The push for new exceptions in the Marriage Act is homophobic. Here’s why.

Voting in the same-sex marriage postal survey has now closed. Based on the widely-held assumption that the majority of Australians have voted Yes, discussion has now turned to what amendments will be made to the Marriage Act to implement this outcome.

 

Conservatives who have opposed marriage equality throughout this process, including the Australian Christian Lobby and many Liberal and National Party MPs and Senators, are now arguing that any change to the law must include new exceptions providing a broad range of special privileges to discriminate against LGBTI couples.

 

As WA Liberal MP Ian Goodenough has publicly acknowledged: “[t]he focus will be in the area of preserving parental rights, freedom of speech, and institutional considerations such as curriculum in schools, access to reproductive technology, correctional facilities, etc…”

 

This is on top of those new exceptions already included in Liberal Senator Dean Smith’s Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedom) Bill 2017, which, as I have written elsewhere, would:

 

  • Permit existing civil celebrants to nominate to become ‘religious marriage celebrants’ so they can avoid marrying LGBTI couples,
  • Duplicate exceptions from the Sex Discrimination Act within the Marriage Act itself, allowing religious bodies that offer wedding-related facilities, goods and services to the public to turn away LGBTI couples, and
  • Reinforce the ability of military chaplains, who are public servants, paid for with taxpayers’ money, to refuse to perform the marriage ceremonies of LGBTI personnel serving within the ADF.[i]

 

The supposed justification for these new exceptions? That they are essential to protect the ‘religious freedom’ of people who object to marriage equality on the basis of their personal faith.

 

Which is, to put it bluntly, bollocks.

 

The coordinated campaign for new exceptions in the Marriage Act has very little to do with ‘religious freedom’. This push is primarily, almost exclusively, about legitimising homophobia, biphobia and transphobia.

 

This motivation can be seen through one simple comparison – how the Marriage Act has treated divorced couples remarrying over the past four decades versus how conservatives are proposing LGBTI couples should be treated now.

 

After all, there are a variety of religious beliefs about divorce and remarriage, just as there is a range of religious perspectives about marriage equality. The single largest religious organisation in Australia – the Catholic Church – remains staunchly opposed to both. Other faith groups support both.

 

So, if there are individuals and groups with strong views about, specifically against, divorce and remarriage, surely the Marriage Act will already contain special privileges allowing discrimination against people having second, or subsequent, weddings?

 

Well, no actually.

 

Even following the introduction of ‘no fault’ divorce as part of the Family Law Act reforms in 1975, the Marriage Act was not amended to provide civil celebrants with the ability to discriminate against people remarrying. Nor were military chaplains given ‘strengthened’ powers to refuse to perform the marriage ceremonies of ADF personnel tying the knot for the second time.

 

The inconsistent treatment of divorced people remarrying and LGBTI couples is demonstrated even more powerfully by considering the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

 

As well as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, from its very beginning this legislation has protected people against discrimination on the basis of their ‘marital status’, an attribute that was originally defined as:

 

“the status or condition of being-

(a) single;

(b) married;

(c) married but living separately and apart from one’s spouse;

(d) divorced;

(e) widowed; or

(f) the de facto spouse of another person…” [emphasis added].

 

Discrimination on the basis of ‘marital or relationship status’ remains prohibited under the Sex Discrimination Act today.

 

Which means that, for 33 years, the Marriage Act has happily coexisted with legislation that prohibits discrimination against divorced people remarrying – including discrimination by civil celebrants.

 

For 33 years, there has apparently not been a need to duplicate exceptions from the Sex Discrimination Act within the Marriage Act allowing religious bodies that offer wedding-related facilities, goods and services to the public to turn away couples wishing to remarry.

 

For 33 years, there has been no massive campaign to ‘preserve parental rights, freedom of speech, and institutional considerations such as curriculum in schools’ about divorce and remarriage.

 

At no point during this time, not when marriage equality was originally banned by the Howard Government in August 2004, or even when the same Government had a majority in both houses of parliament between 2005 and 2007, has there been a concerted push to amend the Marriage Act to protect the ‘religious freedom’ of people who object to divorce and remarriage on the basis of their personal faith.

 

So, why now? If it was not necessary to protect ‘religious freedom’ following the introduction of no fault divorce more than four decades ago, nor at any point since the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of marital status more than three decades ago, why is it suddenly necessary to defend ‘religious freedom’ today?

 

The logical conclusion – in my view, the only possible conclusion – is that the changes being put forward, in Dean Smith’s Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill, and by others like his Coalition colleague Ian Goodenough, are not actually about religious freedom at all.

 

If these amendments are only being put forward now that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians might finally have the opportunity to legally marry, then their intended purpose appears to be: to legitimise discrimination against LGBTI couples.

 

These provisions are inherently homophobic. And biphobic. And transphobic, too.

 

People arguing for ever-widening exceptions in the Marriage Act can dress their proposals up in all the fine language they want. But they cannot hide the naked truth: such amendments are just homophobia in a fancy frock.

 

It is simply not good enough for the long desired, long fought for, and long overdue introduction of marriage equality to be undermined by the inclusion of religious exceptions that will, in practice, perpetuate discrimination against LGBTI couples.

 

Equal should mean equal – and that means LGBTI couples marrying in the future should be treated exactly the same as divorced people remarrying are now.

 

Goodenough

Liberal MP Ian Goodenough, whose proposed amendments to the Marriage Act are definitely not good enough for LGBTI Australians.

 

Footnotes:

[i] It should be noted that Smith’s Bill also permits increased, or strengthened, discrimination against other groups, including divorced people remarrying. This is to avoid criticisms of Senator Brandis’ 2016 Exposure Draft Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill, which explicitly discriminated against same-sex couples. It is unlikely that many divorced Australians understand they could theoretically be discriminated against as a result of the Smith Bill. Then again, they probably shouldn’t worry too much – the timing of the introduction of these amendments, and the public debate surrounding them, confirm that LGBTI Australians are the real target.

Advertisements

What. A. Waste.

Today is the last day of ‘voting’ in the same-sex marriage postal survey. By 6pm tonight, the last ballot will have been received by the ABS, and the last online vote will have been cast.

 

Even though it will be another eight days before we learn the final result, now is an opportune time to reflect on this pseudo plebiscite, and all I can think is:

 

What.

A.

Waste.

 

What a waste of time. It is three months since the Turnbull Government announced the postal survey, and two months since voting started, with intense campaigning throughout by both sides – all on an issue that could, and should, have been resolved by Commonwealth Parliament in a week. Or even less.

 

What a waste of money. Prime Minister Turnbull has spent $122 million of public money, of your money, to outsource responsibility to you to answer the question of whether same-sex couples should be treated equally under secular law. And he has done so just to avoid internal division within the Coalition.

 

Of course, if the Australian public votes Yes, the issue will still have to return to be voted upon by Commonwealth Parliament – which is pretty much the definition of unnecessary duplication.

 

Oh, and that’s not even counting the money wasted on the campaign itself, including the $1 million donation by the Anglican Church of Sydney to oppose the equal rights of LGBTI Australians. Imagine how many disadvantaged people could have been helped by that money?

