The GLORIAs 2016 – ‘Winners’

The annual GLORIA awards – for the worst homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic comments of the past year – were held last night at NSW Parliament House.

Organised by NSW Labor MLC Penny Sharpe, they are an opportunity to reflect on all the stupid things that are said about us as a community – and making fun of the stupid people who say them.

So, here they are, the nominees, and winners, of the GLORIA awards 2016, including the winner of the 2016 Golden GLORIA (taking the mantle from last year’s worthy title-holder Germaine Greer):

 

  1. International

 

  • The Indonesian Government who told WHATSAPP to remove gay emojis.

 

  • Uzbekistani President, Islam Karimov who said: “When men live with men and women live with women, I think there must be something wrong up here [points at head]. Something is broken here. There is a saying: When God wants to reveal someone’s vulgarity, he first takes his reason away.” (Pink News, 9 February 2016)

 

  • ISIS for their continued persecution of gay men (see for example Pink News 18 January 2016)

 

  • Qatar for banning film screenings of The Danish Girl on the grounds of moral depravity (Pink News, 13/01/2016)

 

  • Irish Councillor Paddy Kilduff who said at a council meeting: “Personally I won’t be voting for it and the reason I am not voting for it – no problem with gays and lesbians – but the problem I have is with the children… when you have two women having babies and artificially inseminated… It’s gross, it’s gross. So I won’t be supporting it anyway, so you can take that back to Dublin.”

 

  • Prime minister of Fiji Frank Bainimarama who slammed same-sex marriage as “rubbish” and advised same-sex couples to move to Iceland and stay there if they want marriage equality. (SBS Online, 7 January 2016)

 

  • Marco Rubio who says that gay adoption is a “social experiment,” and children better off orphaned. (SLATE, 16 December 2015)

 

Who I wanted to win: It’s hard to go past ISIS

Who actually won: Marco Rubio

 

  1. Media

 

  • Miranda Devine for her column “Same sex marriage: Totalitarian tolerance”.

 

  • Angela Shanahan writing in the Australian, 27 February 2016: “Both sides of this argument are shying away from the truth. Bullying is not the issue here. It is the LGBTI education agenda that seeks to normalise behaviour that most parents do not consider normal.”

 

  • 2CH’s evening host Kel Richards who said on radio: “You really are doing something really dangerous and really terrible to those children.” According to him, the Safe Schools program is “an attempt to sexualise and recruit children for the gay and lesbian movement.” He sums it up as “disgusting gay and lesbian propaganda.” (Same Same).

 

  • Piers Ackerman for this column in the Daily Tele: “McGregor may identify as a woman and may even, with the blessing of the politically correct military establishment, use women’s lavatories, but until the chromosomes undergo some miraculous alchemic transformation, McGregor ¬remains by all biological and scientific rules, a bloke…”

 

  • Rowan Dean, for his column in the Courier Mail “Bullying in the name of dogma”

 

Who I wanted to win: Angela Shanahan (for implying that any child who is not cisgender and heterosexual is not normal)

Who actually won: Kel Richards

 

  1. Politics

 

  • George Christensen, who told Parliament on 25 February 2016: “If someone proposed exposing a child to this material, the parents would probably call the police, because it would sound a lot like grooming work a sexual predator might undertake.”

 

  • NATIONALS MP Andrew Broad, who represents the Victorian electorate of Mallee, who said to regional newspaper Sunraysia Daily: “Do I support calling a relationship between a man and a man, and a woman and a woman marriage? … I can put the rams in the paddock and they might mount one another but no lambs will come out.”

 

  • Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott who addressed anti-gay lobby group Alliance Defending Freedom in New York saying that same-sex marriage is still “a huge ask” that would see “the erosion of family”. (Attitude, 29 January 2016)

 

  • Cory Bernardi who emailed a constituent to say: “You clearly haven’t got any idea what is in the program. If you did then you would be worried about your children being exposed to unhealthy ideas from such an early age.” The email then went on to say Safe Schools links to websites about “bondage clubs and adult sex toys”.

 

  • Former ALP Minister, Gary Johns, writing in Australian: “Private homosexual acts are not an offence by law in any state jurisdiction. Rest assured, there is no discrimination in law against gay people. Gay people are free to pursue their lives, especially happiness with a life partner.” (22 March 2016)

 

  • Reclaim Australia protesters who confronted Perth’s Save Safe Schools insisting they weren’t anti-gay, but needed to protect children from Safe Schools’ “Marxist ideology.” They later shouted “paedo scum, off our streets!” (Same Same)

 

  • Former ALP Senator Joe Bullock who quit the Senate stating: “How can I in good conscience recommend to the people that they vote for a party which is determined to deny its parliamentarians a conscience vote on the homosexual marriage question?”

 

  • Malcolm Turnbull for effectively saying nothing to help defend the LGBTI community from attacks on Safe Schools, and for refusing to overturn the unnecessary, inappropriate, wasteful & divisive plebiscite on marriage equality.

 

Who I wanted to win: Either George Christensen for comparing Safe Schools to grooming by paedophiles, or Malcolm Turnbull for failing to condemn the attacks on Safe Schools by Christensen, Cory Bernardi and others

Who actually won: Malcolm Turnbull

 

  1. Religion

 

  • Lyle Shelton, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, speaking on Q&A on February 29, 2016. “Studies that have been done of transgendered people who have had sex reassignment surgery, people who have been followed for 20 or so years have found that after 10 years from the surgery, that their suicide mortality rate was actually 20 times higher than the non-transgendered population. So I’m very concerned that here we are encouraging young people to do things to their bodies … like chest binding for young girls … [and] penis tucking”

 

  • Lyle Shelton (again) who was asked on Sky News how allowing same-sex marriage would affect his own marriage. His answer: “If the definition of marriage is changed, it’s no longer assumed … that I’m married to a woman. So that affects me straight away.”

