Category Archives: Marriage Equality Australia

A Tale of Two Speeches

Posted on by

At some point today, Wednesday 19 September 2012, both the House of Representatives and the Senate will vote against legislation which would provide for marriage equality in Australia. The vote in the Senate will at least be close – the House of Representatives less so. This will be an incredibly devastating result for LGBTI Australians, and indeed all people who believe in a progressive and inclusive society, because it means that at least on a federal level, marriage equality will not happen for several years and quite possibly not until next decade.

Most of the words which could be written on this topic have already been, and much more eloquently than I could possibly write here. That is why I have instead chosen to reproduce two speeches here in full, taken from the Marriage Equality debate in the Senate on Monday. One is by the amazing Senator Louse Pratt, speaking in support of the Bill in the same articulate and passionate way that she has always spoken in favour of equality. The other is by Senator Ron Boswell, speaking against the Bill in well, the way that one would expect a bigot to speak.

The words of the speeches largely speak for themselves. The difference in the substance of the arguments – indeed the paucity of the arguments against used by Boswell – once again demonstrate why marriage equality is inevitable. The only shame is that it will not happen here and now, that instead we will have to wait. And the basic reason for that is that the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, Leader of the National Party and the majority of our MPs will be voting against equality. Instead, they have chosen to align themselves with ‘Team Boswell’ and not ‘Team Pratt’. We should never let them forget which way they cast their vote today.

Monday 17 September 2012 Senate Hansard

Senator Pratt

(Western Australia) (10:39): Today we are here to debate a bill which will remove the last remaining discrimination against gay and lesbian Australians from our federal law. This legislation, the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012, has been a long time coming. I think it is ironic that this last piece of discrimination to be removed should be the most recently introduced. I, like thousands of other Australians, was hurt and dismayed when the federal parliament back in 2004 took steps to entrench discrimination into our nation’s Marriage Act. I have always worked for fairness and equal treatment for all Australians. That principle is at the core of my commitment to politics, and it is and always will be a touchstone for me.

I would support the removal of discrimination from the Marriage Act whether or not the act as it currently stands discriminated against me personally. But it would be disingenuous of me not to put on record that in this case the act does discriminate against me. I am one of those hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens who know that the laws of our nation hold our capacity for love and for commitment to be lesser because of the gender of our partner, one of the hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens who know that the laws of our nation say we are less deserving of rights, of respect and of recognition. And we know that those ideas are not true, and that the laws that reinforce them are not right. So this debate has a personal impact for me, in addition to the commitment I have always felt to end legal discrimination against any Australian. I have grown weary over the years of making that case over and over again that, yes, I am a person like everyone else and, yes, I deserve the same treatment under the law as everyone else. But I must say I have been strengthened, over and over, by the growing support in the Australian community to end discrimination once and for all. We can see in the history of this debate that about 38 per cent support for marriage equality in 2004 grew to more than 65 per cent of the Australian community today. What is more, more than 75 per cent of Australians believe that marriage equality in this nation is inevitable. And that is hardly surprising. The gradual reform of laws at a state, territory and federal level throughout recent decades has been accompanied by a growing realisation in our community that being gay, lesbian, trans or intersex is not something to be ashamed of, or something to be hidden.

As someone who has seen the laws that denied my rights fall, one by one, in my lifetime, as someone who came of age in an Australia where being who I am was, if not universally accepted, at least no longer a shameful secret and a source of fear, I want to put on record today how incredibly grateful I am to those men and women who went before us, those men and women who were brave enough to be open about their life and open about their love in a time when doing so put them at real risk of danger, who fought for our rights regardless of what it cost them, both personally and, for many, professionally. Without them, we would not be debating this bill today. Without them, I would not be here in this parliament at all. And without them, it would not now be the norm, rather than the exception, for gays and lesbians to live openly, to be accepted by their families, their workmates and their communities. Because of that openness, because of that acceptance, for many Australians today the question of marriage equality is not an abstract one—it is about equal rights for their daughter, or their brother, or their dad or their workmates, their teammates, their friends. And if there is one thing about the Australian character that we have always been able to rely on, it is about the commitment of Australians to a fair go for the people around them.

Support for marriage equality is, in my view, about that fair go. But, more importantly, it is about support for marriage itself—recognition of the importance of lasting, committed, loving relationships and the public recognition and display of that commitment. Historically, gay, lesbian and transgender people have been denied the opportunity to make that commitment in a public ceremony recognised by the laws of our nation in the community. I think it is one of the bitterest ironies of this debate that, historically, gay people have been stigmatised as promiscuous and immoral while being denied by the law the right to demonstrate the importance and consistency of their relationships in the way that any other Australian can. Think about that. If marriage is important to our society, if mutual commitment to a shared life is important and if it is valuable in and of itself—and I think it is—and for the strength it lends our community then we should be encouraged by the desire of so many non-heterosexual couples to enter into that lifelong bond.

The simple fact is that thousands of lesbian and gay couples are married here and abroad, and I take issue with Senator Brandis when he says this bill is in breach of custom. Take a look at Australia today. Take a look at the customs of Australia today. There are thousands of lesbian and gay couples who are married, in marriages like anybody else’s. They have the same characteristics as any other, bar the official recognition of the law of our country.

I understand that some senators may be concerned, as some who made submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee are concerned, that the removal of discrimination in the Marriage Act would force religious celebrants who feel same-sex marriage is against the principle of their religions to nonetheless preside over such marriages. But you only need to look at the facts of the Marriage Act today. The Marriage Act contains provisions that clearly and unequivocally protect ministers of religion from any obligation to conduct marriages that they believe do not accord with their religious beliefs.

