martin: Once members are seated, proceedings turn straight to the vote.
Clerk: Executive executive business, order of day No 1, Marriage Equality Bill 2013, resumption of debate on the question that this bill be…
Di Martin: First to speak are the Liberals, who will vote against the bill as a bloc. Here’s Jeremy Hanson.
Jeremy Hanson: Madam Speaker, we believe that this issue belongs in the Commonwealth parliament. It is a federal issue, and there are a wide range of sound legal opinions that support that position. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Australia has received advice that this bill is invalid by reason of inconsistency with the provisions of the Commonwealth Marriage Act, and consequently this legislation will be challenged in the High Court.
Di Martin: Then came the Labor MLAs. Here’s Chief Minister Katy Gallagher.
Katy Gallagher: Some say this is an area of law that only the Commonwealth has jurisdiction over. We disagree with that view. The ACT government will defend the law in the High Court. We will continue to encourage the Commonwealth to correct its own marriage law. It would give me great pleasure to repeal the ACT laws on the grounds that they are no longer necessary.
Di Martin: The next speaker is openly gay MLA Andrew Barr who was instrumental in changing the national Labor platform on same-sex marriage.
Andrew Barr: Today Madam Speaker, the sacrifice, the suffering, the struggle, and the tireless exertions and passionate concern of gay and lesbian Canberrans, their parents and their families finds a voice and finds a champion in this Assembly.
Di Martin: And the Green’s Shane Rattenbury, with his deciding vote, had by this time agreed to support the bill.
Shane Rattenbury: Madam Speaker, I am delighted and proud, on behalf of the ACT Greens, to speak in support of the Marriage Equality Bill today. The passage of the Marriage Equality Bill is a landmark moment for this Assembly, for the ACT community and, indeed, for all the people across the nation who have been waiting so long for equal recognition and equal legal status for same-sex attracted Australians.
Speaker: The result of the division is ayes 9, nos 8. Therefore the question is resolved in the affirmative.
[Applause, cheers]
Di Martin: At which point the public gallery, stacked with members of Canberra’s gay and lesbian Qwire, defy standing orders and break into song.
[Qwire sings ‘Love is in the Air’]
As Labor politicians shake hands and embrace each other, the overflowing public gallery dissolves into a scene of celebration, where couples kiss, tears are shed, and imminent weddings are declared and discussed by couples not just from the ACT.
Have you driven up from Kilmore in Victoria for this?
Woman 1: Yes, we have.
Woman 2: It was a snap decision to come up. We decided yesterday at 4 o’clock in the afternoon to drive all night to get here today for this.
Woman 1: I slept in the car last night too, but it was definitely worth it.
Woman 2: This is a moment in history, Australian history, a big moment, so…
Di Martin: Many couples move to a nearby club to continue celebrating, where Ivan Hinton from Australian Marriage Equality is roundly welcomed.
Ivan Hinton: During the press conference I proposed to Chris.
Meg Clark: Did he say yes?
Ivan Hinton: He said yes.
Meg Clark: Thank God for that!
Ivan Hinton: That’s the most important thing!
Di Martin: Most of the Qwire couples organising a group wedding are seated around the table.
Anne-Marie Delahunt: I think we’re going to have a wedding party to end all wedding parties, aren’t we?
Di Martin: The conversation slowly turns from the day’s events, to the significance of the vote. Veronica Wensing has raised four children with her partner of 16 years.
Veronica Wensing: One of the things I’m really mindful of is that for us our marriage also binds our children. And I think that’s really significant for our kids, it’s just as significant for them as it is for us.
Di Martin: Veronica’s partner is Krishna Sadhana, who later describes how profound the vote has been for her personally.
Krishna Sadhana: Through our relationship, even though I have proposed to Veronica for fun over the years, I have never really seriously cared about getting married or not. But something shifted on the day that the legislation went through [tearful]…excuse me…in that I felt a huge emotional shift, I felt a level of acceptance in the wider society that I had never experienced before. And there is something about that level of acceptance that increased my sense of self-worth. Because if you go through life over decades as a lesbian where you are not valued, you are invisible, your relationships aren’t valued, your parenting skills aren’t valued, your families aren’t valued, you internalise some of that homophobia. You can’t help but internalise it. And to be acknowledged in that way, because of that I feel like I’d like to get married now.