 

  • Christian Activist Theodore Shoebat who claimed that the “SWAT team or the National Guard” should be used to take away children raised by “dykes and faggots” because they’re “in danger of being raped”. He continued: “Dykes are criminals! Two dykes that are supposedly married, that’s not marriage, that’s a criminal partnership. That’s an agreement between two criminals.” (Pink News, 16 January 2016)

 

  • The Marriage Alliance for the infamous rainbow noose image tweet

 

  • Colorado evangelical pastor turned random headline generator Kevin Swanson who wants girl scouts put to death for being too pro LGTB (Pink News, 14 March 2016)

 

  • Lyle Shelton managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, for a third time, for his claims same-sex marriage would lead to a new “stolen generation”. (The Guardian, 1 March 2016).

 

  • Greek Orthodox Bishop Amvrosios of Kalavryta who said of gay couples: “Spit on them! Deprecate them! Vote against them!” (Pink News, 14 December 2015)

 

  • The Australian Christian Lobby for wanting the “two dads” episode of Play School cancelled.

 

Who I wanted to win: While it is clear Lyle Shelton desperately wants the title of Australia’s biggest homophobe, it has to be the Marriage Alliance for suggesting legalising marriage equality will lead to people killing themselves as a result of ‘PC bullying’. Seriously, how unhinged can you get?

Who actually won: Lyle Shelton – for his comment that if marriage equality was introduced, people might no longer assume he’s married to a woman.

 

  1. Sport

 

  • Jeremy Clarkson who attacked the trans community in his column for The Sunday Times – claiming the issues facing transgender people have been over exaggerated. “They were called lady boys, and in my mind they were nothing more than the punchline in a stag night anecdote.”(Pink News, 24 January 2016).

 

  • Footballer Serge Aurier who was been suspended for making alleged homophobic comments during a Periscope broadcast to fans. In the live video chat, Aurier claimed that coach Laurent Blanc and teammate Zlatan Ibrahimovic had engaged in oral sex – referring to Blanc as “une fiotte” (faggot). (PINK NEWS, 15/02/2016)

 

  • World boxing champion Manny Pacquiao has sparked criticism in the Philippines after describing gay couples as “worse than animals”. “It’s common sense. Do you see animals mating with the same sex?” Pacquiao told local broadcaster TV5.

 

Who I wanted to win: Manny Pacquiao (at least in part because this week he has been elected to the Philippines Parliament)

Who actually won: Manny Pacquiao

 

And the overall award, voted on by crowd participation (aka who got the loudest boos in the room on the night), the winner of the 2016 Golden GLORIA was:

 

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (emerging victorious after a three-way boo-off against Marco Rubio and Lyle Shelton).

 

151222 Turnbull

Winner of the 2016 Golden Gloria – Prime Minister the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP.

 

One final note on the winner: Some people might think it unfair that he won the politics category, let alone the Golden Gloria, especially because he didn’t actually say anything. But then that is kind of the point – when the right-wing campaign against Safe Schools was in full swing, and people like George Christensen and Cory Bernardi were intent on making Australia a less safe space for young LGBTI people, he said nothing, therefore encouraging their attacks to continue.

 

And, even though he knows that the plebiscite is unnecessary, inappropriate, wasteful and divisive, and as Prime Minister he should be able to do something about it, he is still pursuing Tony Abbott’s public vote as his own policy – not because it is the right thing for the country, but because it appears to be the right thing for his career. Both things make him a worthy, albeit somewhat controversial, ‘winner’.

 

See you all next year when, if we do have a marriage equality plebiscite, there will be absolutely no shortage of nominations (and where Lyle Shelton might finally get to take home the coveted crown).

Advertisements

10 Things I Hate About Marriage Inequality. #5: Because there’s no intellectual stimulation in arguing with our opponents

There are some public policy issues which, as well as being important, can give rise to ‘intellectual stimulation’. By that I mean something that provokes informed debate, with multiple views, genuine disagreement about the best solution, sometimes even substantive and substantial arguments about the definition of the ‘problem’ itself.

Sadly, marriage equality is not one of these issues. Instead of being an exchange of ideas, for the most part the pro- and anti-marriage equality ‘debate’ is not really a debate at all. And it can’t be. Because it is impossible to have a debate when one side turns up without any arguments whatsoever on their side.

If the past twelve years have taught us anything, it is that anti-marriage equality campaigners are the intellectual Lilliputians of Australian public life. Sure they might have company out there on their ‘island of ignorance’ (hello anti-vaxers!), but it is difficult to think of many other public discussions in recent memory when so much has been said by people who had so little of substance to say.

It has become common to say that the argument for marriage equality has been run and won. And that’s true – except ‘won’ is an understatement. The defeat of anti-marriage equality campaigners, on the intellectual playing field at least, resembles nothing more than the 7:1 drubbing handed out by Germany to Brazil in the 2014 men’s football World Cup.

It is such a one-sided affair that, at times, you almost feel tempted to invoke the ‘mercy rule’ (which the opponents of marriage equality would probably reject anyway because it has too much in common philosophically with euthanasia).

In practice, the vacuity of anti-marriage equality campaigners, like Jim Wallace, or Lyle Shelton, or Cory Bernardi (and countless others), hasn’t stopped them from spouting the same nonsense time and time again over the past decade. It doesn’t matter that what they say on this subject has no credibility, they’ll keep saying it regardless.

Lyle Shelton of the Australian Christian Lobby.

Lyle Shelton of the Australian Christian Lobby.

And that’s the frustrating thing – approaching twelve years since the original ban on same-sex marriage was introduced, and with the possibility of more before equality is finally legislated, it remains our responsibility to have the same public ‘debate’ with these people. To calmly refute the ridiculous claims that marriage equality will harm children, or impact on religious freedom, or that just because marriage has ‘traditionally’ been man-woman that it automatically must remain so in future.

And when I say ‘our’ responsibility, we should acknowledge that this burden has fallen particularly heavily on the shoulders of people like Australian Marriage Equality’s Alex Greenwich, and later Rodney Croome, and the Penny Wongs and Bob Browns of the political world, who have had to sit on countless panels and engage in countless debates with the Jim Wallaces and Lyle Sheltons of the Australian Christian Lobby, while suppressing the natural urge to react emotionally against the ignorance of what is being said. Hats off to them for doing what many of us might struggle to do.