So I will be voting for this bill, and I hope that all my Labor colleagues will be voting for this bill. I know the majority are. I believe that this bill fits with a sensible reform agenda and with the passion for fairness and equality that our party has always prized. I hope, too, that opposition senators on the other side of this chamber will be voting for this bill because they support the importance of marriage in our society. I believe that this bill fits with the Liberal Party’s stated commitment to the rights and freedoms of equal opportunity for all Australians, and I remind National Party senators that a great many lesbian and gay Australians live in rural and regional Australia. They are your constituents too, and I ask you to recognise their rights.

I believe that this bill, as the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee recommended, should be the subject of a conscience vote for all federal senators and members. This in in fact consistent with the way the Marriage Act has been treated in the past. Australians believe that coalition senators and members should have a conscience vote on this question. This is not an issue that should divide left and right. It is not a conservative-versus-progressive issue. It is not a left-wing issue. It is not a progressive issue.

It is about our recognition of the importance—to individuals and our community—of people making together a mutual commitment to a shared life. It is about the importance of marriage in our society—the importance of marriage not to the few but to the broad breadth and depth of the Australia community. If we want marriage to remain an important institution in Australia — and I certainly do — then we must make this change.

I believe this bill is good policy. It is in line with principles of equality and in line with today’s community expectations. I would support this bill, as many in this chamber and in the other place support it and as many in the community support it, if it did not affect me. But, this is a bill that personally affects me, because marriage discrimination affects same-sex couples and also affects people with intersex and transgender partners. I am sure many of you do not know that under the current law we see married couples, with children, forced to divorce against their will when one partner realises they are transgender in order to have their gender legally recognised. It is a disgrace that those in functional families with children are required to divorce so that someone can have their gender recognised. Under the current law, there are also Australians who have the legal right to marry no-one because they are legally and by biological fact intersex — that is, they are both male and female — irrespective of how they identify. The discrimination in the Marriage Act directly affects me, as well as thousands and thousands of other lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians. But it also directly affects many, many more Australians than those because legal discrimination against gay and lesbian Australians hurts not just us but our parents, our children, our brothers and sisters, our friends. It hurts everyone who loves us, just because of who we love.

So in closing my remarks in this debate, I ask senators in this chamber to remember, when they are deciding how to vote, we exist, we already exist, our relationships exist, our children exist, our families exist, our marriages exist and our love exists. All we ask is that you stop pretending that we don’t. Stop pretending that our relationships are not as real as yours, our love not as true, our children not as cherished, our families not as precious—because they are. Removing this last vestige of legal discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians from federal law now has the support of the majority of the Australian community. It is my sincere hope that it also has the support of the majority of senators in this place.

Senator Boswell

(Queensland) (11:54): Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, I understand we are debating your bill today. I find it a very serious debate. In fact, to me it is one of the most serious debates that we have ever had to face in this parliament, because it will fundamentally affect the way Australia reacts as a society. In my party, one of the basic philosophies is that the family is the basic unit of society and without a family you do not have a society. I cannot imagine a more severe attack on the family than undermining marriage. It is what the whole of our society is based on. It is what the whole of society over centuries—probably from the start of man—has been based on: a man and a woman getting together to procreate children and for those children to stay together under the care of a mother and a father. Without that, what do you have? What is society? That all stands before us. Fortunately, the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 is not going to get through, but I have been around long enough to know that this is only the first attempt.

But what I want to say to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, is: yes, in the inner city suburbs of West End, South Brisbane and Redfern, there might be a bit of support for this, but there is certainly no support for it out in the western suburbs among the blue-collar workers, where the families are strong. Among the different communities, whether they be Catholic, Muslim or Jewish, it is an anathema. It is an anathema with my party. Senator Bishop said that he has not been lobbied very much. I can tell you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that I have not been lobbied at all except to say to me, ‘You stand up strongly for the basic unit of society, which is marriage and the family.’

I believe we now stand at the brink. We have to make a decision. Do we as a society turn away from everything we know and everything that our society is based on—the ideal that the family has been based on for thousands of years—or do we go the other way? Do we say, ‘Near enough is good enough, because it does not really hurt anyone, it does not cost anything and people want to do it; why not?’ and allow gay marriage and just give up on the ideal that the family is the basic unit of society and it gets there through marriage? We know from experience that the whole of the family—a marriage between a man and a woman—allows children to live in a safe, protected environment where they are allowed to grow into adults and pass strong values on to their children. The family is a continuum. We know this from experience, and therefore we continue with that ideal and look to uphold it.

I believe people have not thought this through. I think people in Australia do not give a lot of thought to these important issues, and we as members of parliament have to. From a distance, the issue of gay marriage looks a lot like other issues for Australian voters. From the outside it looks like it does not harm anyone, does not affect any individual who does not engage in it and does not seem to harbour any cost to the taxpayer or any other organisations. It seems relatively harmless—a relaxation of laws and conventions. If it does not hurt me and it does not hurt them, who does it hurt? It hurts society—that is who it hurts—and people have not thought it through.

What happens when the conventions are relaxed? What happens after the conventions have been removed? Marriage is based on a man and a woman, for the reason of having children. Two men and two women cannot conceive without some outside assistance. Marriage is not just a convention or a mere formality; it is a mechanism that was created by society to bring two sexes together and create a foundation of moral, social and legal protection and stability. Without this foundation, we are risking the lot. Like all things that have a foundation, society has a foundation. What is it based on? What is society based on? A man and a woman getting together, having children and then, in a broader sphere, an outer family of cousins, uncles and aunties, all providing support for the family, and that family fighting like crazy to make sure their kids get a good way of living, a good education and sometimes even the parents backing them into a home—people standing up for their family. The family is what people give their children. They send them to expensive schools and make great sacrifices for them because they believe in the family.