Di Martin: Even though the law has passed, it will be at least six weeks from the day of the vote before the first weddings can take place, around the first weekend of December. The law has to clear the usual administrative hurdles, and then couples have to give a month’s notice of their intention to marry.
The Qwire couples group wedding plans begin in earnest. Tasks are split up, and Susan Nicholls and Christine Healy go to investigate flowers.
Florist: Do you ladies need a hand at all?
Christine Healy: Yes please. We want…how many bouquets?
Susan Nicholls: We want three little bouquets for the children, and we want five bridal bouquets.
Christine Healy: This is an unusual wedding.
Susan Nicholls: It’s an unusual wedding, there are a lot of brides involved.
Florist: Right, okay.
Di Martin: Afterwards we move to a nearby cafe. Susan Nicholls is a retired communications academic, and Christine Healy most recently headed up the ACT’s Bushfire Recovery services. They acknowledge that the ACT vote is just one part of the battle for the right to marry.
Susan Nicholls: This is one of those very, very polite battles that takes place in the courts. And I think that most Australians, something like 60% of Australians think what is the fuss about? Of course they can marry, why shouldn’t they marry? So the tide is moving towards this as being a non-issue. But in the meantime we have a deeply conservative government whose ideology is governed by an ancient religious belief which forbids this thing going through.
Christine Healy: I think it is a battleground. It’s a battleground between the old Australia and the new Australia.
Di Martin: A legal battle that begins with an initial hearing at the High Court just a few days later.
There is some doubt the ACT law will survive this High Court challenge. So the Qwire couples gathering outside the Court hope the matter will be put off until next year.
Here’s Veronica Wensing, followed by Krishna Sadhana.
Veronica Wensing: We are keen to learn about the proposed timeframes to see if there is still a chance that we can actually get married before the findings of the High Court are determined.
Krishna Sadhana: Because we have actually made lots of wedding arrangements already and we’re just waiting to give the go-ahead to everybody. So we are holding back on our invitations with the hope that we will be able to slip in during a timeframe or at least a gap when we can get married.
Di Martin: During a brief session, the Chief Justice raises a date for the Full Bench hearing; the second week of the December sittings. It’s much sooner than the couples hope. But Australian Marriage Equality says it still looks like there’s a gap in which to marry before the Full Bench sits. This is Ivan Hinton.
Ivan Hinton: What the High Court has determined is that there will most likely be weddings in the ACT before this case is actually heard, which is something that I am particularly and personally excited about.
Di Martin: As we’ll hear later, there is a critical misunderstanding about timing, and there is in fact no gap in which to marry. But, for now, the couples and many other Canberrans believe that there is a gap, albeit a narrow one, just a few days around the first weekend of December. It’s a belief that significantly changes plans for the group wedding, scheduled for just before Christmas.
The couples gather again a few days later at the home of Meg Clark and Anne-Marie Delahunt to discuss their weddings and the hearing. Anne-Marie sees an irony in the Commonwealth’s High Court submission.
Anne-Marie Delahunt: Part of their argument was that marriage has a weight beyond its legal status…
Veronica Wensing: Yes, and that’s precisely the point. That’s why we want it
Meg Clark: And that’s why they’re opposing it.
Di Martin: The couples talk about progress on the wedding plans, and then the conversation turns to the December 20 wedding date. Here’s Krishna Sadhana:
Krishna Sadhana: I’d like to suggest something that may be rather unpopular. I think that we should bring the whole thing forward, and a safer date would be the weekend of the 7th, 8th of December.
Di Martin: Meg Clark agrees.
Meg Clark: I don’t want to wait and have it ripped away from us at this point. It just feels too awful.
Krishna Sadhana: It’s so crazy. Even if they could give us a few weeks to get married and then take it away, just so we could have our time.
Di Martin: Then Barbara Murotake comes up with a welcome compromise.
Barbara Murotake: I’ve had friends who got married in Town Hall and then had a celebration later.
Meg Clark: I was thinking same thing.
Veronica Wensing: We could go with the legal…at the registry office or whatever on the 9th, and stick to our celebrations on the 20th.
Di Martin: The suggestion breaks a gathering tension.
Briony Rollings: All in favour of eloping! [laughs]
Di Martin: You’re listening to ABC RN, the Background Briefing program. Today we follow four Canberra lesbian couples as they prepare to marry in the ACT.