Of course, this isn’t to say there is no intellectual stimulation in the issue of marriage equality per se. There certainly have been, and continue to be, interesting intellectual debates on this subject. It just happens that they are all held between people who already assume that everyone should be equal, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

The debate about whether people should be aiming to make marriage inclusive or abolish it altogether, about whether there was strategic value in pursuing state-based same-sex marriage laws or not (or whether to support the Recognition of Foreign Marriages Bill 2014 or not), about where marriage equality sits on the overall list of priorities for the LGBTI community – all provide more intellectual succour than discussing the issue of marriage equality with a campaigner who seriously believes that marriage, under secular law, should be restricted to cisgender heterosexual couples.

It’s just a shame that we have been consigned to having to continue having this lop-sided non-debate. I for one can’t wait to discuss something a little bit more stimulating – and I’m sure I’m not alone in that.

One final thing – you will hopefully notice that I have been careful to restrict these comments to anti-marriage equality campaigners, rather than all people who do not (or not yet anyway) support marriage equality. I am certainly not accusing all people who hold that view of being ‘ignorant’.

However, I am most definitely saying that, if you have carefully considered the question of marriage equality, and come to the conclusion that the only acceptable form of marriage is one man and one woman, and that you will campaign for that publicly, despite having no arguments on your side that withstand any kind of scrutiny, and against the equality and human rights of your fellow citizens, well, then there’s not much that you could say that is in any way worth listening to.

10 Things I Hate About Marriage Inequality. #8: Because it gives our opponents a platform for their bigotry

One of the more frustrating things about the marriage equality debate, which in Australia has been going for 12 years and, potentially, has several more left to run, is that it has provided the perfect platform for our opponents – religious fundamentalists and right-wing extremists alike – to express all manner of hateful comments about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians and, in particular, about our relationships.

It does not seem like a month has gone by, since the Howard Government first entrenched marriage discrimination in Commonwealth law in August 2004, that we have not been subjected to the homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic ramblings of bigots who believe that allowing two consenting adults to get married will somehow precipitate the downfall of civilisation.

All the while these vile views have been dutifully reported far and wide, often without challenge, by the media, under an obligation to report ‘two sides’ to any public policy argument, even when one of those sides involves perpetuating hate speech against an already vulnerable minority group.

And the people who oppose marriage equality have certainly given the media plenty of sensationalist material to choose from – no-one more than Australia’s premier anti-gay hate group (and sometime pro-religious organisation) the Australian Christian Lobby.

Two ACL ‘standouts’ (it would be too generous to call them ‘highlights’) of the past 12 years were then managing director Jim Wallace unfavourably comparing homosexuality with smoking in September 2012:

“I think we’re going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community’s own statistics for its health – which it presents when it wants more money for health – are that is has higher rates of drug-taking, of suicide, it has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years…The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn’t smoke.”

And the current managing director’s own disgraceful media release, in May 2013, which went even further. Titled “Rudd’s change of marriage sets up a new stolen generation”, it argued that:

“The Prime Minister who rightly gave an apology to the stolen generation has sadly not thought through the fact that his new position on redefining marriage will create another. Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said Kevin Rudd’s overnight change of mind on redefining marriage ignored the consequence of robbing children of their biological identity through same-sex surrogacy and other assisted reproductive technologies.”

Mr Shelton has since repeated this appalling comparison, on multiple occasions, including earlier this year on ABC’s Q&A.

Truly, is there anything more disgusting than denigrating the love between two people, who simply want the same legal recognition as other Australians, by linking it with one of the most shameful episodes of Australian history?

Lyle Shelton, breaking Australia’s equivalent of Godwin’s law: The first person to use the Stolen Generations in an argument about something that has nothing to do with the oppression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people automatically loses said argument.

Lyle Shelton, breaking Australia’s equivalent of Godwin’s law: The first person to use the Stolen Generations in an argument about something that has nothing to do with the oppression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people automatically loses said argument.

Nevertheless, some members of our political class have given it their best shot in trying to match the homophobia of the ACL during the marriage equality debate. We all remember Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi’s infamous ‘contribution’ to public life:

“The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society – or any other type of relationship… There are even some creepy people out there… [who] say it is OK to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals… Will that be a future step? In the future will we say, “These two creatures love each other and maybe they should be able to be joined in a union.” I think these things are the next step.”

I would of course not be the first to point out that Senator Bernardi was the only person who seemed ‘creepy’ as a consequence of these comments. But he was certainly not the only Senator to cross the threshold from genuine public debate into outright vilification. His Coalition colleague, National Party Senator Ron Boswell, made a similarly outrageous speech during that debate, which it is not possible to do full ‘justice’ to here, but which did include the following gem:

“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?”

And, in the spirit of bipartisanship, we should not overlook the Labor Party’s own intellectual vacuum herself, Senator Helen Polley, who during the same debate read the following into Senate Hansard:

“From D and AO: “Most of the world has chosen not to change the definition of marriage. Those who seek to change the definition ignore the impacts on children and the potential to create another stolen generation by putting an adult desire above the needs of children.”

Just like Lyle Shelton, in Helen Polley’s weird but less than wonderful universe it is somehow appropriate to connect the idea of marriage equality with the tragic history of the Stolen Generations (in the process contravening the Australian equivalent of Godwin’s law).

Helen Polley: Bigot.

Helen Polley: Bigot.

These are just the highest profile examples of the many, many outrageous things that have been said about our relationships over the past 12 years. Probably every bit as offensive, and potentially damaging, has been the slow drip of more ‘ordinary’ homophobic comments, the everyday, even mundane, verbal slings and arrows wielded by our opponents against us, attacking who we are.