People think, ‘How does it affect me—a man marrying another man?’ If it is made legal they think it will not have an impact on their lives. But they have not considered the real harm that homosexual marriage can bring about, and there are three big harms in legalising homosexual marriage. It abolishes a child’s birthright to have both a mother and a father. Marriage includes the right to start a family. Under article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to marry comes with the right to start a family. If two men are legally able to marry, they obtain the absolute right to have a child via surrogacy. After gay marriage is legalised, a child can henceforth be brought into the world without ever having the right to a mother and father. Sometimes this happens inadvertently—through desertion or death—but it is not something we plan for; it is not something we want.

Same-sex marriage says that a mother or a father does not matter to a child—and it does. Two mothers or two fathers cannot raise a child properly. Who takes a boy to football? Who tells him what is right from wrong? What does he do—go along with the two mums? How does he go camping and fishing? Yes, there might be some attempt by one of the mothers to fill in as a father figure but it will not work. It is defying nature. And what about a young girl changing from a teenager into a young woman? Is it fair to say to her, ‘You don’t have a mother; your mother can’t take you shopping’ or to not be able to help her understand how her body is changing? What are we trying to do here? Why are we trying to defy what has been the right thing for hundreds of thousands of years? What suddenly gives us the inspiration to think that we can have gay marriage and it will not affect anyone?

I say to the people who very narrowly think this through or who do not think it through: it is more than saying, ‘It doesn’t hurt me; it doesn’t cost anything.’ It is a lot more than that. Once you have gay marriage in law, you have normalised the law, you have normalised homosexual marriage in law, which forces the normalisation of homosexual behaviour in the wider culture—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Senator BOSWELL: I will not be drawn in, Senator—especially in the school curriculum. I ask the people of the Western Suburbs: if you have gay marriage and it is legal, how can a teacher discriminate between normal marriage and gay marriage? He has to explain both as part of the curriculum. How can a teacher explain one part of the law but not the other?

So I ask these people who think it does not hurt me: do they want their children to be taught about gay marriage?

Senator Hanson-Young: Why not?

Senator BOSWELL: That is the question—why not? You do not find it objectionable from your side of politics. My side of politics finds it abhorrent and does not want any part of it.

But that is what we have to face up to, because these things are like a salami slice. You start off thinking, ‘It doesn’t hurt anyone.’ Then: ‘Oh, little Freddy’s got to go listen to why homosexual marriage has nothing wrong with it. Why is nothing wrong with it? Because it’s legal. This parliament has made it legal.’ I say to the people: do you want that for your children? Some of you will not object. Some will think it is a good thing. Certainly the progressive left will think it is wonderful. But I do not think they will think it wonderful in the western suburbs—the people who rely on the ALP to defend their jobs through the unions. That is why they are there. They are not there to have their kids taught about homosexual marriage versus traditional marriage. That is going to happen the very day this legislation gets in. Once you legalise something, you cannot discriminate against it. It is happening already in America, where homosexual marriage became law and the next thing in Massachusetts was the teachers teaching about homosexual marriage and traditional marriage.

I want to quote from the Australian Education Union. This is what the teachers said: ‘If Australia normalises homosexual marriage, the Australian Education Union’s 2006 gender identity policy would be implemented. Homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and the intersexed need to be normalised. All curricula should be written in non-heterosexist language.’ I suspect the Greens would not see any objection to that but I suspect the Labor people would go into meltdown, because this will be out there. This is what the teachers union have said—and why shouldn’t they? If it is legal, they have to teach it. If it is legal, it has to be taught. You cannot just pick out what you want to teach and not teach.

If homosexual behaviour is legalised then schools will have to treat homosexual behaviour and marriage on the same basis as heterosexual behaviour and marriage. Parents will no longer have the right to object to these teachings. All conscientious objection to both gay marriage and the normalisation of homosexual behaviour in the school curriculum would be abolished. That is what those people who think, ‘It doesn’t hurt me, it doesn’t cost me; if it doesn’t, let’s just let it go through’ are opening up. Let’s think a bit deeper because it is your society, your Australia that you are playing with.

I ask people, particularly from the Labor Party—and I admire the people who have had the courage to stand up over there: do you want your children to go into classrooms that give equal weight to heterosexuals and homosexuals? I do not think many of them do. There will be a few who support the Greens and think it is wonderful, but they are hugely in the minority. John Howard, whose views I admire and respect, said last year:

Changing the definition of marriage, which has lasted for time immemorial, is not an exercise in human rights and equality; it is an exercise in deauthorising the Judaeo-Christian influence in our society, and anybody who pretends otherwise is deluding themselves.

I agree with him. We are told there will be certain legislation that will respect churches and that, if they do not want to perform certain marriages, they will be excluded, but it does not take long for the antidiscrimination committee, instrumentalities, the Greens and GetUp! to start to wage a campaign.

If business or the churches object to hosting homosexual marriage or to blessing them, they will be hit. They will put up a defence, but it will only last for a certain time. They will be crushed by the anti-discrimination laws. We have already seen it happen in countries such as Denmark. The churches will have no choice but to facilitate homosexual marriage. We might push it out three years, four years or five years, but it will happen in the end. We have seen it happen with the abortion laws. You cannot walk away from them. You have to offer it or if you do not offer it then you have to find someone who will do the job. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that any church situated in a member state where same-sex marriage is legal must marry same-sex couples or be found guilty of discrimination. It will happen here.

