New Zealand Marriage Equality Submission

The following is my submission to the New Zealand Parliamentary Inquiry into their marriage equality legislation. I think that it is a fantastic initiative of their parliament to allow submissions from Australia, and I hope that they pass equality later this year or early next year, even if it casts an even larger shadow over the performance of our parliamentarians on this issue.

new_zealand_flag

First, as a citizen of Australia I would like to thank the Parliament of New Zealand for allowing people from across the Tasman to make a submission to your inquiry on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 2012.

This is an important inquiry on legislation which has the ability to affect a wide range of people, not just in New Zealand, but also from other countries in the region.

I am one of those people who could potentially be affected. I am a 34 year old gay man living in Sydney with my partner of more than four years, Steven. We have been engaged to be married for almost three of those four years (I proposed to him at the beginning of 2010, and to my eternal happiness he said yes).

However, as you would be aware, the Parliament of Australia voted in 2004 to ban same-sex and gender diverse marriages, and extended this ban to apply to couples wishing to get married in other countries (by deciding not to issue certificates of no impediment to same-sex and gender diverse couples).

Even worse, as I am sure you are also aware, the Australian Parliament recently voted to reconfirm its opposition to marriage equality, and did so by a large margin (98 to 42 in the House of Representatives), meaning that marriage equality is unlikely to be recognised within Australia (at least at the federal level) for the foreseeable future.

Nevertheless, there was a brighter moment early in 2012 when the Australian Attorney-General, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, overturned the previous ban on the issuing of certificates of no impediment. This means that, despite being denied the right to marry in our own country, there is now no legal obstacle to our getting married in those countries where it is legal.

But there are other obstacles. While we can choose to get married in a range of countries, they are all some distance from Australia. This means that any option to get married for Steven and I would be expensive. Much more importantly, it means that any option to get married overseas would likely to be too far and too expensive for most of our family members and friends to come along with us and be there for our special day. And we both have elderly grandmothers for whom travelling to Europe, North America, South America or South Africa would be out of the question.

For Steven and I, and countless other couples like us in Australia, this is a heartbreaking decision. We can either legally get married in another country, but do so in the absence of the special people in our lives, or choose to wait many years before we can get married in our own country, and risk people like our grandmothers no longer being with us.

The legislation which is currently being considered by your Parliament might provide an opportunity for couples like us to be able to travel to our neighbour, and get married with many more of the special people in our lives being able to join us. I believe that many couples would make the same decision that we would – if marriage equality were to be legalised in New Zealand, and available to citizens of Australia, we would seek to get married in your country.

Some people might try to make an economic or financial argument based on this fact (ie that same-sex and gender diverse marriages from across the Tasman would provide a windfall to New Zealand). I do not support this proposition because fundamental human rights should never be determined by whether a nation benefits from it financially.

However, I do make the argument that, by legislating for marriage equality, and allowing same-sex and gender diverse couples within New Zealand, and from around the region including Australia, to get married, you would be substantially increasing human happiness. There are few moments where politicians have the opportunity to do that so decisively – by voting yes, you would not just bring happiness to the couples getting married but also to the family members and friends who finally get to celebrate that fact.

This submission may seem somewhat self-interested – after all I am putting forward my case as to why I should be able to access a legal right in your country. But it is also selfless in the same way that true love can be. Because I don’t just want to get married for my own benefit – I want to marry my fiancé Steven because I know that it would make him happy, and that our wedding would also bring happiness to countless others.

That makes me no different to any heterosexual person who wishes to get married, and no different to the same-sex and gender diverse couples within New Zealand who also wish to have a legally recognised wedding.

Obviously, your primary duty as elected representatives of New Zealand is to represent them. And I am sure that LGBTI New Zealanders are making the necessary arguments to you based on love, equality, acceptance and respect which all support the introduction of a definition of marriage that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or sex and gender identity.

If you accept those arguments and vote yes, you will no doubt bring happiness and joy to same-sex and gender diverse couples within New Zealand who wish to get married, and to all LGBTI New Zealanders for being recognised as full citizens.

