Marriage Equality: The Same Rights Of Marriage

Marriage Equality Student Name Institution Course Date Marriage Equality Marriage equality refers to the state of having the same rights of marriage as the rest, despite an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. In Australia, the campaign for gender equality was one of the gradual and persuasive. On December 2, 2019, Australia joined the rank of countries to legislate for marriage equality. The ease of access to information due to social media was critical in the success of the marriage equality campaign. The Howards Government in 2004 expressly prohibited marriage equality (Matthews and Augoustinos, 2012). Since that time, there were 23 unsuccessful attempts aimed at marriage equality had been introduced to the federal government, but only four managed to a vote, while the rest were defeated. While two-thirds of individuals in Australia had consistently indicated their support for same-sex marriages, it was still challenging for the government to legalize it. Over time, the campaign caused more Australians to understand that their LGTB counterparts deserve full equality under the law. Despite the opposition, the campaign for marriage equality managed to garner support from various groups including faith leaders, government officials, parents and influencers. Social media was critical in raising awareness of marriage equality in Australia. The success of the campaign Political will was critical in facilitating the campaign for marriage equality. Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull worked towards fulfilling the promise made by his predecessor, Tony Abbott, in a plebiscite. Mr Turnbull introduced a compulsory poll to determine the opinion of the members of the public on the issue. The plebiscite was meant to avoid opposition with the harder-right members of the government, and instead focusing on the public that had already expressed support for the issue (Robinson & Greenwich, 2017). The advantage with Australia was that it did not require a referendum to change the Constitution to approve same-sex marriage. In 2013, the High Court had already found that the Constitution defined marriage to include same-sex unions. The country needed at that time was for a parliamentary vote to alter the wording of the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act of 1961 which recognized marriage to the union between a man and a woman. The Australian Senate rejected the legislation to establish the plebiscite two times. As a result, the government decided to undertake a voluntary postal survey to establish the view of the citizens regarding marriage equality. If the majority of Australians responded “Yes” in the survey, the government would facilitate the passage of a private member’s bill about the issue in the Parliament. On November 15, 2017, the results indicated that 61.6% voted in favour of marriage equality. Additionally, the involvement of corporates in the country created a massive awareness of same-sex marriage. While politicians were dragging their feet regarding legalizing same-sex marriages, corporate Australia was ready to defend the rights of the LGTB community. In 2008, leading corporates were frustrated by the inaction from the Federal Parliament and decided to take steps to recognize same-sex couples. These corporates started extending equal employment benefits to gays and lesbians and their spouses. The move sent a strong message to the rest of the country that marriage equality was an important issue in all the sectors of society. The business leaders acknowledged that their support for marriage equality was not about politics. Instead, the move aimed to shape the country to be a better place which demonstrated respect for Australian national values of fairness and equality. The corporate leaders also know that the success of the campaign would create an enabling work environment where all the workers felt protected regardless of their gender and sexual orientation. While some CEOs were targeted by the government because of their position, they remained unwavering to their commitment. The involvement of corporates meant that the conversations about marriage equality took place in boardrooms and other management meetings. As more and more companies supported same-sex marriages, employees appreciated the courage of their employers to take a stance. The risks of using social media Using social media for undertaking important campaigns makes the public vulnerable to fake news and misinformation. Social media platforms offer an opportunity for all individuals to highlight their views on an issue. In the case of marriage equality in Australia, social media allowed both the “Yes” and “No” supporters of the survey to offer their opinions supporting their sides while criticizing each other. Since social media, unlike the mainstream media is not controlled, instances of fake news were rampant (Ireton and Posetti, 2018). Individuals on the no vote team seized the opportunity to spread fake news to the public in an attempt to mislead them about same-sex marriages. Social media offered the perfect platform for propagandists to spread misleading information about the harmful effects of same-sex marriages on the family institution. Additionally, social media allowed harassment and discrimination. Debated on marriage equality often culminated in harassment and discrimination when users disagreed on the issue. Such occurrences discouraged a section of the members of the public from participating in the online discussions. Propaganda and bias The supporters of the no vote resulted in peddling homophobic lies to the public in an attempt to sway the public from supporting marriage equality. Webb and Chonody (2012) demonstrate that despite the shift in the attitude towards the LGTB community, negative attitudes still exist. The opponents of same-sex marriage in Australia used propaganda and bias to persuade the members of the public to vote no during the postal survey. The group started distributing unofficial leaflets and posters aimed at misleading the public about the survey. These materials were left on cars and struck in places where members of the public were likely to read them. The leaflets contained outrages predictions about the social policy consequences of voting “Yes.” The propagandists warned that homosexuality would increase the instances of child abuse. They also went ahead and demonstrated religious judgments about sin for same-sex marriages. The propaganda painted the yes supporters as individuals seeking to silence the oppressed majority through the media. The main of the propagandists was to create fear among the Australians to change the yes vote. They misled the public that children will be taught radical LGBT sex indoctrination. Despite the propaganda and bias, a majority of the public managed to vote “Yes” during the...