Marriage is a social institution with a biological foundation. All society does with marriage is to reinforce this biological fact, to keep men with their mate and then help raise their children. Society merely recognises that marriage is the most important relationship in nature and works to reinforce it. It has no right to reinvent marriage. Politicians have no right to redefine marriage, only to reinforce the biological purpose of marriage. I recall when there was discrimination—when there was huge discrimination—that I had a phone call from a certain minister who said, ‘We have just had a request for a gay doctor to bring his gay partner in and practice in a certain country community. We thought you would object, that you were the person most likely to object. If you let it go, it will go through.’ I said, ‘I could not possibly object to that, that would be discrimination.’ I think it was in 2008 that Warren Entsch brought in, or agitated through the party, that all forms of discrimination be removed. There is absolutely no discrimination against gay people other than the discrimination between heterosexual and same-sex marriage. Frank Brennan, the former chair of the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, said:

I think we can ensure non-discrimination against same-sex couples while at the same time maintaining a commitment to children of future generations being born of and being reared by a father and a mother.

I want to talk about commitment now. This was a commitment given by both leaders before the last election: ‘I won’t have gay marriage’. Both leaders said they would not condone gay marriage. Tony Abbott has stuck to his word. He knows how important it is to many of those people out there—not only conservative people but also family people who believe in the family. They want to go fishing, they want to have a few beers and they do not want a carbon tax. They are in the Labor Party because they think the Labor Party will protect them in their job. (Time expired)

Julia Gillard and the ACL: Unholy matrimony

Posted on by

Two weeks ago tomorrow, the Australian Christian Lobby announced that Prime Minister Julia Gillard would be the keynote speaker at their annual conference in October. Given it was only a day after the Houston Report on asylum seekers was released, and the Government’s shameful adoption of offshore processing, this announcement did not receive a great deal of coverage in the mainstream media.

Nevertheless, it did provoke an instant backlash within the gay and lesbian community. I was among those who reacted with dismay at the decision by Gillard (or her advisers) to accept an invitation to speak at the ACL’s annual gathering. Two weeks later and I am still upset at the action taken by the ALP leader. Many others are too. Why?

By agreeing to appear at the ACL conference (which presumably also doubles as a fundraiser), the Prime Minister is endorsing the legitimacy of this organisation. Note that I am not necessarily saying she is endorsing each and every view of the ACL (because of course speakers can address audiences with whom they disagree on particular subjects). But simply by being there, Julia Gillard will be endorsing the ongoing participation of a hateful and extremist group in public debate. By turning up, she will give them her imprimatur to continue their campaigns based on prejudice and discrimination.

Make no mistake. The Australian Christian Lobby is a hate group, whose primary reason for existence appears to be founded on the denial of human rights to Australia’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, intersex and transgender community. The ACL is to homophobia what One Nation is to racism.

The evidence comes from examining the public comments made by the Lobby. An analysis of the ACL’s website, by Jacob Holman, found that the ACL’s press releases and media mentions made 122 references to campaigning against LGBTI rights over a six month period. This was almost five times more than the next most referenced issue (prostitution and human trafficking). And many more times than any other issue (like, for example, asylum seekers or global poverty and hunger).

Imagine that – denying equality to gay men and lesbians is five times more important than any other issue in the world. That is an unhealthy obsession with denying the rights of a minority group, and shows that homophobia is at the core of the ACL. This is confirmed by some of the more ‘colourful’ tweets from the ACL – including that “Legitimising gay marriage is like legitimising child abuse”, or the infamous tweet by Managing Director Mr Jim Wallace concerning ANZAC Day (“Just hope that as we remember Servicemen and women today we remember the Australia they fought for – wasn’t gay marriage and Islamic!”).

This alone should be sufficient justification for any political leader to rule out attending an ACL event. It certainly would be if their campaigns were against the rights of indigenous people, or people from other races. Well, just as in other matters, the LGBTI community demands equal treatment – our political leaders should refuse to speak at the events of organisations founded on gay-hate in the same way they steer clear of race-hate groups.

Even if the Prime Minister thought it was appropriate to address a christian organisation (and whether that would be appropriate is a subject for another day), it is unclear why she would choose the ACL. This is an organisation which does not speak on behalf of any particular church. It is also reticent when it comes to nominating its membership figures. Indeed, their 2011 Annual Report proudly states the number of facebook fans it has (now 3,550), and the number of twitter followers of itself and Jim Wallace (1230 and 1800 respectively, which are all low for a supposed ‘national peak body’), but does not state how many people are paid up members. This, together with its extreme views, surely makes one question just how representative the ACL is of Australia’s christians.

In fact, on the main issue on which it is active – lobbying against equal marriage – the ACL clearly does not represent mainstream christians. A galaxy poll in August 2011 found that the majority of Australians who identify as christian support same-sex marriage: 53%, with only 41% opposed. It is likely that, just as in other segments of the community, this level of support will continue to grow.

That makes the ACL a self-appointed ‘peak body’, claiming to represent all of Australia’s christians but in reality only directly representing a small number, advocating hateful policies based on discrimination. It should be relegated to the fringes of society, not placed centre-stage by a supposedly ‘progressive’ Prime Minister. That alone is enough to justify the outrage of myself and other activists. But it does not fully explain why Julia Gillard’s decision has cut so deeply.

The reason we feel so completely let down can be found by comparing the Prime Minister’s official participation at an ACL event, with her position on gay and lesbian equality and treatment of supporters of equal marriage. It is no secret that Julia Gillard is one of the key reasons why equal marriage is unlikely to be achieved during the life of this parliament – in addition to her personal opposition, she led the charge for a conscience vote within the ALP virtually guaranteeing that it would not receive sufficient votes to be passed into law.

Compounding this, the Prime Minister has, as far as I am aware, held only one formal meeting with advocates for same-sex marriage during her tenure (the ACL alone had two meetings just in 2011 – as helpfully boasted about in its annual report). Even worse, Julia Gillard took eight months to organise a dinner with same-sex couples wanting to get married, which had been won publicly at a charity auction in June 2011.