As the wedding day draws closer, family fly in from overseas to visit Meg Clark and Anne-Marie Delahunt.
Meg and Anne-Marie are now retired from the public service, having worked in education and the environment respectively. They met after Meg had already been married and had children, including Christy, who’s now 35. As a teenager Christy lived with Meg and Anne-Marie. Christy Clark wants to address an argument used against legalising same-sex marriage, that children of same-sex couples are disadvantaged.
Christy Clark: To me it’s just a way of covering for homophobia. You are just bringing out ‘oh why won’t you think of the children’ to try and act as though you are caring about some kind of higher value when really what you are saying is ‘I have issues with homophobia’, or as Tony Abbott has said, ‘they make me uncomfortable’.
Di Martin: Christy’s mother Meg Clark first married more than 40 years ago. Meg says her opinion of marriage has radically changed since that time.
Meg Clark: I was quite ambivalent about getting married because the status of marriage carried all of the paternalistic weight to me as a young feminist. You know, all of that weight about the father giving you away, and the confetti about virginity and fertility, and all of those kind of rituals that surround marriage I quite resented. So I didn’t feel that it actually communicated a lot about me. But I actually see this as about part of actually breaking open that and taking the richness of marriage, the heaviness of cultural meaning above and beyond that. And I think I now understand both those aspects of the conservative nature of marriage.
Di Martin: That’s Meg Clark.
All of the couples mentioned strengthening connections with family as a key reason to marry. But perhaps none more than Veronica Wensing, whose Roman Catholic family rejected her when she came out 20 years ago.
Veronica Wensing: Completely cut off. So I was left completely isolated.
Di Martin: Veronica Wensing says religion is at the heart of a lot of homophobia she’s experienced. The Catholic Church says that homosexuality is a disorder, and it is a sin for gays and lesbians to have sex. Veronica Wensing tells the story of one relative in particular.
Veronica Wensing: So I have a family member who, for example, when I first came out said it was an abomination, didn’t know how to deal with me, didn’t speak to me for quite a long time, who prevented me from having access to her children while they were growing up for fear that I might contaminate them in some way. And yet a few years ago we were invited to the family Christmas which in itself was a big shift, and prior to the Christmas meal said a prayer, as is usually said, but astoundingly in that prayer she apologised for the Pope at the time and his homophobia. It brought tears, it really did bring tears to my eyes. I couldn’t believe what I had just heard, and witnessing that significant shift.
Di Martin: Background Briefing made contact with Veronica’s relative. And after a couple of conversations, Kerry Wensing agreed to be interviewed.
Kerry Wensing: I have attended my mass every Sunday all my life, and it just meant everything to me. It has been my world.
Di Martin: So can you tell us about when you learned Veronica is actually a lesbian, when she came out?
Kerry Wensing: When I found out who she had left her husband for, I was just astounded. I couldn’t deal with it, because it was wrong. In the eyes of my church it was just a sin. It was bad, it was wrong.
Di Martin: In retrospect how do you feel about that time, and the way that the family responded to Veronica?
Kerry Wensing: I think we have a lot to answer for. I think in hindsight if we had [tearful]…sorry…if I knew now what I didn’t know then, it was about allowing people to be who they are. And God loves us all and no matter…who am I to judge, who am I to judge how somebody else lives their life?
Di Martin: Kerry Wensing says the turning point in her relationship with the Church came not with Veronica but when her own son, Alex, revealed he is gay. She describes how accepting her son has meant forsaking her Church.
Kerry Wensing: We have now had to walk this journey even closer because our son Alex came out three years ago [tearful]…sorry…the most difficult thing I’ve had to do in my life because my faith and my Church meant everything to me. But at a time when I needed them most I didn’t feel they were there for me.
Di Martin: Kerry Wensing approached several members of Canberra’s Catholic clergy for support. A promised home visit never eventuated, and she gradually gave up hope of assistance. Kerry Wensing says it’s taken years, but she has now has reconciled her faith with her son’s homosexuality.
Kerry Wensing: The Church has its own rules and regulations and I still respect that. But our relationship primarily is with God. And I have to trust that God knows Alex is gay and God still loves him. And I prayed for ten years that God would find a lovely partner for Alex, and he did. And I have a sister in an enclosed order and she also prayed for ten years, and she said this must be right because he is loved by God.