What this submission has tried to make clear is that the positive outcome of a yes vote is not restricted to New Zealand and its citizens – the benefits of supporting this legislation could extend to couples from other countries, including Australia like Steven and me, who may also be able to get married as a result.

And who knows, just like with giving women the right to vote in 1893, a first move by New Zealand on this legislation might be enough to convince Australia’s own parliamentarians to finally vote for marriage equality.

Update: New Zealand passed marriage equality in April 2013, with weddings set to commence from August. What a wonderful achievement from our cousins across the Tasman, and what an indictment on Australia’s politicians that we do not appear even close to passing similar legislation here. Anyway, possibly the best moment of the NZ marriage equality debate happened immediately after the Bills were passed, with the Gallery breaking out into a traditional Maori love song. Simply beautiful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilMBLV3A6ug

Complaint re Reference to A.I.D.S on Form

My fiancé Steve and I went to Queensland last week on holiday. The main purpose was to attend my mother’s 65th birthday. However, we also decided to treat ourselves to a night in Noosa, and to a massage the following morning, so that we could both de-stress.

But our enjoyment of said massage was compromised somewhat by the ‘client form’ which asked a range of questions about health conditions which could be relevant (for example, whether you were suffering from a shoulder or leg injury etc). One part of this form read “Please circle if you have any of the following” and one of the options was “A.I.D.S”

I could not believe my eyes. First, I find it difficult to understand how a massage could involve any risk of HIV transmission (given there is no exchange of bodily fluids or other means of transmission).

Second, and much more offensively, I can’t recall the last time I saw someone use the phrase AIDS as shorthand to refer to someone who may be HIV-positive. In fact, it may be more than a decade since I saw the conflation of the two, especially on a document which has probably been distributed hundreds if not thousands of times.

I was too shocked to raise the issue at the time, but did take a copy of the form to use as the basis of a complaint to the company which provided the massage. I have written the below email to the company outlining my concern with the form. I have also copied this email to the Queensland Association for Healthy Communities for their information (and possible follow-up).

At this stage, I am giving the company the benefit of the doubt. I am hoping that it may be an ‘innocent mistake’, and that they do not understand how offensive this form is. As such, I am not naming the organisation on this post today.

Nevertheless, should they fail to respond positively to this complaint, or fail to respond at all, I will of course name the company involved so that other fair-minded people can avoid them when they go on holiday and want to relax. After all relaxing is far more enjoyable without an added dose of unjust discrimination.

Dear ,

I am writing today to raise an issue which occurred during my massage at your premises in Noosa last Friday October 12th 2012. In particular, I am referring to your Client Form, which I was required to fill in before having my massage.

This form included a section headed “Please circle if you have any of the following” and one of the options listed was “A.I.D.S”. I find this inclusion to be incorrect and offensive.

First, I imagine that this question was seeking to establish whether a client potentially has a blood borne virus (in this case HIV, not AIDS). I also imagine that this question is at least intending to ensure the massager is able to take appropriate precautions regarding this blood borne virus – although I am having trouble working out what precautions would be necessary given massages do not involve an exchange of bodily fluids and I cannot think of another way of possible transmission that is relevant in this situation.

Could you please enlighten me what the response would have been by your company if someone had circled the response “A.I.D.S”? Is this response supported by scientific evidence and/or advice from the Queensland Department of Health?

Second, and much more importantly, I would like to point out that there is a difference between someone being HIV positive, and someone who is currently experiencing AIDS. While you must be HIV positive to experience AIDS, there are many, many people who are HIV positive who do not experience Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

Conflating the two conditions, or using “A.I.D.S” as shorthand for all people who may be HIV positive, is extremely offensive and unnecessary. It reflects thinking from the 1980s and not 2012.

Ironically, if you seeking to protect your employees, the way that you are asking this question may not achieve what you want in any event – if someone is HIV positive but does not have AIDS, then their correct/factual answer would be to leave “A.I.D.S” un-circled.

To rectify this situation, I would ask that you please consult with the Queensland Association for Healthy Communities about both your responsibilities in this area, and, if you must ask people whether they have a blood borne virus, how that information should be sought from the client. I have copied this email to them for their information and follow-up.

I look forward to your reply to this email, including the actions that you have taken to amend this form.

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

139 People Standing Against the Tide of History

First, a disclaimer: this is hardly an original column. There have been many other bloggers and social media users who have posted the full list of our federal parliamentarians who recently rejected equal marriage. One particular website which is impressive in both its comprehensiveness and usefulness is ‘the98against’ (for those Members of the House of Representatives who voted no) and its corresponding Senate site (‘the41against’), which also helpfully provides the contact details of each MP.

Nevertheless, I think it is important for us to document – in as many places as possible, and as loudly as possible – the names of each and every Australian parliamentarian who decided that only opposite-sex couples should have the legal right to marry in this country. These 139 people decided that there are some rights which should only be granted to heterosexuals, and to entrench this homophobic distinction in our nation’s laws for several more years (at least).

The majority of the list is made up of Coalition MPs. In fact, every Coalition MP who voted cast their vote against equality and for discrimination. This is in part the direct result of Opposition Leader (the not very honourable) Tony Abbott’s decision to deny Liberal and National MPs a conscience vote. However, it is also partly a consequence of the gradual decline and death of the moderate wing of the Liberal Party, and the failure of Coalition MPs to exhibit any evidence of a spine by voting for equality anyway (despite constantly reminding others that they are free to cross the floor on any vote).

Indeed, only one Coalition MP deserves any kind of pass mark – and their name is not Malcolm Turnbull. Liberal Senator for Queensland Sue Boyce gave a principled and dignified speech in favour of equality and then abstained from the final vote (one assumes to preserve any kind of future within the now-quite-illiberal Liberal Party).

Malcolm, on the other hand, cast his vote against equality, just like Tony Abbott and Cory Bernardi. In the one place where it counted – on the floor of parliament – there was nothing to distinguish Malcolm from Cory; and that is something which the electors of Wentworth should keep in mind at the ballot box next year.

In fact, the list below shows a range of people who have voted against equality despite having a high number of LGBTI Australians living in their electorates. This includes Teresa Gambarro in Brisbane, Kevin Rudd in Griffith, Jane Prentice in Ryan, Turnbull, John Murphy in Reid, Kelvin Thomson in Wills, Michael Danby in Melbourne Ports and Kelly O’Dwyer in Higgins. They should all fear repercussions from progressive voters come next year (although how much they suffer remains up to us).

Of course, the list below includes a number of ALP parliamentarians, who chose to exercise their ‘conscience’ vote and reject the ALP’s official platform, which, as of last year’s national conference, actually supports same-sex marriage. It includes a range of people who really should know better – as well as Thomson and Danby, I would add to that list Julie Owens, Daryl Melham and Anna Burke.

And then there is the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. After foxing for months on the subject – and giving the impression to marriage equality supporters that he would vote yes – Kevin disgracefully voted to entrench inequality in federal law. Thus he amply demonstrated that he has not grown during his time on the backbench, and those people who are looking to the future of the ALP should no longer cast their eyes in his oh-so-eager, ‘please pick me’direction.

Rudd’s cowardice, on top of Julia Gillard’s ongoing capitulation to the Christian Right, has cast the spotlight on those ALP MPs who are thinking about the future, and what a ‘no vote’ would have looked like on their record in 2, 5 or even 10 years from now (a hint: it is the equivalent of someone saying today that they continue to support discrimination against Aborigines).

Stephen Smith voted yes, possibly for this reason, as did Jason Clare. Bill Shorten’s vote was the most encouraging – he is a political pragmatist of the highest order and a (well-known) self-promoter. It speaks volumes that he knows which way the wind is blowing. By being clever on this issue, Shorten has confirmed his place near the front of the queue of who should lead the party when we eventually get rid of Gillard (Greg Combet would also have to be on that list simply because of his general awesomeness, while Mark Butler is a longer-term consideration).

In fact, in the medium term this vote will be able to be used by a weapon by an astute future Labor leader against the Liberals. Whenever a matter of social policy or social justice arises in 2017, or 2023, the ALP head will be able to point to Joe Hockey, or Josh Frydenburg, or any MP who is currently in Parliament, and point to this vote to show how regressive they truly are. It is definitely something to store away for a rainy day.

In the meantime, those of us who simply want the right to get married in our own country will have to wait. And the size of the loss – 98 to 42 in the House of Reps – means that wait may be quite long. Contrary to popular opinion, while the tide will continue to move in our direction, the fact that people are now on record for and against (well, overwhelmingly against), means that it necessarily will take a public about-face for those MPs to support equality in the future. Saying that they got something wrong is not intrinsic to the nature of most politicians.

Even if the Liberals will have the excuse that they were denied a conscience vote this time, their recorded vote against will nevertheless be a factor in considering where to cast their ballot next time around. And the disturbingly high number of ALP MPs who voted no, despite being free to vote yes, demonstrates that there is still significant work to be done on the left side of politics as well.

In fact, the scale of this defeat, especially in the House of Representatives, has done nothing more than confirm to me the likelihood that it will take at least a couple of federal elections, and possibly three, for there to be sufficient turnover such that a future federal parliament is in the position to support marriage equality. No wonder the AME and other marriage activists have transferred their attention to securing same-sex marriage at state and territory level. For the foreseeable future, that is likely to be much more fertile ground.

 

House of Representatives Members who voted no:

Abbott, AJ Adams, DGH
Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ
Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC
Billson, BF Bishop, BK
Bishop, JI Bowen, CE
Bradbury, DJ Briggs, JE
Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S
Burke, AS Byrne, AM
Chester, D Christensen, GR
Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK
Coulton, M Crook, AJ
D’Ath, YM Dutton, PC
Emerson, CA Entsch, WG
Fitzgibbon, JA Fletcher, PW
Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA
Gambaro, T Gash, J
Gillard, JE Griggs, NL
Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG
Hayes, CP Hockey, JB
Hunt, GA Husic, EN
Irons, SJ Jensen, DG
Jones, ET Katter, RC
Keenan, M Kelly, C
Laming, A Ley, SP
Lyons, GR Macfarlane, IE
Marino, NB Markus, LE
Matheson, RG McClelland, RB
McCormack, MF Melham, D
Mirabella, S Morrison, SJ
Moylan, JE Murphy, JP
Neumann, SK Neville, PC
O’Dowd, KD O’Dwyer, KM
O’Neill, DM Owens, J
Prentice, J Pyne, CM
Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ
Ripoll, BF Robb, AJ
Robert, SR Rowland, MA
Roy, WB Rudd, KM
Ruddock, PM Schultz, AJ
Scott, BC Secker, PD (teller)
Smith, ADH Somlyay, AM
Southcott, AJ Stone, SN
Swan, WM Symon, MS
Tehan, DT Thomson, KJ
Truss, WE Tudge, AE
Turnbull, MB Vamvakinou, M
Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX
Washer, MJ Windsor, AHC
Wyatt, KG Zappia, A

Senators who voted no:

Abetz, E Back, CJ
Bilyk, CL Bishop, TM
Boswell, RLD Bushby, DC
Cash, MC Colbeck, R
Collins, JMA Conroy, SM
Cormann, M Edwards, S
Eggleston, A Farrell, D
Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C
Fifield, MP Furner, ML
Gallacher, AM Heffernan, W
Hogg, JJ Humphries, G
Johnston, D Joyce, B
Kroger, H Macdonald, ID
Madigan, JJ Mason, B
McKenzie, B Nash, F
Parry, S Payne, MA
Polley, H Ronaldson, M
Ryan, SM Scullion, NG
Sinodinos, A Smith, D
Stephens, U Sterle, G
Williams, JR