This was despite the fact it was supposed to be held within ONE month, and that the same-sex couples involved were flexible with timing, their only request being to hold the dinner before the ALP national conference last December (a request which was not met). And it is almost unimaginable to envisage the PM addressing a major gay and lesbian event or conference any time soon.

Given the issue of same-sex marriage is inevitably one of ‘us v them’, the Prime Minister’s decision to be keynote speaker at the ACL annual conference underscores just whose side she is on. A hint: it is not those who are standing up for equality under the law, and for a progressive and fairer Australia. Instead, yet again, Julia Gillard has chosen to side with the bigots and religious fundamentalists. No wonder it hurts.

Equal Marriage: A failure of political leadership pt 2

Posted on by

I ended my previous post on this topic on a very pessimistic note. I wrote: “Instead, it appears that LGBTI couples will need to wait another eight years or more before being able to walk down the aisle. Let’s hope that, by then, the major political parties are led by people who understand what leadership means.”

I believe this pessimism is justified because, if we look past the failures of the current crop of political leaders (Gillard, Abbott and Truss), there is little evidence to inspire confidence in the next generation. None of the most likely candidates to replace the leaders of their respective parties is, right at this moment, both advocating a yes vote on marriage equality and actually committed to voting yes. That’s right, none of the seven people who are generally considered ‘next in line’ is committed to delivering marriage equality through both words and actions.

There are three who have already committed themselves to voting against marriage equality. The first is no surprise – the future leader of the National Party, Senator Barnaby Joyce. Joyce addressed the annual anti-gay hate rally at Parliament House in 2011 (organised by the Australian Christian Lobby and the Australian Family Association) and claimed, in his usual incoherent manner, that legislating for same-sex marriage would somehow limit the ability of his four daughters to enter into opposite-sex marriages.

Joyce said, “We know that the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband, and I want that to happen for them. I don’t want any legislator to take that right away from me.” Leaving aside the complete failure of Barnaby Joyce to learn anything from multiple waves of feminism (women can exist without husbands, it has nothing to do with ‘his’ right), it is also devoid of logic, given extending the right to same-sex couples does not affect the right of opposite-sex couples of marry if they so choose. Finally, Barnaby Joyce fails as a human being – if he is the father of four daughters, then surely he must contemplate the possibility one (or more) of those daughters may be a lesbian and wish to enter a same-sex marriage.

The next ‘future leader’ is someone who really should know better. Joe Hockey is supposedly a moderate within the Liberal Party (whatever that means in 2012), and some in the LGBTI community had speculated he may indeed vote for change. However, Hockey cruelled those hopes on ABC’s Q&A in May this year when he said that, after having children, his view on same-sex marriage had changed. He will now vote against marriage equality because he believes that children deserve the right to a mother and a father.

That rationale is almost as lacking in substance as Joyce’s, given that many heterosexual people have children outside of marriage, many opposite-sex married couples choose not to have children (or can’t because of age or infertility) and many gay and lesbian Australians are already having children. It also deliberately mischaracterises the nature of marriage in contemporary society, which has evolved such that it is now the recognition of a loving relationship between two people, nothing more and nothing less. So those hoping for leadership on marriage equality should look elsewhere than the member for North Sydney, whose views have recently regressed instead.

The final leadership contender to have already stated unequivocally that they will vote no on equal marriage is Wayne Swan (and for those thinking he is not a genuine leadership contender, please note he is still the deputy leader of the ALP, deputy prime minister and treasurer, and historically leadership challengers have occupied at least one of these positions). Sadly, despite discovering the power of arguments based on economic justice earlier this year (especially in his attacks on the mining magnates), Swan appears to have little understanding of the meaning of social justice. If he did, he would be supporting the rights of his LGBTI constituents and the principle of equality – instead he is supporting fundamental discrimination against a group of Australians simply on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Shame.

There are three other leadership contenders who, at the time of writing (Wednesday 22 August), have not declared a position on same-sex marriage: Julie Bishop, Kevin Rudd and Bill Shorten. One, two or, if Abbott allows a conscience vote, potentially all three could end up voting in favour of equality. That would obviously be a good result numerically, because even if equal marriage is likely to be defeated this year, less momentum will be lost if the result is at least close.

And yet, by failing to adopt a public position, by failing to advocate for change, each has also failed to demonstrate the qualities most desirable in a leader. Irrespective of their reasons for staying quiet (and especially with Rudd and Shorten it can be viewed through the prism of their desires to assume ALP leadership later this year, and consequently not wanting to ‘offend’ the Catholic Right of the caucus), by doing so they have effectively abdicated their responsibility to help achieve progressive social reform and thereby make Australia a better place.

That sentiment might sound a bit ‘pie in the sky’, but, as I wrote in my previous post on this topic, these reforms are usually won when true leaders stand up and be counted, when men and women of substance put forward the case for change and prosecute it until victory is achieved. It is not as if Bishop, Rudd and Shorten could claim to be surprised that same-sex marriage is a public issue either: it has been on the agenda ever since Howard amended the Marriage Act in 2004 (indeed, Rudd and Bishop were already members of parliament at that time).

Equal marriage has also been one of the most discussed issues during the life of this parliament, with Adam Bandt’s successful motion that House of Representatives MPs should consult with their constituents on this issue, the vigorous debate in the run-up to and at ALP national conference in December 2011, and particularly now with three bills already tabled in Parliament seeking to implement this reform. And I am sure that each of them would be aware of the large number of constituents writing to them on this issue (on both sides of the debate), on top of the record number of submissions to the House of Representatives and Senate committee inquiries earlier this year.