These comments have come from public figures and politicians not otherwise known for their homophobia, including from one MP who, at least until the 2014 Federal Budget, was generally considered to be at the more ‘mainstream’ end of his particular political party.

In May 2012, on the ABC’s Q&A, then Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey argued against marriage equality by saying:

“Well, I don’t believe we necessarily make better parents because we’re a male and female. I must confess that my view has changed since I’ve had children and that’s very hard and lot of my friends, whether they be heterosexual or gay, they hold the same view as you. But I think in this life we’ve got to aspire to give our children what I believe to be the very best circumstances, and that’s to have a mother and a father. And I’m not saying that – I’m not saying gay parents are any lesser parents, but I am being asked to legislate in favour of something that I don’t believe to be the best outcome for a child.”

Such arguments – essentially bleating ‘but what about the children?’ while simultaneously ignoring all the evidence that the children of same-sex parents turn out just fine, thank you very much – have become depressingly common.

But just because they are common, does not mean that they do not hurt, and does not mean that they cannot cause profound and long-lasting damage. I would try to explain just how hurtful the bigotry of the marriage equality debate can be, but there was a speech in early 2014  which was far more eloquent on this subject than I could ever hope to be.

Irish drag queen Panti Bliss gave an impassioned talk on the 1st of February that year about just what the consequences of gay rights ‘debates’ can be. I encourage you to watch or read the whole speech but one of the passages which stood out to me was this:

“Have you ever come home in the evening and turned on the television and there is a panel of people – nice people, respectable people, smart people, the kind of people who make good neighbourly neighbours and write for newspapers. And they are having a reasoned debate about you. About what kind of a person you are, about whether you are capable of being a good parent, about whether you want to destroy marriage, about whether you are safe around children, about whether God herself thinks you are an abomination, about whether in fact you are “intrinsically disordered”. And even the nice TV presenter lady who you feel like you know thinks it’s perfectly ok that they are all having this reasonable debate about who you are and what rights you “deserve”.

And that feels oppressive.”

Amen. To me, Panti (real name Rory O’Neill) has summed up perfectly the experience of watching as your worth as a human being is assessed, at length, by others, simply of the basis of your sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. It doesn’t just feel oppressive. It is oppressive.

Before anyone goes all Andrew Bolt on me, and suggests I am some kind of ‘closet totalitarian’ who wishes to shut down all public debate on terms that are suitable to me and my side of politics, let me first say this: I recognise that in order to achieve this important social reform it is inevitable there will be a public debate which exposes multiple sides to the issue, including some arguments that most normal people find objectionable. After all, that is part of democracy [And of course it is a debate that has already been had, time and time again, since Howard’s discriminatory law was first passed].

And if we are to secure long-lasting change maybe we do need to flush out (and I use that term deliberately) the prejudice, the homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic views, of people who are opposed to the fundamental equality of their fellow Australians. Perhaps, in doing so, we can help secure not just marriage equality, but also a more tolerant, and even more accepting, country in the decades to come.

But, that is me talking as an adult, as someone who is comfortable in who they are, who understands the context of the debate and that much of the extreme prejudice currently being expressed is simply the lashing out, the childish tantrums, of people whose narrow view of the world is being challenged – and who are on the verge of defeat.

So, while the comments of the ACL or bigoted Commonwealth Parliamentarians might hurt, and might feel oppressive, to me, my fiancé Steven and to other marriage equality activists, we know that they can be endured on the long path to progress.

For others, who are not as comfortable in who they are, the hurt and oppression of such comments is undoubtedly magnified. For young lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians, being told that their sexual orientation is worse than smoking, or that recognising their relationships would be akin to recognising bestiality, or even that allowing them to marry the person they love is somehow the equivalent of the Stolen Generations, exacerbates the already high rates of mental health issues, including depression and self-harm, that they experience.

The Jim Wallaces, Lyle Sheltons, Cory Bernardis, Ron Boswells and Helen Polleys of this world need to understand the real-world consequences of their words and actions, that their bigotry can and does lead to depression – and worse – amongst young LGBTI people. Even the more everyday or ‘mundane’ homophobia expressed by people like Joe Hockey can be seen, in this context, as malevolent because it too leads to many young LGBTI people feeling like they are ‘less than’ their heterosexual and cisgender peers.

The fact that they do not accept responsibility for the harm that they cause, that the ACL and others refuse to concede that the bigoted views they express during the marriage equality debate do have consequences, definitely makes this one of the things I hate about marriage inequality – and one more reason why I will be glad when this debate is finally over, and we have taken another step on the path to full equality.

Letter to Prime Minister Abbott re Intercountry Adoption by Same-Sex Couples

The Hon Tony Abbott MP

Prime Minister

PO Box 6022

House of Representatives

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Cc Dr Ian Watt

Secretary

Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet

PO Box 6500

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Saturday March 8 2014

Dear Prime Minister

INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTIONS BY SAME-SEX COUPLES

I am writing regarding the issue of inter-country adoptions. Specifically, I call on you to ensure that the processes governing inter-country adoptions treat all couples equally, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

I note that you announced in December 2013 that the Department of Premier and Cabinet would be investigating the issue of inter-country adoptions, reporting to you on ways the processes governing inter-country adoptions can be streamlined ahead of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting, now scheduled for Friday 2 May in Canberra.

I also note recent reports about the potential for new arrangements for recognising adoptions by Australians with respect to children from Taiwan and South Korea.

However, I am unaware of any reports about work underway to ensure that all bilateral and, where relevant, multilateral, agreements concerning adoption entered into by Australia recognise the equal rights of all couples, including same-sex couples, to adopt.

There is no legitimate reason to prevent couples that may include lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex (LGBTI) individuals from adopting.

In fact, the most recent report on the issue of same-sex parenting, commissioned by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, reaffirmed independent research over the past decade in finding that “there is now strong evidence that same-sex parented families constitute supportive environments in which to raise children.”

The report – Same-Sex Parented Families in Australia by Dr Deborah Dempsey (December 2013) – further confirmed that “children in such families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers from heterosexual couple families.”