 

What a waste of effort. Thousands of volunteers have knocked on tens of thousands of doors, made hundreds of thousands of phone calls, and had millions of conversations, to encourage people to vote Yes to marriage equality.

 

That effort is not wasted as in useless – I am sure it has helped to ensure the ‘right’ side wins. But it is wasted in that none of it was needed. If ever there was a straight-forward issue of public policy – where the lives of one group of people could be improved, with nobody else adversely affected – then surely it is the question of marriage equality. It should have been resolved years ago.

 

What a waste of priorities. One of the most frustrating aspects of the past three months has been the fact that debate around the same-sex marriage postal survey has taken focus away from other important issues, including how to best advance the Uluru Statement from the Heart and efforts to stop the ongoing human rights abuses of people seeking asylum on Manus Island and Nauru.

 

Even within the LGBTI community, there are many, many other issues that could benefit from the attention currently devoted to marriage equality, including ending involuntary surgeries on intersex infants, improving trans access to identity documentation, and improving the treatment of LGBTI people seeking asylum.

 

What a waste of unity. One of the weakest arguments put forward by the Turnbull Government for its plebiscite was that, if the answer is Yes, it will be a unifying moment for our country. One where the ‘losing’ side would accept the legitimacy of the result and everyone would move on.

 

Instead, it has turned out exactly as everyone else expected – the campaign has stirred up hatred and intolerance, while more people will end the campaign with entrenched views than at the start. Neither side will give up if the result is not the one they were after.

 

The alternative? A parliamentary vote where marriage equality could have been passed quickly and without controversy, where people who feared change had the opportunity to see it become law, and to learn that the sky didn’t fall.

 

You know, like New Zealand.

 

Marriage equality in Australia could have looked like this:

 

 

 

Instead, Malcolm Turnbull held a postal survey that looked more like this:

 

What a waste 2

 

What a waste of our democratic traditions. The decision by the Liberal and National Parties to hold an optional, non-binding, nation-wide public opinion poll on marriage equality has set a terrible precedent for how issues of public policy are decided in this country.

 

These parties, who claim to be ‘conservative’, have made a radical change to our system of government. Already there is pressure to hold plebiscites on all manner of issues, including euthanasia or even the death penalty. It is difficult for the Coalition to resist these calls in the future on the basis of how it has approached same-sex marriage.

 

What a waste of Malcolm Turnbull’s credibility. Okay, granted, there wasn’t much left by the time he announced the postal survey in August to get around the fact the Senate had rejected his preferred plebiscite.

 

But remember there was a time, in September 2015, when the population was briefly hopeful that Turnbull would be a much more modern, and progressive, leader than the man he replaced. A large part of that hope was founded on Turnbull’s supposed support for marriage equality.

 

The fact he has systematically sold out LGBTI Australians on this issue, including subjecting us to this absolute farce of a process, is a significant contributing factor to why he has so little credibility just over two years later.

 

What a waste in terms of the negative impact on the LGBTI community itself. The biggest waste, and the worst outcome, of the postal survey has been the harm that it has caused to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community, to rainbow families and to their children.

 

The tears that have been shed.

 

The worst fears that have been, sadly, realised.

 

The depression it has caused, or exacerbated.

 

The family divisions it has worsened.

 

The homophobic, transphobic and biphobic abuse it has triggered.

 

The violence that has been endured by too many.

 

All of this was completely unnecessary. All of this was completely foreseen by everyone – outside the Australian Christian Lobby, and the Liberal-National Government. All of this was their fault. We will never forgive, nor forget, what they put us through.

 

Turnbull closed eyes

Malcolm Turnbull has closed his eyes to the damage his postal survey has caused.

 

As I write this, it seems highly likely that on 15 November the ABS will announce the Yes vote was ‘successful’ in the postal survey. Same-sex marriage will probably, although not certainly, be legalised in the months that follow (whether it is genuine marriage equality remains to be seen).

 

But even if this process results in marriage equality finally being introduced, nothing will ever justify what LGBTI Australians have been subjected to over the past three months. Because nothing ever could. What a waste.

Wedding Dates and Mandates

Centennial-Park heart

Centennial Park, Sydney.

 

A couple of weeks ago, my fiancé Steven and I were walking around Centennial Park in Sydney when we started discussing possible wedding dates.

 

That shouldn’t be remarkable: an engaged couple talking about the timing of their nuptials. Except it was probably the first time in about five years that we seriously considered when and where we might hold our ceremony.

 

The previous conversation coincided with the last proper vote on marriage equality in Commonwealth Parliament – way back in September 2012. But now, with the same-sex marriage postal survey drawing to a close, there is a real prospect that marriage equality might finally become law in the months ahead.

 

Of course, there are some major hurdles still to overcome before Steven and I start booking venues and sending out save-the-date cards.

 

The first, and most obvious, hurdle is that the Australian Bureau of Statistics must announce a majority Yes result at 10am on Wednesday 15 November, just ten days from now.

 

Assuming that outcome is favourable, the second hurdle is for our 226 parliamentarians to pass legislation to respect the wishes of the Australian population.

 

That part should be relatively straight-forward – amending the Marriage Act to make the definition of marriage inclusive of LGBTI couples, and to recognise the marriages of thousands of couples that already exist.

 

But it is highly likely the debate around what should be included in, and excluded from, a marriage equality bill will be just as divisive as the postal survey that preceded it, if not more so.

 

That is because the same groups who have steadfastly opposed the equal recognition of LGBTI relationships, including the Australian Christian Lobby and conservatives within the Coalition, are now arguing that any bill to introduce marriage equality must be weighed down by new special privileges allowing discrimination against us across multiple spheres of public life.

 

As reported by news.com.au these changes: “could include lessening hate speech laws, axing legislation that gives same-sex parents the same rights as straight parents, barring gay couples from accessing IVF and allowing parents to remove kids from any school lesson that even fleetingly mentions gay people. There is also the prospect of businesses being given the green light to refuse to serve anyone who is gay, not just those organising same-sex weddings.”

 

The introduction of such amendments would fundamentally alter the purpose of the legislation being debated. It would no longer be a marriage equality bill, it would instead be a bill to promote discrimination against LGBTI Australians, where expanding the right to marry would be purely incidental.

 

Obviously, these changes must be resisted, and resisted strongly, which means it will once again fall to LGBTI Australians, and our allies, to argue for the equal treatment of our relationships.

 

Once again, we have the arguments on our side. From the principle that secular law should not discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics, to the ideal of a fair go which means one form of discrimination should not simply be replaced by another.

 

We must also highlight the inconsistency of those claiming these rights to discriminate are necessary to protect ‘religious freedom’ – if they have not historically been required to allow discrimination against divorced couples remarrying, they are not necessary to permit discrimination against same-sex couples now.

 

But there is another argument against the introduction of these new special privileges to discriminate that I would like to talk about, and that is the theory of political mandates (I know, I know, this is far less romantic than discussing possible wedding dates, but please hear me out).

 

For those who don’t know, a mandate is defined as ‘the authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate.’