In short, there is absolutely no excuse for Julie Bishop, Kevin Rudd and Bill Shorten to have not adopted a public position on this issue. Their failure to say or do anything to help achieve marriage equality can be interpreted to mean that they simply do not care enough about LGBTI equality to take a stand. While others inside the Liberal and Labor parties have been fearless advocates, Bishop, Rudd and Shorten have been cowards. Enough said.

There is of course one last member of the current generation of major party leaders to consider: Malcolm Turnbull. As with most things Malcolm, his position on same-sex marriage is more intelligent and articulate than most, but ultimately he remains a politician of words not actions.

In early July, Turnbull delivered the Michael Kirby Lecture in which he eloquently made the conservative case for recognising same-sex relationships as marriages, equal to and no less than opposite-sex marriages (an edited extract of his speech was also published in the Sydney Morning Herald the following day). In doing so, he demolished the religious arguments against change and showed that it was bigoted to believe that LGBTI Australians should accept their status as second-class citizens. Turnbull even announced that, if the Coalition were to adopt a conscience vote on this issue, he would vote in favour of equality.

But that ignores the fact that Tony Abbott has ruled out a conscience vote and, in those circumstances, Turnbull has made clear he would follow the party line and vote against same-sex marriage. Which means that, no matter how nice his words are in support of change, Turnbull’s only ‘action’ will still be to vote against LGBTI equality. Despite being the only one of the current generation of leaders to publicly advocate legislating for same-sex marriage, Turnbull has nevertheless failed this test of political leadership.

That might sound like a harsh judgement. After all, he would have to go to the backbench in order to vote yes, and that is obviously a massive price to pay for any politician. Indeed, Australian Marriage Equality appears to give Turnbull a ‘pass mark’, listing him as a supporter on its website. But in my mind a supporter is not just someone who mouths the words – they also demonstrate their support through their actions, and that is something which Turnbull refuses to do in this case.

By contrast, I suspect he probably would move to the backbench if the vote was to deny Jewish people rights on the basis of their religion, or Indigenous Australians on the basis of their race. It is just that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and bisexual Australians don’t seem to count as much (something which I hope LGBTI residents of Wentworth remember at the next federal election).

Turnbull’s vote against equality means that the failure of this generation’s political leaders on same-sex marriage is complete. Including Gillard, Abbott and Truss, none of the ten leaders or alternative leaders of our major parties have both advocated for – and committed to vote for – equal marriage. Six of them (including Joyce, Hockey and Swan) have announced they will be voting against LGBTI equality. Three (Bishop, Rudd and Shorten) have refused to indicate which way they will vote and have effectively abdicated from the responsibilities of (moral) leadership. Only one, Malcolm Turnbull, is currently advocating for a Marriage Act which does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and even he is voting no.

That is why, even though it might be pessimistic to think Australia might not achieve equal marriage until next decade, it may also be the only realistic view. Maybe by then we will have the real leadership required to deliver this reform. In the meantime we are forced to imagine what that leadership looks like.

Equal Marriage: A failure of political leadership

Posted on by

On this day, exactly eight years ago, the Senate passed the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004. On that Black Friday, as a result of Labor’s capitulation to Howard’s homophobic wedge politics, the overwhelming majority of senators voted to deny same-sex couples the right to marry within Australia, and to ensure that same-sex marriages entered into overseas were not recognised under domestic law. Only the Democrats and the Greens stood up for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians against this egregious attack on their human rights.

In the spring sittings of parliament, which begin tomorrow, our parliamentarians will once again vote on the question of who should be allowed to get married – this time, on one or more bills seeking to overturn Howard’s ban and extend this right to all couples, irrespective of sexual orientation or gender identity. One thing is certain, the margin of the vote will be much, much closer this time around.

So what has changed in the intervening eight years (other than the demise of the Democrats)? Well, since 2004, the policy argument has been run and won. The trifecta of reasons advanced by the ‘defenders’ of marriage – that marriage is about religion, children and tradition – have been comprehensively debunked, time and time again. With the figleaf of these so-called arguments removed, it has become apparent that those people who oppose marriage equality are simply bigots who cannot abide the thought that gay and lesbian Australians should have the same rights as them.

On the flip-side, the arguments in favour of change – that society should treat same-sex and opposite-sex relationships equally, and in doing so finally accept LGBTI Australians as full citizens – have been successful. So successful, in fact, that a large and growing proportion of the population supports ending marriage discrimination. The Galaxy poll released last Monday found that 64% of voters favour marriage equality, and just as importantly, that a majority of Green (87%), Labor (73%) and even Coalition voters (53%) support legalising same-sex marriage.

And yet, while the margin of the upcoming parliamentary vote will undoubtedly be closer than it was eight years ago, it is highly likely that the bill(s) will ultimately be defeated in both houses, and that the vote may not even be particularly close in the House of Representatives. That would obviously be a very disappointing result for the many advocates of marriage equality, both inside the major political parties and in the community more broadly.

It is also an outcome that requires some explanation – why would our federal parliamentarians reject a social reform that is both right in principle and popular in the electorate? One of the reasons is clearly the cancerous role played by the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) inside the ALP. Nothing seems to motivate SDA National Secretary Joe de Bruyn like ensuring LGBTI Australians remain second-class citizens, and his union certainly has plenty of obedient federal MPs who stand ready to oppose reform.

Another explanation is the exaggerated importance given to the Australian Christian Lobby, both at Parliament House and by the fourth estate. While the ACL represents only a small fraction of Australia’s Christians, for some reason the media keeps reporting, and politicians keep listening to, the incoherent blather of Jim Wallace. This disenfranchises the majority of Australian Christians who actually support marriage equality.

