Rodney Croome . gay advocate

Election (Aus, 2010)

Grateful

The conservative independents should support a conscience vote on marriage equality, not be frightened by it.

Despite marriage equality having a high and positive profile during the election, far beyond the LGBTI community and the inner city, it seems the Australian newspaper still thinks the issue is a little scary, or at least a low priority.

This front page story echoes message the Coalition is sending the three country independents whose support it needs to govern: don’t support Labor because they are tied to the Greens and the Greens are too radical.

Some of the newspaper’s correspondents have backed up the sentiment, as has polemicist Kenneth Wiltshire,

"Consider…the remarkable statement at the weekend from Bob Brown that, under the alliance with Labor, the Greens will achieve their radical social and economic objectives by means of private member's bills and demands that Labor grant a conscience vote on them.

Through this back door Labor would be able to introduce the Greens' priorities on gay marriage, softer border protection, and heftier mining taxes and so on. It is a safe bet that the voters of Lyne, New England and Kennedy are opposed to these and many other Greens' demands to which Labor and Wilkie will almost certainly succumb, especially after July 1 next year."

This is incorrect.

The opinion poll results on marriage equality for regional areas, among conservative voters and/or in Queensland all hover between 50 and 55%.

Voters in Lyne, New England and Kennedy support marriage equality too.

As for Andrew Wilkie, he represents an electorate where 64% of electors voted for a candidate who supports marriage equality, and he shares the Greens’ desire for a conscience vote.

Let’s hope the rural independents see through the scare tactics.

In fact, if they are true independents they will also support a conscience vote, regardless of their personal view.

***

In other equality news,

While the Australian is all about same-sex marriage, the Fairfax press is all about same-sex parenting.

The SMH draws our attention to the rise of Rainbow Families.

The Brisbane Times has Qld Premier, Anna Bligh, ruling out adoption equality.

And in other news altogether

As a gay man, and as an advocate, I am so grateful for Ian Roberts. So, so grateful.

[ comments? ]

Election (Aus, 2010)

Freedom v equality

Why a conscience vote on marriage equality makes good sense.

Labor has again ruled out any forward movement on marriage equality.

In their negotiations with the minority Gillard Government about forming a majority administration, the Greens and Tasmanian Independent, Andrew Wilkie, both sought a conscience vote on the issue, and both were unsuccessful.

Inevitably Wilkie and the Greens will be criticised for nonetheless sealing a deal, but that’s pretty harsh given their options.

A concession from an Abbott-led Coalition, either now or in the future, is even more unlikely than from Labor.

To stave off the critics, the Greens have re-iterated their support for marriage equality.

Lower House Green, Adam Bandt, has gone one step further and stated his opposition to supporting a national civil union scheme before marriage equality is achieved.

Yesterday on Melbourne radio he said,

"My inclination would be to not support that. It may be that we only get one shot at this, and it may be that that actually puts it off...that if we vote for that, that we're entrenching two tiers of relationships."

Spot on!

*

So why is Labor still ruling out any change to its anti-equality stance?

Surely, it heard the message loud and clear: marriage equality was a major issue for voters in inner-city electorates it lost (Melbourne, Denison) or suffered huge losses in (eg Grayndler and Sydney).

In the interview referred to above, Bandt made it quite clear he won thanks, in part, to the Greens’ support for marriage equality.

Well, the messages are still muffled and unclear, but what I am hearing is that Labor has taken exactly the opposite message from the election result.

Apparently, some Labor strategists belief the Party lost votes in outer Sydney and Brisbane because it wasn’t disciplined enough in its opposition to marriage equality.

The inner-city seats are a side show for these people, compared to the perceived problem of Labor-skeptical mega-churches in outer urban marginals.

Is it possible for Labor strategists to be more irrational?

Academics like Marion Maddox have argued convincingly that mega-church pastors do not have the electoral clout they tell Labor they have.

Their churches draw congregants from across many different electorates, and are not concentrated in any one electorate in sufficient numbers to make a difference (mega-churches are the child of the SUV and the freeway).

Meanwhile, Labor is actually losing seats in the inner city in its vain attempt to pander to these over-reaching outer-urban clergymen.

I’ve long suspected that Labor strategists deliberately misguide their Party colleagues.

They argue for opposition to marriage equality on what appear to be hard-headed grounds, but in fact they are simply rationalising their own personal prejudices.

If it’s true Labor is now retreating even further from marriage equality, that suspicion is confirmed.

**

The other issue raised by the failure of Labor to grant a conscience vote on marriage equality is whether a conscience vote is such a great idea to start with.

Some might say the pressure should be kept up on the major parties to change their policies and vote for equality as a whole.

Some might fear that a conscience vote will mean the better-resourced opponents of reform will be more able to influence the outcome.

Both points make no sense to me.

The next chance Labor has to reverse its stated opposition to marriage equality as at its National Conference in 2012. Given the current Party stance, a complete change of heart seems less than certain. But even if the policy is reversed, there is nothing to say the Parliamentary Labor Party will move to support reform, certainly not with an election looming.