 

In this case, the Australian electorate has just participated in a $122 million, three month long, nation-wide postal survey to determine whether it supports same-sex marriage. If the result is Yes, as is widely-expected, what does that mean for the ‘mandate’ of the Government, and the Parliament more broadly?

 

  1. There is a mandate for same-sex marriage

 

The first, and least controversial, outcome is that, if the population has voted yes, there is a clear mandate for Parliament to introduce amendments that allow all lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians to marry. Not even Lyle Shelton could argue against that (well, he might try, but should be ignored).

 

  1. There is no mandate for new special privileges to discriminate against same-sex couples

 

On the other hand, a Yes vote does not provide the Government or Parliament with a mandate to introduce new special privileges allowing individuals and organisations to discriminate against LGBTI couples.

 

Why? Because of the question that Australians were asked to answer: ‘Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?’

 

What is not there is just as important as what is. There were no asterisks at the end of the question, no footnotes on the survey form saying ‘different terms and conditions apply’.

 

Nor were there any extra clauses – it did not ask whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry subject to additional rights to discriminate against them.

 

The absence of asterisks, terms and conditions or extra clauses on the postal survey question means Parliament does not have a mandate to introduce asterisks, terms and conditions or extra clauses to our equality in the Marriage Act.

 

Indeed, this point was (inadvertently) conceded by former Prime Minister John Howard in September, when he called for current Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to release details of the Bill it would put forward in the event of a Yes vote:

 

“On the evidence to date, it would seem that the only protections in that bill will not go much beyond stipulations that no minister, priest, rabbi or imam will be compelled to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony… It is precisely because parliament should reflect the will of the people that the people are entitled to know what, if anything, the government will do on protections before they vote.”

 

The fact the Turnbull Government did not put forward any official legislation means, by Howard’s own rationale, it does not have a mandate to introduce new special privileges to discriminate against LGBTI couples.

 

Postal survey form

No asterisks, terms and conditions or extra clauses – the postal survey only asked whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

 

  1. There is a mandate for marriage equality

 

The wording of the postal survey question means a Yes vote does provide the Parliament with a mandate to introduce genuine marriage equality. In fact, I would argue they have an obligation to do exactly that.

 

Unless the question specifically stated that same-sex couples would be treated as lesser than cisgender heterosexual couples are now – which, as we have seen, it did not – then the logical inference is that they would and should be treated the same.

 

And that is exactly how the question was interpreted by the Australian population.

 

As reported by Buzzfeed this week, a Galaxy poll: “canvassed 1,000 Australians on their views on same-sex marriage from October 26 to 30.

 

“In response to the question, ‘If the majority vote ‘yes’ in the postal survey, should same-sex couples be treated the same under the law compared with other couples?’, 78% of respondents said yes.

 

“This figure consisted of 98% of respondents who said they had voted ‘yes’, and [even] 43% of those who said they had voted ‘no’.”

 

As noted by PFLAG’s Shelley Argent in the same article: “This poll couldn’t be clearer. Australians want marriage equality and we want it without any of the caveats and exemptions that will further entrench discrimination against same-sex couples.”

 

And so, if the outcome of the postal survey on 15 November is a Yes, then the message to our Parliamentarians will be unambiguous – they should provide LGBTI Australians with the right to marry, and they must do so on exactly the same terms as it is enjoyed by cisgender heterosexual couples today.

 

**********

 

Nobody should underestimate the scale of the challenge that lies ahead of us. Even if we win the postal survey in ten days time, the debate that follows, about what same-sex marriage looks like in practice, is going to be a messy one.

 

Our opponents will fight just as hard, and just as dirty, as they have over the past few months. We will need to rely once more on our patience, our passion and our principles to win.

 

It is also unclear how long this debate will last. While some express the hope that marriage equality could be passed by Christmas, it is possible that this process will take several months to resolve, lasting well into 2018. There is even the chance that same-sex marriage is not passed this term, because the legislation that is put forward has to be rejected as it falls short of true equality.

 

All of which means that, while Steven and I have (re)started our discussion about possible wedding dates, we still have no clear idea when that might ultimately be.

 

But I do know this: when I asked him to marry me on that January day in Melbourne almost eight years ago, there were no conditions attached. When Steven and I finally get married, there shouldn’t be any conditions attached either.

Not so fast. Dean Smith’s Marriage Bill is deeply flawed.

Over the past fortnight, there has been increasing discussion about what marriage equality might look like in practice. Based on the widely-held assumption that a majority Yes vote will be announced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on Wednesday 15 November, there appears to be a co-ordinated push to ‘unite’ behind Liberal Senator Dean Smith’s Marriage Bill.

 

This includes the decision by the Labor caucus, on Tuesday 17 October, that it will support Smith’s Bill being passed as quickly as possible after the conclusion of the postal survey.

 

This was almost immediately followed by an opinion piece from Alex Greenwich and Anna Brown of Australian Marriage Equality describing Smith’s Bill as ‘a game changer’ and claiming that ‘[i]t would deliver equality for same-sex couples and it also ensures that faith communities can continue to celebrate religious marriage.’

 

One state-based gay and lesbian rights lobby even went so far as to declare Senator Smith’s draft legislation – which, let’s not forget, hasn’t even been introduced into Commonwealth Parliament yet – as ‘the only legitimate bill.’

 

In response to these developments, I had two equally-strong reactions.

 

The first was to say ‘not so fast’. Voting in the postal survey was still well underway, so to presume victory, and to start discussing how it might be implemented, could be seen as hubris, as well as confusing what should have been the one and only message of the Yes campaign – to #postyouryes.

 

It is for this reason that I chose not to write about this topic (what marriage equality legislation should look like) until after Friday 27 October, the date by which the ABS recommended people post their ballots in order to ensure they are counted.[i]

 

My second reaction was also to say ‘not so fast’, only this time in relation to the substance of Smith’s Bill. And that is because his draft legislation might give us marriage, but it will not deliver marriage equality.

 

In fact, on closer analysis it is a deeply flawed Bill. From the title: the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 (notice what word is missing?). To its apparent purpose: to appease conservative Liberal and National MPs and Senators who oppose the equal treatment of LGBTI Australians under secular law. To its all-important details (discussed below).

 

It is clear that Senator Smith’s Marriage Bill is far less concerned with allowing all couples to marry irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, and far more concerned with allowing individuals and organisations to discriminate against couples on the basis of these very same attributes.

 

Three major shortcomings can be seen by examining key aspects of his draft legislation:

 

  1. Dean Smith’s Marriage Bill gives new special privileges to existing civil celebrants allowing them to discriminate against LGBTI couples

 

Under the Marriage Act 1961, ministers of religion already have the ability to refuse to officiate the wedding of any couple, for any reason. There has never been a serious proposal to remove this ‘right’ to discriminate, and Smith’s Bill won’t alter this situation either.

 

However, what the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 proposes in this area is actually far more radical – and that is to give a new special privilege to existing civil celebrants allowing them to discriminate against LGBTI couples, and to do so entirely lawfully.

 

It would provide people who are already registered as civil celebrants the ability to simply fill out some paperwork and declare themselves to be ‘religious marriage celebrants’ [clause 39DD(2) of the draft legislation].

 

There is only one substantive criterion that an existing civil celebrant must satisfy – that “the choice is based on the person’s religious beliefs” [clause 39DD(2)(c)].

 

That’s it – self-identification is enough. It is the legislative equivalent of never-was-a-Senator Malcolm Roberts’ approach to life: ‘I think I am a religious marriage celebrant, therefore I must be.’ Or the Andrew Bolt version of Descartes’ proposition: ‘I discriminate, therefore I am.’

 

In practice, the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants would be obliged to accept this application and voila – an existing civil celebrant can suddenly refuse to perform weddings of couples solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics.

 

Remember, these people are not ministers of religion.

 

They are not formally associated with any church or religious body.

 

And the weddings they officiate do not have to be ‘religious’ in any way, shape or form.

 

But none of that would matter because, on the basis of their personal views and nothing more, they would be provided with what George Brandis would describe as ‘the right to be a bigot’.

 

This situation is bad enough in and of itself. But it is even worse when you consider that it would be setting a terrible new precedent in Commonwealth law.

 

As many people would know, the anti-discrimination protections contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 are already limited by ‘religious exceptions’, which provide religious organisations with special privileges to fire, refuse to hire or deny service to LGBT people.

 

The main exception is contained in sub-section 37(1)(d), which protects “any other act or practice of a body established for religious purposes, being an act or practice that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.”

 

This is supplemented by special privileges for religious schools to likewise discriminate against LGBT students and teachers [section 38].

 

One limitation on both of these exceptions is that they apply to religious organisations only, like churches or schools. They do not provide individuals, who are not connected to any other religious body, the right to discriminate solely on the basis their own personal beliefs (or prejudices).[ii]

 

The introduction of a new special privilege for individual celebrants to discriminate against LGBTI couples, based on their own religious views and nothing else, would therefore be creating a dangerous precedent, one which could be used to argue for expanded rights to discriminate in the future.

 

Indeed, this appears to be the goal of anti-LGBTI hate groups like the Australian Christian Lobby, as well as Liberal backbencher Andrew Hastie who has argued that the exceptions in Smith’s Bill should go much, much further:

 

“The protections offered [extend] only to the wedding and the wedding participants themselves. They need to be expanded to whole-of-life protections” (emphasis added).

 

In the long-term, that is what is really at stake in the debate around marriage equality and religious exceptions – whether individuals will be able to discriminate against us as LGBTI Australians, in every aspect of our lives, based on nothing more than their personal views.

 

And so, while achieving marriage equality in the short-term is obviously important (and I write that as someone who has been engaged for almost eight years), we should make sure we don’t win the battle but lose the war.

 

  1. Dean Smith’s Marriage Bill includes unnecessary and/or new special privileges for religious bodies to refuse to provide facilities, goods or services to LGBTI couples

 

The second major shortcoming of the Smith Bill is how it approaches the issue of ‘religious exceptions’ more broadly.

 

As indicated above, the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 already provides religious bodies with extremely generous special privileges to discriminate against LGBT Australians.

 

Despite this, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill includes the following:

 

“47B(1) A body established for religious purposes may refuse to make a facility available, or to provide goods or services, for the purposes of the solemnisation of a marriage, or for purposes reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of a marriage, if the refusal:

(a) conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the body; or

(b) is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.”

 

There are two possible readings of this clause. The first is that it merely reflects existing Sex Discrimination Act provisions, and grants the same privileges to discriminate within the Marriage Act. To which the obvious reply is: if religious bodies already have the ability to discriminate in this way, why does it need to be replicated (some might say duplicated) here?

 

The alternative reading is that this is an expansion of the ability of religious bodies to discriminate, in that it grants new special privileges in relation to same-sex weddings in particular.

 

How broad these new special privileges are depends on what ‘reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of a marriage’ means. Proposed new sub-section 47B(5) notes that “[f]or the purposes of subsection (1), a purpose is reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of marriage if it is intrinsic to, or directly associated with, the solemnisation of the marriage.” Which isn’t exactly helpful (and nor is the Explanatory Memorandum).

 

Irrespective of which reading you adopt, however, I would argue that these new provisions should be rejected. Because they either unnecessarily duplicate protections that already exist. Or they introduce new special privileges to discriminate in wedding-related services simply because same-sex couples will finally be able to get married.

 

This last point is particularly important. Debate around the right to marry is at least as much symbolic as it is practical, and the marriage equality movement has meant so much to so many because it has taken on larger significance – whether lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians are considered full citizens. Or not.

 

To give marriage with one hand, but take equality away with the other – by including new special privileges to discriminate against us – fundamentally undermines what should be a powerful symbolic moment.

 

And make no mistake, it does so because of anti-LGBTI prejudice. As much as proponents of this legislation will try to argue it is necessary to protect ‘religious freedom’, as I have written previously this can be seen as a transparent lie.

 

After all, many religious bodies have strong beliefs about divorce and remarriage. And yet following the introduction of ‘no fault’ divorce via the Family Law Act 1975, and during the four decades since, there have not been any amendments to the Marriage Act to grant special privileges to religious bodies allowing them to discriminate against people who remarry.

 

The fact that they are being introduced now, when LGBTI Australians might finally get a seat at the ‘head table’, reveals that these new exceptions are not aimed at protecting ‘religious freedom’ – they are instead designed to protect homophobia (and transphobia, and biphobia, and intersexphobia).[iii] Nothing more and nothing less.

 

  1. Dean Smith’s Marriage Bill strengthens special privileges for some public servants to discriminate against LGBTI couples

 

The final major shortcoming of the Smith Bill relates to the ability of Australian Defence Force Chaplains to discriminate against personnel who wish to get married.

 

Importantly, ADF Chaplains already have the ‘right’ to refuse to officiate the ceremonies of anyone they wish, for any reason they wish, as a result of section 81 of the Marriage Act.[iv]

 

Nevertheless, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 reinforces this ability by adding the following:

 

“81(2) A chaplain may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in this Part, if any of the following applies:

(a) the refusal conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the chaplain’s religious body or religious organisation;

(b) the refusal is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion;

(c) the chaplain’s religious beliefs do not allow the chaplain to solemnise the marriage.”

 

The duplication of the existing right of ADF Chaplains to discriminate in this way is entirely unnecessary.

 

But I have a much more substantive problem with the Marriage Act granting such privileges: ADF Chaplains are public servants, and therefore should be able to, indeed should be required to, serve all members of the ADF equally, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex personnel.

 

The Defence Jobs website seems to recognise this obligation in its advertisements: “the military Chaplain must provide spiritual ministry to all members of the Army, regardless of faith or denomination … in recognition of the imperative to foster firm faith as described, every Chaplain must be the spiritual minister to every member” (emphasis added).

 

Every member should mean every member – not just cisgender and/or heterosexual members. To determine otherwise is to permit public servants to discriminate against people simply because of their personal beliefs, thereby creating Australia’s equivalent of Kentucky’s infamous Kim Davis.

 

The most offensive aspect of these special privileges is that ADF Chaplains are paid for by taxpayers’ money, including LGBTI taxpayers, and yet they will continue to be free to discriminate on the basis of their own anti-LGBTI beliefs.

 

Smith’s Marriage Bill is therefore a missed opportunity to remedy this injustice, either by requiring all Chaplains to serve all ADF personnel without prejudice (which, based on the public debate so far, seems unlikely to be acceptable to religious stakeholders) or by removing the ability of these Chaplains to officiate any weddings, and coming up with a suitable alternative.

 

Which brings me to one of maybe three positive aspects of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, proposed section 71A, which provides that:

 

“The Chief of the Defence Force may, by instrument in writing, authorise an officer (within the meaning of the Defence Act 1903), other than a chaplain, to solemnise marriages under this Division.”[v]

 

I can see no reason why the appointment of these officers should not be the primary way in which ADF personnel are able to marry while on deployment, something that would effectively guarantee every serving member is treated equally, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. Surely that is a goal we can all agree on.

 

Conclusion:

 

If the result of the same-sex marriage postal survey on 15 November is the one that we want, that is not the end of the story – not by a long way.

 

We must also ensure that the legislation that is passed afterwards reflects what we want, or as close to it as possible – and that means not rushing to accept a Bill that might give us marriage, but not deliver marriage equality.

 

We should consider, in detail, all possible legislative options and decide whether what they offer is ‘acceptable’.

 

From my perspective, I don’t think we should accept a Bill that gives new special privileges to existing civil celebrants allowing them to discriminate against LGBTI couples.

 

Nor we should accept a Bill that includes unnecessary and/or new special privileges for religious bodies to refuse to provide facilities, goods or services to LGBTI couples.

 

Finally, I don’t think we should accept a Bill that strengthens special privileges for some public servants to discriminate against LGBTI couples.

 

Consequently, I don’t think we should accept Liberal Senator Dean Smith’s Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017.

 

I think we can, and we must, do better. Because LGBTI Australians deserve more than just marriage. We deserve genuine marriage equality.

 

150518 Dean Smith

Liberal Senator Dean Smith, whose Marriage Bill uses just nine words to amend the definition of marriage, but more than 400 introducing or expanding special privileges to discriminate against LGBTI couples.

 

Footnotes:

[i] If you are reading this article after 27 October, but before 7 November, and still have your postal survey, then please #postyouryes as soon as possible. The earlier you do, the more chance there is it will be counted, and help Australia finally achieve marriage equality.

[ii] Even the religious exceptions contained in the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 – which are the broadest (and arguably the worst) in the country – only apply to religious bodies, or educational authorities, and not to individuals.

[iii] The same argument can be made against proposals for civil celebrants to become ‘religious marriage celebrants’ allowing them to discriminate, discussed above. This ‘right’ has not previously been offered (nor sought apparently) in relation to people who remarry – it is only being added now to allow discrimination against LGBTI couples. That is homophobia, pure and simple.

[iv] “A chaplain may refuse to solemnise a marriage under this Part on any grounds which appear to the chaplain to be sufficient and, in particular, on the ground that, in the opinion of the chaplain, the solemnisation of the marriage would be inconsistent with international law or the comity of nations.”

[v] The other two positive features of the draft legislation are the proposed change to the definition of marriage (sub-section 5(1) “Omit ‘a man and a woman’, substitute ‘2 people’”) and the recognition of existing same-sex marriages.

Submission to NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Youth Suicide

 

The NSW Parliamentary Committee on Children and Young People is currently holding an inquiry into the prevention of youth suicide. Full details can be found here. The following is my personal submission:

 

c/- childrenyoungpeople@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Sunday 27 August 2017

 

Dear Committee

 

Submission to Inquiry into Youth Suicide in NSW

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to this important inquiry.

 

In this submission, I will be focusing on items (g) and (h) from the inquiry’s terms of reference: ‘Approaches taken by primary and secondary schools’ and ‘Any other related matters’ respectively.

 

Specifically, I will be discussing these terms of reference and how they relate to one of the groups that is disproportionately affected by mental health issues, depression and suicide: young lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.

 

The National LGBTI Health Alliance confirms that LGBTI people, and especially young LGBTI people, are at much higher risk of suicide than non-LGBTI people. From the Alliance’s July 2016 ‘Snapshot of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Statistics for LGBTI People’:

 

“Compared to the general population, LGBTI people are more likely to attempt suicide in their lifetime, specifically:

 

  • LGBTI young people aged 16 to 27 are five times more likely
  • Transgender people aged 18 and over are nearly eleven times more likely
  • People with an intersex variation aged 16 and over are nearly six times more likely
  • LGBT young people who experience abuse and harassment are even more likely to attempt suicide.

 

Statistics for LGBTI Population:

 

  • 16% of LGBTI young people aged 16 to 27 reported that they had attempted suicide
  • 35% of Transgender people aged 18 and over have attempted suicide in their lifetime
  • 19% of people with an Intersex variation aged 16 and over had attempted suicide on the basis of issues related [to] their Intersex status
  • 8% of Same-Gender Attracted and Gender Diverse young people aged between 14 and 21 years had attempted suicide, 18% had experienced verbal abuse, and 37% of those who experienced physical abuse.

 

Statistics for General Population:

 

  • 2% of people (4.4% females; 2.1% males) aged 16 and over have attempted suicide in their lifetime; 0.4% of general population (0.5% females; 0.3% males) in the last 12 months
  • 1% of people (1.7% females; 0.5% males) aged 16 to 24 have attempted suicide in the past 12 months.”

 

These statistics are obviously incredibly alarming, and reveal the scale of the challenge of mental health issues experienced by LGBTI people, and especially young LGBTI people.

 

What should not be forgotten is that there is nothing inherently ‘wrong’ with LGBTI people, and LGBTI young people – their disproportionate rates of suicide are in response to external factors, including a lack of acceptance (or feared lack of acceptance) from parents, other family members and friends, as well as society-wide homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia.

 

Another contributing factor to high rates of LGBTI youth suicide – and perhaps most relevantly to this inquiry – is the school environment. While some schools are welcoming to all young people, including those of diverse sexual orientations, gender identities and sex characteristics, other schools are far less welcoming – and some are even outright hostile.

 

For the purposes of this submission, I would nominate two key factors that help determine whether a school is welcoming of LGBTI young people:

 

  • Whether it has an explicit program addressing anti-LGBTI bullying (such as Safe Schools), and
  • Whether it has an inclusive curriculum for LGBTI students, with content that is relevant to their needs.

 

The importance of these two factors is confirmed by the 2010 Writing Themselves In 3 Report (by La Trobe University), which found that:

 

  • “61% of young people reported verbal abuse because of homophobia.
  • 18% of young people reported physical abuse because of homophobia.
  • School was the most likely place of abuse – 80% of those who were abused” (p39).

 

This last statistic is perhaps the most disturbing. Instead of being a place of learning, for far too many LGBTI young people, school is a place of intimidation, intolerance, and fear.

 

Although even more worrying is the fact that the proportion of students nominating school as a site of abuse increased from 1998 to 2004, and then again from 2004 to 2010 (p45) – rather than being more welcoming today, the schoolyard and the classroom is becoming more abusive.

 

Similarly, the Writing Themselves In 3 Report demonstrated that, in far too many schools, LGBTI students are not being included in the curriculum, both generally and specifically in relation to Health & Physical Education (including sex education).

 

From page 79: “10% of young people reported that their school did not provide any form of Sexuality Education at all.”

 

Even where some sexuality education was provided, it was primarily targeted at cisgender and heterosexual students. While almost 60% of students reported that the school provided information about heterosexual relationships, less than 20% received education about gay or lesbian relationships (p81).

 

And, while approximately 70% reported education about safe heterosexual sex, less than a quarter were instructed about safe gay sex and less than 20% about safe lesbian sex (p82).

 

Finally, roughly 1 in 10 reported learning that ‘homophobia is wrong’ as part of their sexuality education (p83), meaning that almost 90% of students were not receiving this important message.

 

Unfortunately, on both of these issues (anti-bullying programs, and an inclusive curriculum) NSW is clearly failing in its obligations to LGBTI young people.

 

First, in terms of Safe Schools, it was incredibly disappointing that the NSW Government abandoned this vital LGBTI anti-bullying program in April 2017.

 

Yes, there were some significant problems with this program – although not the ones that religious fundamentalists lied about in their dishonest campaign to undermine and destroy it.

 

Chief among the actual shortcomings of Safe Schools was the fact that it was an entirely optional program, meaning only a small proportion of schools had even begun to implement it by the time it was axed. Further, the schools that chose to implement it were likely the same schools that were already LGBTI-inclusive, while those that were less inclusive were far less likely to adopt the program.

 

Instead of abolishing Safe Schools, the NSW Government should have been working to ensure that it was rolled-out more widely, and ultimately to reach every school in the state (following the lead of Victoria) – because LGBTI students and young people exist in every school in the state.

 

Perhaps even worse than axing this program is the fact it has been replaced with a ‘general’ anti-bullying program and one that, based on media reports, does not include appropriate materials and resources to address the specific needs of LGBTI students and young people.

 

As reported in the Star Observer (Experts Slam NSW Anti-Bullying Resource as ‘Missed Opportunity for LGBTI Youth’, 21 July 2017:

 

“Leading health organisation ACON has expressed concern over the lack of LGBTI-specific tools and information in the new [anti-bullying] resource, despite liaising with the government in the months leading up to its launch.

 

Chief Executive of ACON Nicolas Parkhill said the new resource failed to meaningfully address the bullying, abuse, and discrimination faced by young LGBTI people.

 

“Bullying is an acute problem for young LGBTI people and this resources does not respond to their unique needs,” he said.

 

“Of concern is the absence of tools and resources that specifically address LGBTI bullying in schools – especially when we know it affects a significant proportion of young people.

 

“The government’s own report released earlier this month stated that 16.8 per cent of secondary school students in Australia are attracted to people of the same sex. That’s one in six students…

 

“We believe this resource falls short in responding to LGBTI bullying and there needs to be more emphasis placed on the needs of young LGBTI people.”

 

Based on this critique, it appears that the NSW Government has axed a program that was specifically designed to address anti-LGBTI bullying – which, as we saw earlier, is a contributing factor to LGBTI youth suicide – and replaced it with a ‘generalist’ anti-bullying program that does little to reduce this behaviour.

 

That is clearly not good enough.

 

Recommendation 1: The NSW Government should roll-out the Safe Schools program, or a similar program that specifically and explicitly deals with anti-LGBTI bullying, in every school across the state.

 

The Personal Development, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE) Syllabus is also not good enough in terms of how it includes – or, in many cases, excludes – LGBTI students and information that is relevant to their needs.

 

Earlier this year, the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) released a new draft PDHPE K-10 Syllabus for public consultation. Unfortunately, it fell far short of what is necessary to educate LGBTI students across the state, or to contribute to a reduction in youth suicide among this group.

 

As I outlined in my submission to NESA about the draft Syllabus (see Every Student. Every School. Submission on Draft NSW Personal Development, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE) Syllabus K-10), its problems include that:

 

  • It does not define the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex
  • It does not guarantee that all students in all schools will learn about these sexual orientations, gender identities or sex characteristics
  • It does not include sufficient LGBTI anti-bullying content, and
  • It does not offer appropriate, or adequate, sexual health education for students who are not cisgender and heterosexual, including a lack of information about sexually transmissible infections and diverse sexual practices.

 

If the PDHPE K-10 Syllabus is implemented without significant and substantive changes to the draft that was released, another generation of LGBTI young people will grow up without being told in the classroom that who they are is okay, and without learning vital information on how to keep themselves safe.

 

That would represent a failure of the NSW Government to exercise the duty of care that it owes to all students across the state.

 

Recommendation 2: The NSW Government should ensure that the PDHPE K-10 Syllabus is inclusive of LGBTI students, and provides content that is relevant to their needs, including comprehensive sexual health education.

 

The previous two issues – anti-bullying programs, and an inclusive curriculum – relate to term of reference (g) (Approaches taken by primary and secondary schools).

 

However, there is one final, non-school related matter that I would like to raise in this submission (under term of reference (h) – ‘Any other related matters’).

 

That is the issue of ‘ex-gay therapy’ or ‘gay conversion therapy’. As the name suggests, this practice aims to convince LGBT people that who they are is wrong, and that they should try to stop being who they are and instead attempt to be cisgender and heterosexual.

 

Let us be clear – ‘ex-gay therapy’ or ‘gay conversion therapy’ is not therapy, and does not offer anything ‘therapeutic’ to the people who are subjected to it. It is not counselling, nor does it have any basis in medical or scientific fact.

 

It is fundamentally harmful, and preys upon vulnerable people, exploiting their fears, their isolation and their insecurities. It leaves the vast majority of people feeling far worse, and can cause, or exacerbate, depression and other mental health issues, including leading to suicide.

 

Ex-gay therapy is psychological abuse, and the people who continue to ‘offer’ this practice are psychological abusers.

 

The NSW Government should outlaw this practice both because it is wrong, and because it is inherently harmful. This should be implemented by a criminal penalty for anyone conducting ex-gay therapy, with a separate penalty for advertising such services.

 

The imposition of ex-gay therapy on young LGBT people is particularly heinous, given they are especially vulnerable. Therefore, the fact that a person being subjected to ex-gay therapy is under 18 should be an aggravating factor for these criminal offences, attracting an increased penalty.

 

The prohibition of ex-gay therapy, and the protection of vulnerable LGBT people – and especially young LGBT people – from this practice is urgently required to help remove another cause of mental health issues, including possible suicide, of LGBTI youth in NSW.

 

Recommendation 3: The NSW Government should ban the practice of ‘ex-gay therapy’ or ‘gay conversion therapy’, making both conducting this practice, and advertising it, criminal offences. Offering these services to LGBT people under the age of 18 should be considered aggravating factors, attracting increased penalties.

 

Thank you for taking this submission into consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the details provided should you require additional information, or to clarify any of the above.

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

There's no place for discrimination in the classroom-7

NSW schools have an important role to play in preventing LGBTI youth suicide – one that they are currently failing to fulfil.

28 Reasons to Vote Yes on Marriage Equality

Untitled design-3

 

  1. Vote yes on marriage equality because love does not discriminate, and neither should the Marriage Act

 

  1. Vote yes for the tens of thousands of LGBTIQ Australian couples who are waiting for the opportunity to marry in front of family members and friends – just like anybody else

 

  1. And for other LGBTIQ couples who don’t want to get married, but who deserve the right to make that decision for themselves and not have it imposed upon them by the Parliament

 

  1. Vote yes out of respect for the couples where one or both have died over the past 13 years without being allowed to marry the love of their life[i]

 

  1. And to stop this same fate being experienced by other couples in the future

 

  1. Vote yes because no-one should be forced to divorce their spouse in order to have their gender identity recognised under the law[ii]

 

  1. Vote yes because a successful marriage is based on the content of your character, not your sex characteristics[iii]

 

  1. Vote yes to make it easier for LGBTIQ Australians to prove their relationships, especially when it matters most[iv]

 

  1. Vote yes to recognise the marriages of thousands of LGBTIQ Australians that already exist, having wed overseas

 

  1. And to ensure that, when some of those relationships break down, they are able to divorce[v]

 

  1. Vote yes so that all members of a family are treated exactly the same under the law

 

  1. Vote yes so that parents, and grandparents, and brothers and sisters, are able to attend the weddings of their family members

 

  1. And so that the children of rainbow families can attend the weddings of their parents

 

  1. Vote yes for all of the lesbian grandmas, gay uncles, bi aunts, trans nephews and intersex nieces, and queer cousins

 

  1. Vote yes if you think that your child should be able to marry whoever they want to when they grow up

 

  1. Vote yes if you think that every child should be able to marry whoever they want to when they grow up

 

  1. Vote yes on marriage equality for your friends

 

  1. And your colleagues

 

  1. And your teammates

 

  1. And your neighbours, and all of the LGBTIQ people in your community

 

  1. Vote yes for the many young LGBTIQ Australians still struggling to comes to terms with who they are, wondering whether they are accepted

 

  1. And for older LGBTIQ Australians who have experienced a lifetime of discrimination

 

  1. Vote yes for every LGBTIQ Australian, to show them that they are not lesser and should not be treated as lesser under the Marriage Act

 

  1. Vote yes because you are LGBTIQ yourself and this is a matter of pride

 

  1. Vote yes because you believe in a fair go for all, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics

 

  1. Vote yes because you think Australia can be a better, fairer and more inclusive country

 

  1. And because you want to help make Australia a better, fairer and more inclusive country

 

  1. Vote yes on marriage equality because all love is equal, and it’s time we changed the law to reflect that.

 

original_1495494419744.405

 

Two final points:

  • Please share this post, adding your own reason(s) why you will be voting for marriage equality. Or come up with your own list, and share that. Because we have the arguments on our side, but we need to be making them from right now until the postal survey closes.

 

  • To find out how else you can get involved in the Yes campaign, including volunteering opportunities, visit their website here.

 

Footnotes:

[i] Like long-term LGBTIQ rights campaigners Peter and Bon, who were together for half a century, with Bon passing away earlier this year after having pleaded with Malcolm Turnbull to allow them to marry before he died – a plea that was ignored.

[ii] Australia was criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee earlier this year because of its policy of forced trans divorce. Find out more here.

[iii] To find out more about how discrimination in the Marriage Act affects people with intersex traits, see OII Australia’s submission to the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016.

[iv] Tragically, Tasmanian Ben Jago was unable to bury his de facto partner, or even attend his funeral, after his premature death (see this piece in the Guardian). While such discrimination is already unlawful, being married would make these situations far less common.

[v] Australia has also been criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee because of its failure to allow LGBTIQ couples that have married overseas to be able to divorce when those relationships break down. Find out more here.

7 things we need to do now

Commonwealth_ Sex Discrimination Act 1984-3

 

At the end of a long week – which felt more like a month, and frankly had a year’s worth of ups and (mostly) downs – it’s time to take stock, and work out what we do next.

 

Thankfully, there are now two challenges to the Government’s pseudo postal plebiscite (aka the Australian Bureau of Statistics ‘Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey’), which will be heard by the High Court on September 5 and 6.

 

However, while we might hope for the best – that the judiciary finds this extraordinary and unprecedented process to be an unconstitutional abuse of executive power – we must also prepare ourselves for the worst.

 

In that context, I offer the following seven suggestions of how we should respond to Malcolm Turnbull’s supposed statistical survey:

 

  1. Enrol

 

The Government has already announced that, in order to participate in the ‘plebiscite’, you must be on the electoral roll by 6pm on Thursday 24 August.

 

So, the most immediate thing you need to do is:

 

  • Check your enrolment here.

 

  • If you aren’t enrolled, enrol to vote here.

 

Even if you are currently intending to boycott the ‘Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey’, you might end up changing your mind in the coming weeks and months, so please update your enrolment now and leave your options open in September and October.

 

  1. Engage

 

This step is harder than the first, especially when emotions are understandably running high and we feel that the process that has been inflicted upon us is incredibly unfair (because it is). But that doesn’t mean the pseudo postal plebiscite is necessarily going away either.

 

Which means we need to engage, with our family members (including extended family), our friends, our colleagues, our peers, basically anyone and everyone we have connections with, to encourage them to support the fight for equality.

 

Of course, there are limits to this ask. Don’t engage with trolls, or with people who show they are unwilling to genuinely engage with you (neither group is worth your time). And don’t engage where you don’t feel comfortable, and above all, safe in doing so.

 

But, please have these conversations wherever and whenever you can, because that’s how we remind people who are already on our side what they need to do, and how we persuade the people who have yet to make up their minds.

 

  1. Educate

 

This step, which is related to number two, is much more difficult again. It is hard when the decision by the Turnbull Coalition Government to hold this pseudo postal plebiscite has already politicised every minute, every hour and every day of our lives – politicised our mere existence – until this farce is over.

 

And there’s no denying the perennial problem that in struggles for justice, the burden of educating the oppressors falls disproportionately on the oppressed (when people should instead bear responsibility for educating themselves).

 

Nevertheless, there will still be many opportunities in the months ahead for genuine education. To provide information to people who may not have thought about LGBTIQ issues before. To answer questions from those who don’t know a lot about us, or our relationships, but who show a sincere desire to learn.

 

Of course, for many in our community, for different reasons, this task is not something they are willing or able to do – and that’s totally okay. And for anyone who does decide to engage in these discussions, you should always remember that your personal information is yours, and you should only disclose as much as you feel comfortable. Nobody has a ‘right’ to know everything about you.

 

But for those of us who are in a position to have these conversations, we should. And if you need help getting started, Australian Marriage Equality/The Equality Campaign have produced a number of useful resources (including translations into Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Arabic, Hindi, Greek, Italian, and Spanish).

 

  1. Vote

 

We’ve reached the fourth step on my list, and the third most important: to vote (and obviously to vote yes).

 

Before I start, I’d like to say to anyone who is currently considering boycotting the pseudo postal plebiscite that I completely understand where you’re coming from. It is a bullshit process, imposed for bullshit reasons. It is inherently offensive to LGBTIQ people; it is insulting, and demeaning, to our relationships.

 

In fact, the decision by Liberal and National MPs and Senators to adopt a supposed statistical survey on marriage equality made me even more angry, and frustrated, about a subject that I thought had exhausted my reserves of both. Despite all this, I have decided that I will vote, and I urge you to do the same, for the following reasons:

 

a) Most LGBTIQ people think we should

 

Before the Government’s appalling actions this week, PFLAG and just.equal conducted a survey of 5,261 LGBTI Australians to ascertain their views about a possible postal vote, and how we should respond as a community.

 

Only 15.2% thought we should boycott such a vote, with more than half publicly opposed to a postal ballot but prepared to win it if it’s held. And, even though that survey was conducted based on a hypothetical, and the subsequent reality might have changed the depth of our feelings, I don’t think it has altered our thinking.

 

b) Most LGBTIQ community organisations think we should

 

For people who have been engaged in LGBTIQ advocacy for a while, it’s no secret we sometimes don’t play well together. Which makes it all the more extraordinary that nearly all major community organisations have come out in the past 24-48 hours to say that, while they oppose the pseudo postal plebiscite, they will fight to win it.

 

How ironic that Malcolm Turnbull’s divisive debate, that will cause such disharmony across Australian society, could end up being a powerful unifying moment within the LGBTIQ community itself.

 

c) Pragmatic politics

 

There are several political reasons why we should vote, including the obvious one: that a yes vote offers the best chance (albeit no guarantee) of marriage equality being passed this year. A significant yes majority will also diminish the influence of the groups that oppose LGBTIQ rights, like the Australian Christian Lobby, not just on this topic but across all issues.

 

But, even if we lose (which is a real possibility, given a voluntary postal opinion poll has significant flaws, and skews towards older, more conservative voters, effectively stacking the decks against us), the closer the loss the easier it will be for Labor and the Greens to introduce marriage equality in future.

 

d) Personal

 

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have a strong personal motivation to campaign for equality: the desire to finally marry my fiancé of seven and a half years. However, as much as I love Steven – and trust me, it’s a lot – he’s not the reason I will be voting, and voting yes.

 

Teenage Alastair is. Who realised he was gay on his first day at a religious boarding school in Brisbane in 1991. Who took about a month to understand just how homophobic his surrounding environment was, and became depressed. Who, from the second term of year 8, until the final term of year 12, thought about ending his life every day, multiple times a day, because he feared he would never find acceptance for who he was.

 

Alastair aged 12 to 17 probably wouldn’t have understood the ethical reasons why some people in the LGBTIQ community might have wanted to boycott a supposed statistical survey. But he definitely would have understood the message of a large no victory: that his country was explicitly rejecting him, and anyone like him.

 

So, I’m voting for him.

 

Many of us have been that person. Most of us know someone who has been through something similar. All of us can empathise with what that fear, that isolation, that loneliness, feels like. So let’s stand up for all of them – including those who tragically didn’t make it – and vote yes.

 

  1. Take Care of Yourself

 

We already know that, if the pseudo postal plebiscite is not rejected by the High Court, the next four months are going to be awful. There will be misinformation, and outright lies, spread against us by those who wish to do us harm. Indeed, their hate-based campaign has already started – so much for the Prime Minister’s so-called #respectfuldebate.

 

We should not underestimate the impact that this battle will have on all of us, or the fact it will disproportionately affect the more vulnerable groups within the LGBTIQ community itself (including young people, trans and gender diverse people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander LGBTIQ people and rainbow families and their children).

 

Throughout this process, we must all take care of ourselves.

 

There are services in place that can help if you need it, including:

 

  • QLife, the national telephone and web counselling service for LGBTI people, families and friends. Call 1800 184 527, 3pm to midnight everyday.

 

 

For a longer list of the support services available to LGBTIQ+ community, see this article by SBS.

 

Beyond these formal services, however, there are plenty of other ways to practice self-care, and self-love, during this time. If you need to talk to someone, reach out to your friends and other people in your life. If you are finding yourself negatively affected by the public debate and/or social media, switch off. If you have to take a break from the campaign, do – drop out for as long as you need.

 

For other tips on what you can do to take care of yourself, see the helpful info-graphic produced by ACON at the end of this article. If you are a member of an LGBTIQ family, you can also check out this handy guide produced by Rainbow Families. And if you are aware of, or come across, other useful resources, please don’t hesitate to share them in the comments below.

 

  1. And Each Other

 

The other, equally important, part of this equation is to look out for, and take care of, each other.

 

It is difficult to imagine a process that causes more damage, or has the prospect for greater division, than the three-month long, voluntary, non-binding ‘Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey’ designed by the Turnbull Government.

 

Indeed, that may have been the intention of some of those who advocated this option. At best, Coalition MPs and Senators have shown that they are completely indifferent to the harm the pseudo postal plebiscite will cause the LGBTIQ community.

 

They don’t care about us. So we must care about each other.

 

Be pro-active. Check in with the people around you to see they are okay. If you notice someone struggling, ask how they’re going, give them a call, have a cup of tea, offer a helping hand – or a shoulder to cry on.

 

Over recent decades, the LGBTIQ community has had to endure many challenges, to show resilience in the face of adversity. We need to do so again now.

 

**********

 

These last two steps – Take Care of Yourself. And Each Other – aren’t just the catchphrase of a trashy 90s talk-show host. They are also the two most important things we need to do in the coming weeks and months. Because while winning this vote, and achieving marriage equality, might be important, we – the members of the LGBTIQ community – are more important.

 

Before I finish, however, there is one last point that I need to make:

 

  1. Allies – It’s time to step up

 

I still remember early last year (although it seems longer) standing in front of a room full of mostly-cisgender, heterosexual activists and asking them for their help to win ‘Plebiscite 1.0’ – because the LGBTIQ community could not possibly win it on our own.

 

Well, that plea is just as relevant, probably even more so, for ‘Plebiscite 2.0’, especially with the challenges of voluntary postal voting, and an overall process engineered to benefit the side of those opposed to marriage equality.

 

If you consider yourself an ally of the LGBTIQ community, it’s time to step up. If you are a family member, friend, colleague or peer of an LGBTIQ person, it’s time to get involved.

 

Enrol. Engage and Educate (and, if you need to, educate yourselves). Vote, and encourage others to vote, too. I also have no doubt it will be an awful experience for many of you to see the trauma inflicted on the LGBTIQ people close to you – so look after them, as well as yourselves.

 

Most importantly, stand with us, by our sides, in this battle. Sit with us, and listen to us, if we ask you to. And fight for us, because we need you to.

 

And, if you’re not convinced by me, listen to the excellent advice of the even more excellent GetUp marriage equality campaigner, Sally Rugg:

 

“If you have ever put a rainbow filter on your Facebook profile picture, return your ballot paper the day you receive it.

 

If you have a friend, a family member or a co-worker who is LGBTIQ+, return your ballot paper the day you receive it.

 

If you have ever cringed at the words “one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others” at a wedding, return your ballot paper the day you receive it…

 

The postal plebiscite will be won or lost on how allies of the LGBTIQ+ community step up over the next two months.”

 

Over to you.

 

20728981_10156450372983222_6525108270708426171_o