Speaking about the report to the Sydney Morning Herald in February 2014, author Dr Dempsey said “[i]t’s not the family structure that matters so much as the kind of care; that children are loved, and are taken care of.” In practice, same-sex couples are just as capable of providing for the best interests of the child as opposite-sex couples.

Given these and other research results, I seek your commitment to ensure there is no discrimination against same-sex couples contained in any inter-country adoption agreement which Australia signs.

On a related issue, one of the administrative barriers to efficient inter-country adoption processes must be the variety of different, often conflicting, adoption criteria that operate in Australian states and territories.

For example, while my fiancé Steven and I would likely be eligible to adopt in Sydney, we would not be eligible to adopt were we to relocate to Melbourne. I doubt that our suitability as parents would differ simply because we moved 1000km to the South.

As before, there is no legitimate reason to prevent couples that include LGBTI individuals from adopting, and that must include within and between Australian jurisdictions.

The report which you have commissioned and will be presenting to the COAG meeting in May is an ideal opportunity for you to call on the states and territories to adopt uniform adoption laws, in particular to ensure that all Australian states and territories allow all couples to adopt, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

This would be a benefit not just to the administrative efficiency of Australia’s inter-country adoption processes, but also to the equal rights and status of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.

Finally, I note during the week reports of disagreement within the Coalition partyroom on the subject of single and same-sex couple parenting. Specifically, it was reported that Senator Cory Bernardi expressed his support for Minister Kevin Andrews’ defence of so-called ‘traditional families’.

In response, Liberal MP for Herbert, Ewen Jones, defended families headed by single people, and same-sex couples, saying that what was more important was that children were loved, not what gender their parents were. Mr Jones later told Fairfax Radio “I think it’s the quality of the role model, male or female, not the sexuality of the parents that maters” – a sentiment similar to that expressed by Dr Dempsey, above.

It was also reported that you responded to the debate by saying “[w]e need to be as supportive of people as possible, regardless of their circumstances.”

Taking you at your word, I sincerely hope that you will be supportive of all Australian couples, including same-sex or otherwise LGBTI-inclusive couples, having the same rights to adopt children from other countries.

You have the chance to demonstrate this support through the review of inter-country adoption which you have commissioned, and through your advocacy at the upcoming COAG meeting which will discuss this issue. I and other same-sex couples around the country will be watching which approach you take.

Thank you in for your consideration of this correspondence.

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

A Tale of Two Speeches Part 2

A Tale of Two Speeches Part 2

I have chosen to reproduce another two speeches from the Senate’s debate on marriage equality over the past week. These two Senators from South Australia encapsulate everything that is right – and sadly, everything that is wrong – in Australian politics. Senator Penny Wong’s speech is yet another example of her amazing capacity for both passion and eloquence on an issue which is obviously personal and yet clearly much bigger than the interests of her and her immediate family.

Senator Bernardi’s speech is already infamous, both within Australia and internationally. He deservedly lost his position as a Parliamentary Secretary to the Opposition Leader for introducing the repugnant comparison of allowing equal marriage with future calls for bestiality to be recognised. It is to his, Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party’s shame that he still retains his position as a Senator – and this is something which the voters of South Australia should remember next year when they are casting their ballot for the upper house.

Of course, there were many other notable speeches both for and against which I could have included. One of my previous bosses – Senator John Faulkner – gave a dignified and appropriately serious call to arms for people who support progressive change (does he ever do anything else?). And Senator Helen Polley disgraced herself yet again, not to mention sullying the reputation of every member of the Australian Labor Party, by reading out a constituent’s letter raising the spectre of a future ‘stolen generation’ should equal marriage be legislated. Shame on you Senator Polley – what a warped view of love and sexuality you must have.

Senator Wong

(South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (12:00): This is an important debate for Australia. It is an important debate for this parliament, because the issue at the heart of this debate is fundamental to who we are and what we believe. This is a debate about the principle of equality. The aspiration of and struggle for equality has been a constant in our history. Australia has not always been an equal society, but ultimately we always move in the direction of greater equality, and we should not forget that it is a progression that is greater than any one vote.

The Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 is a step along the path of progress, and that fact is demonstrated by what we have seen while this vote has been on the horizon. Our numbers have grown, as the numbers of those who oppose marriage equality have got smaller. The momentum has been one way. Many of my colleagues who have previously opposed marriage equality now support it. I acknowledge them and I thank them because, like me, they know that the principle of equality is inherent in who we are and it is central to the world we want for our children.

Equality is more enduring than any single generation. It is a principle that will continue to inspire, and it is a fundamental right. If you look at the span of history, of social change, the calls for equality have been persistent and they have been successful. We have seen changes to ensure individuals are not discriminated against because of their gender, their race or their religion—reforms that see all Australians treated equally in the community and in their workplaces: the quintessential idea of a fair go for all.

Much has been said in this debate about relationships, about families, about parenting and even about the so-called threats to the nature of Australian society. But let us be clear what we are debating here: we are being asked to consider whether the state, through law, should continue to discriminate against some Australians solely on the basis of their sexuality. We are being asked to consider whether in today’s Australia we should continue to ban two consenting adults from marrying because and only because they are of the same sex.

If you subscribe to the principle of equality, as I am sure most in this chamber would, then substitute same-sex for race in this debate and see if it changes your view. Just imagine if we told Australians today they could not get married because the person they love is of a different coloured skin. Imagine if we told Australians today they could not get married because the person they love is of a different religion. Such notions are rightly seen as anachronistic. And, in 2012, it is truly sad that some still feel the need to constrain the freedom of others to make a commitment to the person they love through marriage.

I do believe marriage is unique. I believe that marriage is special and that it is a bedrock institution of society. I believe that marriage should be valued. But marriage does not need to be walled off from some Australians in order to preserve its worth. The heart of marriage is the love of and commitment to another. This promise, the vow of marriage, does not discriminate and nor should our laws. But the Marriage Act as it is currently worded is discriminatory. It involves different treatment and lesser rights to certain individuals on the basis of their sexuality. The discrimination could not be more real.