Di Martin: Kerry Wensing has not been to mass for two and a half years.
Same-sex couples say that deep-set religious homophobia is becoming far less common with the turning of the generations. The youngest Qwire couple in the group wedding are in their 20s. Barbara Murotake and Briony Rollings married earlier this year in New Hampshire, a union not recognised in Australia. They have a very different experience of a deeply Roman Catholic father. Barbara describes her Facebook-posting dad.
Barbara Murotake: Every single day he will post a reading from the Bible, or a teaching from a saint, saint of the day. He goes to church every single day. He prays over every single meal. Even a snack. He’s having a doughnut: bless this food, for that which we will receive, amen.
Di Martin: And yet he supports not only your sexuality but your marriage to Briony?
Barbara Murotake: Yes. What he said to me is, look, marriage is really between two people. You know, in the eyes of God, God knows who you are and who you love.
Di Martin: In fact everything about Barbara and Briony’s story speaks to the generational shift in attitudes to both homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
Barbara Murotake: Funnily enough nobody has come out and said, ‘Oh I can’t believe you’re married.’ I’ve never had anybody say that to me.
Briony Rollings: Indirectly that has been some opposition to our marriage, a family friend. But this person hasn’t said it to us directly, they have told other family members that they are against it, but they have never said anything directly to us.
Barbara Murotake: Unfortunately this person is almost 90 years old, so from a totally different generation.
Di Martin: Do you see opposition to same-sex marriage as indivisible with homophobia?
Briony Rollings: No. I kind of feel like some people’s arguments are: It’s okay for you guys to be defacto and play house, but we don’t want you to be like us because we are different. You are not like us. It’s okay for you to pretend but you can’t do it for real.
Di Martin: Whether any of these couples will be able to marry for real will depend on the strength of the ACT’s legal case in next week’s High Court hearing. It will be decided not on morals, but on questions that go to the heart of federalism.
The Commonwealth case argues that the 1961 Marriage Act sets up an indivisible definition of marriage, that between a man and a woman. But constitutional legal heavyweights disagree. They say if a completely separate type of marriage is created, the Constitution allows the laws to coexist.
However, those experts say the ACT law has not gone far enough, and instead strays too close to the Federal Act. ACT Attorney General Simon Corbell says his government is at a disadvantage.
Simon Corbell: The government has its own advice on these constitutional questions. Now, we are not in a position to disclose our legal opinion in the advance of a High Court case, to do so would be to waive our professional legal privilege and provide it to those who are seeking to have our law struck down.
Di Martin: Criticism of the ACT law says it uses the language of the Federal Marriage Act.
Simon Corbell: Well, the suggestions are that there be references removed to the term ‘marriage’ and it be replaced with terms such as ‘same-sex marriage’, or not even referring to marriage at all. Now, at one level this is very much about form rather than substance and the suggestion is that if you don’t use terms that are used in the Commonwealth Marriage Act then therefore you are not in conflict with the Commonwealth Marriage Act.
Di Martin: The Attorney General says the case will be decided not on words but on the rights and responsibilities established in the ACT law, and whether those are inconsistent with the Federal Marriage Act. He also says if the ACT case fails, his government will learn from its mistakes and simply try again with a new bill.
There was one more directions hearing at the High Court before Background Briefing went to air where a critical misunderstanding about timing emerged.
Veronica and Krishna, can you tell us what just happened in the High Court then?
Veronica Wensing: Basically the matter has been set for hearing on the 3rd and 4th of December, which means that the High Court hearing will be prior to the capacity for any couples in the ACT to get married.
Di Martin: Back in the first High Court hearing, Chief Justice French asked both parties if they could appear in the second week of the December sittings. But what’s just become clear is that didn’t mean the second week of the month. The court’s December sittings begin in November. So the Full Bench sits before the ACT Act allows anyone to marry, cruelling plans for the group wedding. Here’s Veronica Wensing.
Veronica Wensing: Very uncertain. As I look at Krishna and she is crying…
Krishna Sadhana: Just put them on the shelf for a while. Maybe go and get married in another country. We could do a world tour getting married in so many other countries other than Australia. Maybe eventually it will happen here.
Di Martin: Background Briefing understands the ACT’s legal team was well aware that the Chief Justice was looking at a Full Bench hearing in the first week of December. Yet Attorney General Simon Corbell says he felt no need to issue a statement to clarify the dates for confused couples.