Other reasons for the likely failure of the push for equality include that our federal parliamentarians are both older and more religiously devout than the rest of the population. It should also be noted that the federal parliament has a long history of being achingly slow in delivering LGTBI law reform, often lagging several decades behind public opinion (Exhibit A: 37 years after the passage of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, there is still no federal anti-discrimination legislation for sexual orientation or gender identity).

But none of these reasons is sufficient to explain why the Bandt, Jones and Hanson-Young bills will likely end in defeat. Instead, as is usually the case, the main explanation is much simpler and more obvious. Same-sex marriage will lose in 2012 because the current leaders of the Labor, Liberal and National parties have failed in their obligation to lead – only the leaders of the Greens, with the recently departed Bob Brown, and his replacement, Christine Milne, have fulfilled their responsibilities to represent all members of the Australian community, not just the opposite-sex attracted ones.

Traditionally, major social reforms in Australia have been delivered by the party in Government, usually voting as a bloc, and occasionally with bipartisan support. Even where it was not official Government policy at the time, one or more of the major party leaders would support progressive change and help it achieve majority support. However, the current leaders of the Labor, Liberal and National Parties have all actively worked against marriage equality and are major roadblocks to it being achieved at any point in the near future.

The leader of the National Party, Warren Truss, has not achieved much of note during his political career, and is certainly not renowned for strongly prosecuting public policy arguments, on pretty much anything. True to form, he has not taken a high profile during the same-sex marriage debate. However, he has repeatedly made it clear that he opposes equal marriage rights for the LGBTI community, and will be voting no on the legislation later this year.

Truss’ major ‘achievement’ on this issue might be to lead the only political party whose entire federal parliamentary delegation votes against gay and lesbian equality. That would be disappointing, after NSW state Nationals MP Trevor Khan’s vote to support same-sex marriage in the NSW upper house earlier this year, and betrays a proud history of at least a small number of National Party parliamentarians being progressive on matters of social justice. But the main betrayal is for a political party, which claims it wants to reduce male suicide in the bush, and reverse the population drift from rural areas to the major cities, to oppose one measure which might help to counteract both.

The leader of the Liberal Party, Tony Abbott, is even more homophobic than Truss. He has consistently spoken out against extending to right to get married to same-sex couples. In fact, Tony Abbott is so passionately anti-equality that, in addition to employing his own vote against the upcoming bills, he has ruled that the Coalition frontbench be denied a conscience vote. That means the only way for any Coalition figure, from the position of parliamentary secretary upwards, to vote for equality would be to resign their position, which for political animals is a very heavy price to pay. Only backbenchers are exempt, but even they may jeopardise their chance of future promotion should they vote yes.

Tony Abbott’s antipathy is clearly very personal – there is something about equal marriage which challenges either his Catholic faith or his heterosexual privilege, or quite likely both. And his crusade against same-sex marriage has continued even after his sister came out as lesbian, and despite the fact she reportedly wishes to have the right to get married herself. Contrary to the News Ltd puff pieces from earlier this year, which tried to humanise him on the basis that he maintains an ongoing relationship with his sister, I think this makes his position even more despicable. Tony Abbott is so comfortable in denying equality to LGBTI Australians that he thinks even his own sister should have less rights than himself, and that her relationship with her partner should never be recognised as  the same as his. How disgusting.

Nevertheless, the majority of my disapproval is reserved for the leader of my own political party. It is Julia Gillard who ultimately bears more responsibility than any other single figure in Australia, even John Howard, for the fact that Steve and I will still not be able to get married by the end of this year.

It is Gillard who, despite being an atheist, a so-called ‘progressive’ and even someone who originated in the left of the ALP, has espoused some of the most conservative arguments for the preservation of marriage as an exclusive and discriminatory heterosexual institution. It is Gillard who, in addition to saying she will vote against LGBTI human rights herself, also spent enormous political capital to ensure that the ALP would only have a conscience vote on this issue rather than a binding parliamentary vote (unlike the last seven years, when all Labor MPs were expected to vote in unison against marriage equality, there is no such requirement on anti-equality MPs to support change now that the party platform expressly supports marriage equality). This ‘achievement’, secured at last year’s National Conference, almost single-handedly guaranteed that any marriage equality bill in the current parliament would fail.

When you think about it, it is indeed remarkable that the federal Labor leader has been so staunchly anti-equality, especially given the majority of the community, the majority of the ALP membership, the majority of unions, and the majority of ALP parliamentarians all favour same-sex marriage. If adopting this position was done to seek the support of religious fundamentalists in the community, then it will be in vain – they will vote for the Coalition, and parties even further to the political right, come the next federal election as they always have done.

And if it was done to curry favour with religious fundamentalists inside the ALP (both inside caucus, and the head office of the SDA), then it may well have extended her stay in the lodge, but it will not prevent her being replaced whenever they consider her to be expendable. But then, trying to find an explanation for Gillard’s position on same-sex marriage is ultimately a futile gesture, because we will never truly know why until she explains it herself, and that is unlikely to occur until long after she leaves public office.

In the meantime, we must judge the Prime Minister on her actions, and in those she has clearly failed – in her duty to lead for all Australians, in her capacity to envisage a better society, and as a human being who should treat others fairly, equally and with respect. Julia Gillard is already being judged, by myself and countless others, for standing in the way of this progressive reform. She should be in no doubt that history will judge her even more harshly. This damn spot on her political record will never come out.

These three leaders have all failed lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians, and all other Australians who believe in genuine equality, irrespective of sexual orientation and gender identity. Gillard’s failure is the worst because it is the most consequential. If Truss had supported equal marriage, then it would have changed the nature of the debate, showing that conservatives could support human rights, but it may not have changed the final result. If Abbott had supported equality (or even just allowed a conscience vote), then equality may have happened but it was absolutely not guaranteed.

