Tag Archives: Equal marriage

A Tale of Two Speeches Part 2

Posted on by

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.

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.

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