There are many arguments that have been put in this place and in the debate more broadly by those seeking to continue marriage inequality. People have argued that same-sex marriage would undermine the institution of marriage—that marriage as a concept is immutable and therefore unable to accommodate gay and lesbian Australians. Then there is perhaps the most hurtful of arguments: the view that marriage is an institution of procreation and therefore same-sex couples are not welcome. I believe it is worth discussing these arguments each in turn because, when held up to scrutiny, they are clearly without foundation.

As I have said, some have tried to claim that allowing same-sex couples to marry will somehow destabilise the very foundation of marriage, that it will undermine what marriage is. But this not a zero-sum game. My getting married does not preclude a heterosexual couple from getting married. Indeed, the argument that allowing me to marry the person I love will somehow make their love less says more about their relationship than mine. So I say to those who oppose this bill: ‘You do not need to legitimise your relationship by undermining mine. You do not need to tell me and the thousands of other same-sex couples that our relationships are less worthy, less valid or less important. We know the worth of our relationships. We will not allow them to be diminished in this debate and we do not accept them being diminished by this law.’

As I said, I agree marriage is both unique and important. Same-sex couples believe marriage is an important institution. That is why we want the choice to enter it. For those opposite who may think this view is only held by some on the progressive side of politics, look at the statements of British Prime Minister David Cameron, who last year said:

I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative; I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.

He is a Conservative Prime Minister who makes a very important point: that institutions are not weakened by inclusion.

Inclusion and tolerance have always been the guiding lights of social progress. They have always shone brightly on discrimination and, time and time again, have shown us that our similarities will always be greater than our differences. Our society is strongest when we are accepting, when we enable equality to overcome exclusion and when, with open eyes, open minds and open hearts, we cherish diversity and value inclusion. Exclusion so often unearths the worst in us, because it reflects the least worthy aspects of society. So often it is driven by ignorance or, worse, by prejudice. That is why the argument that the institution of marriage is strengthened by exclusion is as spurious as it is hurtful. It is discrimination, plain and simple.

There are those who argue that the institution of marriage is immutable; that it has not changed since time immemorial. Such statements ignore how much the understanding of marriage has varied. Marriage has changed from being a concept of ownership to being one of genuine partnership.

Marriage was previously banned for interracial couples and it took a Supreme Court decision in the United States to overturn this. Australian history provides further examples. In 1901, JC Watson, later to become the first Labor Prime Minister, asked during a debate on the Immigration Restriction Bill:

The question is whether we would desire that our sisters or our brothers should be married into any of these races to which we object.

These views were once normal. These views of marriage were once predominant—but no longer. In my own family, I have seen this change. My parents married during the last years of the White Australia policy; what was seen as an interracial marriage, remarked on in its time, would in today’s Australia be unremarkable. Indeed, marriage as an institution has proven to be flexible in reflecting the social norms of the day—far from being set in stone, it has responded to social change. If passed, the bill before the chamber would see marriage again reflect the values of our society.

I want to turn now to the place of religious belief in this debate. I believe in freedom of religion and in the right of Australians of faith to express and practise their faiths and traditions. I support the provisions in the bill which protect the church from having to marry same-sex couples if their faith does not permit it. The real question here is the line between religious teaching and secular laws—whether those who hold a particular belief should impose that view on all. The majority of Australians now marry in civil, not religious, ceremonies. Should the views of some who hold particular beliefs determine the legitimacy and eligibility of those who choose to marry outside of religious services and beyond their church? I think not.

Some also argue that marriage is about children, and that same-sex couples cannot or should not have children. This is an argument that brings with it a fair amount of logical confusion. To suggest that you can or should only have children if you are married is inconsistent with the reality of today’s Australia. To suggest that marriage should only be defined by reference to children would mean that marriages in which someone is infertile would not be allowed, that marriages where the couple did not want to have a family would not be allowed and that marriages where the couple were too old to have children would not be allowed. Clearly, this is not the case.

But underlying this position—and perhaps the most hurtful argument of all—is the view that some Australians are not worthy of being parents simply because of their personal attributes. That is, because of our sexuality, our worth as a mother or father is lessened. The fact is same-sex couples already have children. Denying marriage equality will not change this. Bringing an argument about the worth of our families and about the value of our parenting into this debate is dishonest and it is objectionable. The quality of parenting, whether by a straight person or a gay person, will never be determined by a political argument. The love that a parent—straight or gay—has for their child is seen in the days and nights and years of love and nurture and hope and so much more.

The arguments of those that oppose this bill do not stack up. But perhaps what is worse is the vein of prejudice that runs through some of the contributions in the debate over marriage equality. As this debate has occurred over the past weeks, homophobia has increasingly come to the fore. It is an undeniably ugly vein that runs deep in some of the arguments against marriage equality, and it is regrettable, hateful and hurtful.

There are those who say homosexuality is a greater hazard than smoking. There are those who suggest that gay and lesbian Australians are promiscuous yet in the same breath criticise us for wanting to have our relationships recognised through marriage. There are those who lump homosexuality into the same category as bigamy and those who talk about the normalisation of homosexuality. Well, we are normal and we are here.

Gay and lesbian Australians are no different to all other Australians. We come from all walks of Australian life, from all regions and from all income brackets. We are your daughters and your sons, your brothers and your sisters, your mums and your dads, your coworkers and your friends, and we have the same aspirations, the same ambitions and the same hopes. We are not so different. It is time to recognise this.

I stand here today as a proud member of the Australian Labor Party: a party that in government has done more to progress the interests of gay and lesbian Australians than any other; a party that changed its platform last year to support same-sex marriage and to allow a conscience vote on this issue; a party big enough and brave enough to accept differences of views, and to support three of our senators, and the member for Throsby in the other place, introducing this bill—a braveness not matched in the leadership of those opposite. When the Liberal Party denied its parliamentarians the right to vote with their conscience on marriage equality, they ensured its defeat in the 43rd Parliament. The maths is as simple as it is devastating.

We often talk about the negativity of politics today, but this is different. It is not some tired, three-word slogan; it is worse. The party which preaches individual freedom refuses to allow a free vote on this most personal of issues. I welcome the comments of Senators Birmingham and Boyce, Mr Turnbull and Dr Washer, who have put on the record their desire for a conscience vote on this matter. On another day, at another time, I hope that they, along with members of the Labor Party, the Australian Greens and others, will have the opportunity to sit side by side in support of marriage equality.

There will be some who will see this week’s result as a vindication of their opposition to same-sex marriage—and they will be wrong. There will be many who will look at the members of this chamber and think that the parliament has failed them—and they will be right. We have failed to uphold the principle of equality in the law. The parliament as an institution should reflect the best of Australia. It should inspire tolerance and acceptance. It should encourage respect. On this issue, our parliament is lagging behind our community.

The result of this vote will be disappointing to many thousands of Australians. To all the friends, to the mums and dads, to the sisters and brothers, to the mates and to the colleagues of gay and lesbian Australians: I encourage you to keep the fight for equality going. We are on the right side of this debate and on the right side of history. We are on the side of equality.

This parliament may miss its opportunity to right a wrong, but it will only be through your perseverance that we can guarantee that the next time this comes to a vote there will be no choice but to support equality. Remember, many steps towards equality in this country were not won the first time nor even the second. Many were achieved only after years of action and of activism. But the aspiration for equality is persistent, and it cannot be denied forever.

To the Australian LGPTI community who feel disappointed, I encourage resolve and, particularly, to young gay and lesbian Australians, to those who may not have come out yet or are finding their way, I want you to know that the prejudice you have heard in this debate does not reflect the direction in which this country is going. Those who oppose this bill speak to the past. I and my colleagues are talking to a better future because, whatever happens in the parliament this week, our relationships are not inferior, our relationships are not less equal and our love is no less real. We will get there—perhaps not in this parliament, but one day. One day we will be recognised as equal.

For us, this is the most personal of debates. It is about the people we love most in the world, the people who give meaning and hope to our lives. It is about our families. And, ultimately, it is not only about what we want for ourselves; it is about what we want for our children. We all hope for our children an easier path, that the challenges life presents will be surmountable. I do not regret that our daughter has Sophie and I as her parents. I do regret that she lives in a world where some will tell her that her family is not normal. I regret that, even in this chamber, elected representatives denigrate the worth of her family. These are not challenges she deserves. None of our children deserves such challenges. So I will not rest in the face of such prejudice. I want for her, for all of us, an Australia which is inclusive and respectful. This is why this campaign will not end here: because we who argue for equality are not only standing for principle, we are also standing for the people we love—and there is nothing more powerful than this.

I say to those opposing this bill: you have nothing to fear from equality. Let us judge relationships by the markers which matter—love, respect, commitment. Let our laws reflect these most cherished values and give voice to the equality that is due.

Senator Bernardi

(South Australia) (21:22): I have spoken many times in this place about the importance of traditional marriage. In fact, I spoke about marriage in my maiden speech in this place over six years ago. In that speech I said:

Marriage has been reserved as a sacred bond between a man and a woman across times, across cultures and across very different religious beliefs. Marriage is the very foundation of the family, and the family is the basic unit of society. Thus marriage is a personal relationship with public significance and we are right to recognise this in our laws.

I have been and always will be a strong supporter of traditional marriage and its current definition, being a union between a man and a woman. Marriage is accorded a special place in our society because it is a union that is orientated towards having children, thereby ensuring the continuation of our population and civilisation. Society benefits from marriage, so marriage is accorded benefits by society. At the base level marriage is concerned about what is best for society, rather than being concerned about the so-called rights of the individual. Changing the definition of marriage would indeed change the focus of the institution itself. It would put the focus on the desire of adults, as opposed to having the focus on the production and nurturing of an environment for the raising of children for the benefit of society.

I know that not every marriage has children but marriage is a foundation for the family unit upon which our society is built. It has proven itself as the most sustainable and effective social support and training environment for our future generations. I recall columnist Miranda Devine quoted a UK Family Court judge in 2010 in which he noted that family breakdown is the cause of most social ills and that, despite its faults, marriage should be restored as the gold standard and social stigma should be reapplied to those who destroy family life.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies has found that children of married couples benefit from marriage because they have higher levels of social, emotional and educational development in comparison with children who do not live in that traditional environment. Married mothers are more likely to be employed or hold a university degree and married-couple families are less likely to come up against financial problems. While the authors of the research were keen to stress that this is because of a family’s financial situation and the educational qualifications of the mother, it does give me cause to wonder: doesn’t marriage itself help to provide financial stability and better outcomes? That seems to be a case for opening marriage up to any environment and to any union of two people, as Senator Cameron said, who happen to love each other, but in a family environment it is children who should be the primary concern and children benefit from having both a male and a female role model living in a house—two people that love each other in a permanent union.

We have all seen the sad effects of marriage breakdown and the adverse impacts it can have on children. We have to also acknowledge that today families do not always come as the gold standard where mum and dad do live together under the one roof of a house and love each other and provide that nurturing environment. I have always said that a child is better in any environment where it is loved and that is irrespective of the circumstances, but it will not stop me from advocating that traditional marriage is the absolutely best environment for the rearing of the next generation. So whatever the forms that families take in this modern day and age—and they do come in so many different forms with some people being individual parents and indeed same-sex couples also raising children and they all do an amazing job in the circumstances—as I said, I will not stop focusing on the importance of promoting and encouraging the traditional family. But simply because marriage is important that does not mean that we should redefine it. We should not open it up to all comers, because I think it would actually devalue the institution.

The move for same-sex marriage is just another step in what I consider an attack on our enduring and important institutions, particularly the social ones. It is another tear in the fabric of our social mores. The proponents of same-sex marriage, and I do not mean to generalise but this is about many of the proponents of same-sex marriage, ask for one step and they think that is all they want or they say that is all they want and they will be satisfied when this has been achieved—’Just this one thing; give us that and that will be okay and all inequality will be diminished and everyone will be equal and it will be fair’. But the harsh reality is that there will never be equality in society and there are always going to be people who feel that they have got a raw deal or have been discriminated against or do not have the same access to opportunities or advantages as others do, and to pretend any differently is really to deny reality. But history demonstrates that once those who advocate for radical social change, which I consider this to be, achieve it in any way, shape or form, there is then another demand and another demand and another demand and they slowly chip away at the very foundation of what provides our social support, stability and cultural mores and we are left with a replacement that is somehow vastly inferior to the wisdom of successive generations.

I recall that in this place only a few years ago people pushed for the same entitlements and benefits for all relationships that were then held by married couples. This was achieved. I opposed it at the time because my point was that just because people are in a sexual relationship that does not mean that they should be afforded the same rights and privileges as society affords those in traditional marriage, and I have outlined some of the reasons for that. Indeed, I advocated at the time that if it is about genuine equality and interdependency then we should advance this to interdependent relationships in which there is no sexual engagement. There are any number of those relationships, including people who live together and share bank accounts and expenses and who, for all intents and purposes, share their lives without having a sexual or physical relationship. But that was rejected, I suspect because it was not really about equality. It was not about interdependency and it was not about sharing your life with someone; it was about chipping away at the institution of marriage.

The legislation got through and I lost that debate—you win some and lose some in this business. At that stage I was one of many saying this was another step that would undermine marriage. Today we see the next step. This is another push—it is not the first time and it will not be the last time—for same-sex marriage. Time and time again the techniques of the radicals who seek to overturn the social institutions and social fabric of our society are out of step with the priorities of mainstream Australia. No-one out there that I have come across says this is the most important issue facing Australia. There are enormous social and economic problems in this country, and this debate will not solve any of them. Time and time again the same characters seek to tear down our institutions that have been built and have sustained our civilisation for thousands of years. The time has come to ask: when will it end?

If we are prepared to redefine marriage so that it suits the latest criterion that two people who love each other should be able to get married irrespective of their gender and/or if they are in a sexual relationship, then what is the next step? The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society—or any other type of relationship. For those who say that I am being alarmist in this, there is the polyamory community who were very disappointed when the Greens had to distance themselves from their support for numerous people getting together and saying they want to enter into a permanent union. They were disappointed because they were misled that this was about marriage equality and opening up marriage to all people who love each other.

There are even some creepy people out there—and I say ‘creepy’ deliberately—who are unfortunately afforded a great deal more respect than I believe they deserve. These creepy people say it is okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step? In the future will we say, ‘These two creatures love each other and maybe they should be able to be joined in a union.’ It is extraordinary that these sorts of suggestions are put forward in the public sphere and are not howled down right at the very start. We can talk about people like Professor Peter Singer who was, I think, a founder of the Greens or who wrote a book about the Greens. Professor Singer has appeared on Q&A on the ABC, the national broadcaster. He has endorsed such ideas as these. I reject them. I think that these things are the next step. As we accede to one request we will then have the next one which will be for unions of more than two people. We will have suggestions for unions of three or four people. I notice the Greens are heckling, but the point is that they misled their constituent base and there was an outcry about this. Where do we go then? Do we go down the Peter Singer path? Those that say this is the end of the social revolution have no history of being honourable about that. They continue to push and challenge our social and cultural mores. We simply cannot allow such an important social institution to be redefined, especially when Australians do not see this as a priority issue.

Senator Cameron was critical of his party denying some of the people in support of same-sex marriage a conscience vote, the ability to speak up in favour of what they thought was important. He neglected to mention that the Left of the Labor Party had never really supported a conscience vote. In fact, they sought to change the party’s position to support same-sex marriage. That meant that those that had a conscientious objection to it would have been bound by the Labor Party’s platform to support same-sex marriage. On the one hand Senator Cameron decried the fact that some people could not vote according to how they felt and yet he was one of the architects of this, along with people like Mark Butler. In a story in the Sydney Morning Herald Mark Butler is said to be one of those who believes that those who support traditional marriage should not be allowed to put their position forward.

I understand that this is a very sensitive debate. I also understand that senators on both sides of this chamber have very strong views. I understand some of these views are borne by personal experiences or those of loved ones and some are borne by their idea that this is a fairer and more equitable way to proceed. We have seen demands and requests for surveys of what is going on in the electorates. That was put forward by Mr Bandt in the other place. He asked for members of parliament to report back on what their constituencies thought about this argument. I have to say that a significant majority—some have suggested as many as two-thirds—reported that their constituents broadly supported marriage being retained as between a man and a woman, as was endorsed by this parliament some eight or 10 years ago.

In standing up for traditional marriage, advocates are not saying that one group is better than another or that one group is superior to another. This is, in my view, about defending what is right and what is important for society. Last year I read an article by a 19-year-old university student Blaise Joseph, who wrote:

Marriage laws are fundamentally a question of what’s best for society rather than a question of individual rights.

That view, in one way, shape or form, was shared by over 32,000 people who wrote in favour of traditional marriage to the recent Senate inquiry.

Add these views to MPs’ electorate surveys and the calls and emails I get from my own constituents and it is very clear to me that many Australians want to protect the notion of traditional marriage, for many valid reasons. These people have, in some instances, put aside their fears of being branded as intolerant, uncaring, heartless or in support of inequality by those people who profess to be tolerant of other points of view and who, in my view, look to degrade the notion of marriage. These people who have stood up against same-sex marriage in the face of a very vocal campaign are to be commended in this current culture of political correctness, where those who apparently disagree with the wisdom of the elites are somehow howled down and demonised publicly.

I am sure there are millions more Australians who share these sentiments irrespective of whether they have spoken publicly about it. I will continue to stand with these Australians and to fight for traditional marriage because I believe it is what the people of Australia want. More importantly, I think it is the right thing to do both for our children and for our society.