Simon Corbell: Any speculation as to when the hearings would take place prior to the second directions hearing was just that, speculation.
Di Martin: Should the ACT government have issued some kind of statement at least cautioning same-sex couples who were preparing to get married in what was an illusionary window of opportunity? You would have been aware surely of those kinds of plans?
Simon Corbell: We are confident that same-sex couples understand the risks and are able…
Di Martin: They certainly didn’t understand the timing.
Simon Corbell: The government had no confirmation as to what date the High Court was prepared to entertain until it was set down.
Di Martin: Couples from Canberra’s gay and lesbian Qwire quickly organise another meeting to discuss the early December High Court date, where’s there’s talk of national confusion over the ACT’s law. Anne-Marie Delahunt tells the group about a phone call she had that day from Victoria.
Anne-Marie Delahunt: This young woman was saying, ‘Well, we’re driving up, we have only got the weekend, the people at the registry office couldn’t tell us how to get married. Can you tell us what we have to do?’ Oh god…
Di Martin: The mood is sombre, and conversation soon turns to what remains of the original plan to wed as a group. Here’s Krishna Sadhana.
Krishna Sadhana: What we have decided I think, and correct me if I’m wrong Veronica, is that as far as committing to the 20th December and the multiple weddings and all of the rest of it, we can’t really do that because it’s getting too much. And I’m getting really distressed about it.
Susan Nicholls: What about you lot?
Meg Clark: I have been completely at sea about it since the High Court directions hearing. Felt pretty gutted actually. I had just finished sending a text off to my brother who said, ‘Well, are you going to go ahead anyway no matter what?’ And I had said yes. And now I feel, oh god, he’s probably booked his flight. So I feel really stuck.
Di Martin: Meg Clark and Anne Marie Delahunt decide to wait and see, keeping alive the hope of a group wedding on December the 20th, just in case the ACT prevails in the High Court.
As do Chris Healy and Susan Nicholls.
Christine Healy: We will send out our invitations…
Susan Nicholls: Probably tomorrow.
Christine Healy: Probably tomorrow. If the High Court rules against, well, we’ll put this off.
Di Martin: Not at this dinner are Briony Rollings and Barbara Murotake, who have since decided to pull out of the group wedding as well.
Even if the High Court does rule for the ACT and couples are allowed to marry, their unions are likely to be short-lived. The Federal Parliament can overrule any ACT law, with a majority in both houses. The last lower house vote on the issue was lost 98-42. Advocacy group Australian Marriage Equality says those numbers will change when Coalition MPs are allowed a conscience vote. Here’s deputy director Ivan Hinton.
Ivan Hinton: What we’re lacking, and in stark contrast to what has occurred most recently in New Zealand and the UK, is a matter of leadership. In the last vote we had leaders of both political parties opposed to reform. And as a result of the leadership change and the choice by Labor to move towards marriage equality we have already seen several of those people who have voted against it previously, commit to voting in favour of it now. So these numbers are going to change.
Di Martin: There are nearly a thousand Australian same-sex couples who have indicated they are interested in marrying if the ACT law survives the High Court challenge next week.
Veronica Wensing and Krishna Sahdana say their marriage is inevitable, but they are also preparing themselves for an ACT defeat.
Veronica Wensing: I think I would feel devastated. I can’t deny that I would feel deeply hurt, because I would feel again, yet again, that my relationship is not valued.
Krishna Sadhana: I’d feel disappointed but not surprised. In fact underneath it all I expect that this isn’t going to stand up, not because I don’t want it to, but because I think it’s a very David and Goliath battle it feels like at the moment. Do you agree?
Veronica Wensing: I remain optimistic at this point because it keeps me in a positive frame of mind.
Krishna Sadhana: You just want to wear a dress don’t you!
Veronica Wensing: A purple one. [laughs]
Di Martin: Background Briefing’s co-ordinating producer is Linda McGinness, research by Anna Whitfeld, technical production by Russell Stapleton, and Chris Bullock is executive producer. I’m Di Martin.
Credits
Reporter
Di Martin
Researcher
Anna Whitfeld
Supervising Producer
Linda McGinness
Sound Engineer
Russell Stapleton
Executive Producer
Chris Bullock