But if Julia Gillard had been a champion of equal marriage, if she had chosen to fight for rather than against equality, then equal marriage would probably have become a reality by the end of 2012. Instead, it appears that LGBTI couples will need to wait another eight years or more before being able to walk down the aisle. Let’s hope that, by then, the major political parties are led by people who understand what leadership means.

8th Marriage Equality National Day of Action

Posted on by

Today was the 8th Marriage Equality National Day of Action. Usually held on the second Saturday of August each year, it is timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Senate’s passage of Howard’s Marriage Amendment Bill 2004, which both the Liberal-National Government, and Labor Opposition, shamefully voted into law on Black Friday 13 August 2004.

I attended the protest at Sydney Town Hall, which I would estimate had a crowd of somewhere around 1000 to 1500 people braving the cold and windy weather (although estimating crowd numbers is, as always, a mug’s game). Sadly, my fiance Steve couldn’t come along as he had to work. There were also rallies around the country, including Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart and Newcastle.

The rally itself was fairly traditional. A range of the usual suspects spoke (Lord Mayor and State MP Clover Moore, Australian Marriage Equality’s Alex Greenwich, Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras Chair Peter Urmson and others). The acknowledgment of country by the gay indigenous speaker to commence proceedings was rather lovely (I wonder if he did find his husband this afternoon?), as was a touching speech by a young Melbournian representing the sex and gender diverse community (and my apologies to both for not recalling their names). The Maritime Union of Australia delegate certainly fired up the crowd as well.

What I found most telling, however, was the need for one of the organisers to announce the date for the next marriage equality rally – for November 25th. That is after the expected votes on marriage equality bills in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. While that may seem pessimistic, it is also probably fairly realistic, with the legislation likely to fail in both chambers.

These widely-anticipated defeats, and with a Tony Abbott-led Coalition currently odds-on favourites to win next year’s federal election, mean that Australians who support marriage equality are in for a very testing time over the next 18 months. It will be incredibly important for the people advocating this reform to maintain focus during this time, and to keep their eyes on the eventual prize, even if we may not achieve national marriage equality until the 2020s.

Which is, obviously, easier said than done. On a personal level I found this afternoon to be a little bit depressing. It is the sixth or seventh national day of action I have attended (I can’t recall whether I returned in time for 2009’s rally from the Copenhagen OutGames). And in my heart I fear that there will be, at the very least, another six or seven before Steve and I will be considered married under Australian law.

While I share Martin Luther King’s dream for a world free from prejudice, is it selfish to admit that I also dream of not having to give up two, three, four or more Saturdays per year, just to demand human rights which Steve and I should already enjoy? Of course, I know that it is always encumbent upon those people who are discriminated against to stand up for themselves, and so I will be there, year after year, rail, hail or shine, until we ultimately achieve equality.

[As an aside, in a very minor way, I only have myself to blame. Back at the start of 2005, I was a committee member of the Victorian Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby (VGLRL). At our planning day for the year ahead, I suggested that one of our main priorities should be to build for a protest on the first anniversary of the same-sex marriage ban passing the Senate. The VGLRL, together with Equal Love, subsequently helped to organise the largest rally held on that first national day of action.

Now, I am absolutely NOT claiming credit for the success of that protest – many other people were far more central to actually organising the rally than I was. Nor am I discounting the likelihood that other cities, including Sydney, would probably have also held a protest that day irrespective of our actions. But I hope you don’t mind me thinking back with at least a measure of pride to having played even a small role in the LGBTI community’s fightback against Howard’s marriage ban. On the other hand, it does mean I am morally obliged to keep on giving up those Saturdays into the foreseeable future…]

Letter to Robert McClelland on Marriage Equality

Posted on by

The Australian federal parliament will vote on legislation to provide for marriage equality in the upcoming sittings, which start next Tuesday (14 August 2012). My local Member of Parliament, Robert McClelland, has so far not declared which way he will vote on the bill(s), so I have written the following letter to him asking him to ‘do the right thing’. I will post any reply that I receive.

Dear Mr McClelland,

I am writing to you, as one of your constituents, to ask you to vote for marriage equality during the upcoming sittings of parliament.

My partner Steve and I have been together for four years. In fact, today is our fourth anniversary. During that time, we have had a relationship like any other couple. We love each other, we support and care for each other, we have each been embraced by the other’s family, we make plans for our future life together.

One plan which we have been unable to make, however, is that for our wedding day. This is despite the fact we have been engaged to be married for over two and a half years.

We cannot because, at this stage, we would be unable to legally do so in our own country. We do not want to be forced to travel to a foreign country, and get married under their laws, and then return to Australia and not have that marriage recognised by our own government.

Equally, we want to be able to be married in front of as many family members and friends as possible. I suspect that is the desire of most couples for their wedding day. But, unlike most, by forcing same-sex couples to marry overseas, the Australian parliament is effectively limiting the number of people who can be there for that special moment.

Many of our friends would not be able to afford to attend an overseas wedding, or would be unable to take the necessary time off work. Similarly, both Steve and I only have one grandparent left, and each would be unable to attend a wedding elsewhere because of poor health. We would both be incredibly disappointed if they could not be there for our wedding day simply because of a discriminatory piece of legislation.

When the bill which would introduce marriage equality comes before federal parliament, please vote to allow Steve and me, and thousands of other couples just like us, to get married in our own country, in front of as many family members and friends as possible.

This is a historic opportunity for members of parliament to formally recognise the love between all adult couples, irrespective of sexual orientation and gender identity. As such, the passage of this law would be a great achievement for Australia, demonstrating that all of its citizens are equal before the law, whether they are straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or intersex.

I implore you to help make that happen by voting yes on marriage equality.

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie