Rodney Croome . gay advocate

'Who or what do we turn to?'

Readers respond to the question 'what's wrong with Australia?'

Australian Marriage Equality has calculated that marriage discrimination costs the Australian economy $742 million.

Based on the methodology of recent US studies, AME calculated the cost from three variables: the overall number of same-sex couples (as indicated by the Census), the percentage of these who would marry if they had the opportunity (as found by a recent national study at the University of Queensland) and how much an average wedding costs in Australia.

The figures AME used were very conservative, especially the number of same-sex couples which the Bureau of Statistics admits is a gross under-estimate.

Imagine how much higher the figure would be if we had a truer count of same-sex relationships.

It would be even higher if we factored in revenue from international visitors marrying in Australia.

If we had a way of calculating the cost of prejudice and discrimination fostered by marriage discrimination, the figure would be higher still.

But $742 million is pretty big. Amending a few words in the Marriage Act would give this country one heck of a financial stimulus package.

*

Recently, in a moment of frustration prompted by Cindy McCain’s endorsement of marriage equality, I asked what’s wrong with Australia that so few public figures are willing to stand up for equality. I put some of the responsibility on equality advocates for not explaining the importance of the issue clearly enough.

Jim Woulfe responded with some important points…

In Australia there’s less at stake: In many parts of the US, same-sex partners are denied access to health insurance, hospital visiting rights, access to property and inheritance laws ... the list goes on and on. For them, getting the same rights as opposite-sex de facto couples just doesn’t work, because the straight non-married couples miss out on all those rights too. In the US the issue is much more clearly defined - it’s marriage or nothing.

Marriage is a symbol, possibly of declining importance: For us, equal marriage will give access to the symbolism, and all that flows from it - the rights issues are largely resolved. With fewer and fewer couples marrying, the symbolism is not as powerful today as it once was, and each successful non-marital couple is further evidence that marriage might not be worth the effort. The great progress we’ve made in achieving protections for straight and gay de facto couples has made equal marriage a less pressing issue.

Symbolism is a hard sell: This doesn’t mean that I wish to downplay the symbolism – the perception that same-sex relationships are less worthy is extremely corrosive, and nothing has the power to destroy that perception like equal marriage. However symbolism is a hard sell. You can easily demonstrate the importance of equality in financial and health matters. Demonstrating how someone is disadvantaged by denial of access to a symbol is really hard.

Australians are difficult to engage on many symbolic issues: Possibly Australians find it particularly difficult to get excited about symbols, whether it’s the ones we have or the ones we don’t have. The monarchy is a case in point. Most of us think we should have our own head of state, but there’s little energy driving the republican debate – there’s a committed fringe at each end of the issue, but the majority in the middle are unable to get excited about this symbolic issue. Or Mary McKillop’s impending sainthood: for many Catholics it’s a hugely important symbol, but you don’t get a sense that the majority of Australians are excited about it. I recall a Newspoll at the time of our most recent major symbolic event, the apology to the stolen generations, indicating that 30% of Australians were opposed and a further large minority were uncommitted.

Equality advocates aren’t to blame: I think it’s a bit harsh blaming equality advocates because Australians can’t get engaged by our particular issue. Yes, it’s important, and like the monarchy question, there’s a large complacent middle with supporting and opposing partisans at either end. I think it will take time and patience to shift the well-meaning centre in our direction (if it ever happens). Meanwhile, our lives are visibly equal in virtually every respect. If fault can be found with equality advocates, it is simply that you have been too successful.

Christopher Hii also took on the challenge of analysing the differences between the US and Australia.

Yes, you're right it is amazing that Cindy and Meghan McCain had come out guns blazing in support of marriage equality.

HRC's President Solmonese said on their website against Senator McCain's anti gay marriage position, “Views like those touted in Senator McCain’s statement are not only out of the mainstream in America, but are also clearly out of step in his own household. The fact is that millions of Americans are living in long-term, committed relationships that deserve to be treated fairly by our government. Anything less simply falls short of the founding tenants of our great country.”

I do believe that Australians in general are more laid back politically. I certainly was until I met (my American partner) Scott. When I was dating other Australians, I was not as motivated to change the system until one day I find myself in a relationship with an American life partner, and neither of us had any guaranteed rights, starting from the very basic migration rights to even be in the same country.

I do find Americans more nationalistic (a double edged sword) and more aware of the political process than the average Australians. America has many renowned human rights leaders who are willing to die for their causes, such as King and Milk. The American Constitution is very present in their lives, and they seem to have an intuitive feel for their rights. As a result of this, people are more willing to express their views resulting in a more polarised society.

Americans in general are more willing to stray out of their own backyards than Aussies. This means that straight allies are more willing to help in the political process but it also means that the bigots are more motivated to do the opposite, are equally well if not better funded and organized to prevent progress.

Organisation, this is an area where I think America trumps Australia hands down. My partner donates and contributes to the HRC, pro LGBT churches and fair minded politicians. The HRC is located in DC, is efficient, is organised and is well funded. HRC is poised to send out national alerts to members demanding action alerts when a bill is being voted on by Congress. We get daily updates on their website and weekly updates by email. It has to be mean and lean in order to counter punch the equally well funded and organised anti LGBT extremists.

Where is the equivalent in Australia? It is an egg and the chicken question isn't it?

While the recent survey showed that the majority of Australians are pro gay marriage, who is leading them to action? Is there a national organisation in Australia who will coordinate marketing campaigns such as HRC - e.g. Matthew Shepard's mother is the champion for the Matthew Shepard Act. Who is seeking high profile members of the public willing to to support our causes - both gay and straight? Who is coordinating media campaigns on a national level to get these messages across? Are we using campaign technology to our best advantage such as Facebook and Twitter? And is there somebody liaising and coordinating with separate LGBT lobby groups in Australia for support and funding? Do we need a base in Canberra to lobby, coordinate and administer ? Who is raising the funds on a national level for this fight?

The Catholics have the Pope and Vatican, the Mormons have LDS church in Utah, the Muslims turn to Mecca when they pray but who or what do we turn to?

But you are right, it starts with the ones who want to see this change and I truly believe the right move going forward is a strategic and collective effort to bring awareness and stir people into action. It has to be a grass root movement and we need one well funded and organised body to execute this in the long run. All this ain't going to happen by itself.

Marital parity is the final frontier.

There’s a danger in framing the debate, as I have done, in terms of the differences between the US and Australia.

The US is exceptionally divided on socio/legal issues, meaning Australian’s are not necessarily as complacent, cautious or uninterested in symbols as such a comparison might suggest.

For example, a quick comparison with Canada and New Zealand shows we care far more about the symbolism associated with having QEII as our head of state.

We certainly have cared no less, and in some cases more, about the symbolism of citizenship for Aborigines, participating in the Vietnam War, having a modern capital, having an appropriate national anthem...the list goes on.

But whatever Australia’s national character may be, the fact remains that marriage equality must, at some stage, be achieved.

This stark fact brings me back to leadership, advocacy and activism because, unlike national character, these are things which we have some control over.

History will judge us by what we failed to change, not by what we couldn't change.

**

Asking the question, equality how?, inevitably raises the old streets v suits dichotomy.

Which is more useful, enlisting a singer to send out your message, or chanting it yourself?

I’ve never understood why this question is even asked, except as an arcane debating point. Obviously both are necessary.

Although when I saw a guy dressed as Mickey Mouse spruiking marriage equality in Melbourne last year, I did ask myself whether the medium matched the message.

Whether it’s streets or suits, good taste applies.

***

In other news,

If the implication of this story is that the victims have become the aggressors, it couldn’t be more wrong.

The same goes for this story if the implication is that the Opera House (another example of Australians valuing symbols) is being devalued.

Nepal wants some of those same-sex marriage dollars Australia is missing.


John Frame explains why Queensland’s criminal law still discriminates.

A UK survey finds 77% of gay and bisexual men would donate blood if they could (it’s not a figure I put much store in, but it does indicate pretty deep concern about the issue).

And

Nicholas Richardson argues against marriage equality.

He seems to think the practical benefits don’t count for much (tell that to a same-sex partner whose denied hospital visitation rights because she can’t prove her relationship to her sick partner).

And he completely overlooks the way marriage allows partners to belong, to be included in and to connect with, not only each other, but their families and the broader community.

For more on this check out AME’s submission to last year’s Senate marriage equality inquiry.