In the meantime a conscience vote will at least allow the issue to be debated, and we know that every time LGBTI issues are debated support increases, both inside and outside Parliament.

As for the “they-will-clobber-us” argument, the moment a major party shifts position on marriage equality, whether or not that shift is to allow a conscience vote, opponents of reform will break out the big guns.

I’ve seen them do this many times before on many different LGBTI issues and I’m not afraid. Quite the opposite. It sparks debate, and as I said debate is always good.

***

In other marriage-equality news,

Cyndi Lauper's consistent use of the term "freedom" when condemning marriage discrimination in Australia may reflect an interesting cultural difference between the US and Australian debates on the issue.

Here "marriage equality" is a far more commonly-used term than "freedom to marry". Does this reflect the greater focus on egalitarianism and corresponding lower focus on individual freedom in Australian political culture (or just a disjuncture in some opinion-makers' minds between marriage and freedom)?

According to this study, it doesn't really matter how you refer to the issue.

But what may make a difference is what aspect of the issue you emphasise.

What also makes a difference is avoiding it altogether with the term "civil union", especially if, like Gary Burns, you actually want to legally-entrench some kind of perceived difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships which does not actually exist.

And in other news altogether,

In response to an editorial in the Launceston Examiner asking questions about the constitutionality of Tasmania recognising overseas same-sex marriages as state civil partnerships, and the possibility of federal intervention of the kind seen in the ACT, I argue that there is no constitutional problem at all.

[ comments? ]

New South Wales

Shoddy Newsspeak substitutions

Adoption is about the capacity of couples to parent, not ideology, stereotypes or even, ultimately, statistics.

A Bill allowing same-sex couples to be assessed as potential adoptive parents has narrowly passed the NSW Lower House.

This is an important step forward. If the Bill passes the Upper House, NSW will join ACT and WA in allowing full equality in adoption (and Tas in allowing step-parent adoption).

Opponents of reform have been out in force (not withstanding what must be, for at least one of them, an unwelcomed distraction).

As always, they have shaped the debate as one about the general merits of same-sex parenting (they think it is harmful for children while the experts unanimously declare it is not).

This is an important debate but it’s not the central issue.

The core concern is that adoption agencies must have the fullest range of potential adoptive parents from whom to choose when trying to place children in a safe, loving home.

Seen this way, statistics comparing gender-based outcomes mean very little. It is about every potential parent, individually and/or as a couple, being assessed on the basis of their particular capacity to provide what a child needs.

This was a point I was trying to make on Sunrise this morning (rather unsuccessfully thanks to be being distracted by the noisy seagulls behind me). The Tasmanian Law Reform Institute made it much better in its report on same-sex adoption published in 2003:

"The Institute’s view is that it does not have to be satisfied that homosexual parenting in general is as good for children as being raised by a married heterosexual couple before recommending that gay and lesbian couples be eligible for adoption. It is our position that is in the best interests of children for parents to be evaluated individually on the basis of their ability to be good parents and not to be assessed on assumptions based on their sexual orientation.

The most obvious example of where gender categories mean nothing is where a child being well fostered by a same-sex couple would benefit from being adopted by that couple.

No amount of empirical evidence for or against same-sex parenting means anything next to the child’s obvious best interests in being able to call his foster dad, just plain “dad”.

Faced with examples like this, opponents of reform declare that same-sex couples can never provide a child with what they assert it really needs i.e. the supposed gender dichotomy that can supposedly only be found with a mother and a father.

But this is clearly an abstract, ideological view of gender and its importance, and ideology has no place in the complex world of human relationships.

It certainly has no place in state policy on how and in whose care children thrive.

*

Despite today's gain, all is not well in NSW legislation land.

The major parties had a conscience vote on the Adoption Bill. To muster the support they needed, proponents of reform proposed two exemptions to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act, one specifically allowing faith-based adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples and another to allow a relinquishing mother to ask for same-sex couples to be excluded from adopting her biological child.

Such exemptions are hard to swallow from the point-of-view of principle, although I can see the political imperative. The NSW Parliament is likely to have a conservative majority after the next state election, making reform even harder to achieve, possibly for many years to come.

However, what’s really troubling is that the above two exemptions were combined into one super exemption that seems to give all adoptions agencies and their individual employees free reign to discriminate against any potential adoptive parent in any way on any ground.

According to schedule 2 of the Adoption Amendment Bill, the Anti-Discrimination Act is amended so that,

"Nothing in this Act affects any policy or practice of an organisation or person providing adoption services under the Adoption Act 2000 or anything done to give effect to any such policy or practice."

I hope I’m wrong, but if not, watch out Muslims, people with disabilities, couples from disadvantaged areas, straight couples not intending to marry, or anyone who comes with an attached stereotype or demographic tag that marks them out from middle Australia.

It seems who can adopt in NSW just became even more about ideology and statistics and less about individual capacity than it was before.

***

In other news,

A school principal in Victoria has replaced the word "gay" in an Australian folk tune with “fun”.

From the point-of-view of someone with an interest in language, I believe children should be faced with the fact words change meaning (they should also not be subject to shoddy Newsspeak substitutions. Even its non-homosexual incarnation, "gay" meant something quite different to "fun").

From the POV of a gay man, I wish officials wouldn’t make these silly decisions without at least consulting with someone.

It’s the same with the (completely unnecessary) renaming of Fairy Penguins as “Little Penguins”. Officials make a foolish call, gays (as in "homosexuals") cop the inevitable backlash.

And

Matthew Mitcham introduces some common sense to the never-ending gay footballer debate.

[ comments? ]

Relationship registries

Bat-ball-home

What Australian relationship law needs is ever higher standards set by the states, not deadening homogeneity imposed from the centre.

The Tasmanian Lower House has amended the state’s Relationships Act so that personal unions from interstate and overseas will now be recognised as Deeds of Relationship (the local term for civil partnerships).

This is an important practical reform.

It means that couples from other places will now have their personal unions automatically recognised in Tasmania without the need to re-register these unions.

Places like Britian and New Zealand have recognised Tasmanian Deeds of Relationships as civil partnerships for five years.

This has been immensely useful for Tasmanian couples traveling in, moving to, or claiming benefits from, these countries.

Now the same practical benefits will operate in reverse.

But that’s not what the focus has been on, either in Parliament or the media.

The amendment also means overseas same-sex marriages will be deemed Deeds of Relationship.

Some members of the Tasmanian Parliament found this so offensive they tried to stop it with an amendment to the amendment blocking the recognition of these marriages.

But as other MPs pointed out, this would create the bizarre situation where Canadian same-sex civil partnerships will be recognised in Tasmania but not Canadian same-sex marriages.

It will create the equally absurd inconsistency that overseas marriages are recognised by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the Census, by the Department of Immigration as proof of a relationship, and by any number of large companies, but not in a law specifically designed to recognise overseas relationships.

Fortunately, these points carried the day.

Not even the utterly unexpected and strangely coincidental appearance of former National Party leader, arch marriage-equality opponent, and current Australian Ambassador to the Vatican, Tim Fischer, in the chamber when the amendment was being debated dented support for it.

The recognition amendment was carried 21 votes to 3 (the Liberals have a conscience vote on the Relationships Act and all but three of them supported the amendment).

The no-marriages amendment was defeated by the same margin.

The recognition amendment will go to the Upper House in about a month.

*

We know what this means for same-sex couples. What does it mean for the nation?

Despite constant Federal Government claims about creating “a nationally-consistent system of relationship recognition”, we have anything but.

The ACT is the only other jurisdiction that currently recognises personal unions from elsewhere. But thanks to Federal Government pressure this only includes other Australian jurisdictions with recognition schemes, i.e. Tasmania, NSW and Victoria. Indeed, the ACT is lucky to have this. The ACT Government’s snobbery about having a scheme superior to the others (i.e. more like marriage) saw it refusing to recognise the other schemes as recently as early this year.

NSW is the most recent scheme and, sadly, the weakest thanks to it being largely written on Capitol Hill and dictated to Macquarie St. A good point is that, like the ACT, the NSW scheme has a provision allowing schemes from other states to be recognised. But I understand no other schemes have actually been listed for recognition yet.

Victoria has no such provision because it is the scheme most closely modeled on Tasmania’s (of course, Tasmania originally had no such provision because its scheme came into force before all the others, including NZ, UK and many overseas schemes). I understand Victorian ALP policy has recently been amended to support the recognition of interstate and overseas unions.

The message Tasmania sends to all these jurisdictions, as well as the other states and territories without any kind of recognition scheme at all, is there’s a new standard to rise to when it comes to giving personal unions the respect and protection they deserve, not to be mention when it comes to “national consistency”.

The other national message is that developing stronger recognition of personal unions other than marriage is something that is far better left to the states than the Commonwealth.

The former have shown they can innovate and develop. The latter can only retard and dumb down.

If the Federal Government ever proposes a national partnership scheme instead of equality in marriage for same-sex couples my response would be “no”, not only because there is no substitute for full equality in marriage, but because it would stop the growth of the movement to recognise other relationships.

***

In other news,

Debate on equality in adoption begins on Thursday in NSW.

If the relevant legislation passes NSW will join the ACT, WA and Tas in allowing same-sex partners to be assessed as potential adoptive parents (Tas only allows this for children already known to the partners).

Church-based adoption agencies have threatened to withdraw from adoption services altogether if the Bill is passed, despite the fact that at least one of them actively recruits same-sex couples to be foster parents, despite the fact their services are almost entirely paid for using tax-payer funds, and despite their claim they put children’s interests first.

Sponsor of the legislation, Clover Moore, has responded by allowing them an exemption.

That seems not to have made any difference to the bat-ball-home adoption agencies. But perhaps it will to major-party MPs, who will have a conscience vote.

For info on how to ensure NSW MPs hear your voice in support of equality visit the website of the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby.

[ comments? ]

Election (Aus, 2010)

A vote for equality

The election result moves Australia closer to marriage equality.

Saturday’s election result was a vote for marriage equality.

Labor, which opposes full equality but support substitutes, suffered a dramatic decrease in support, particularly in inner-city electorates where the issue has the highest levels of support.

The Liberals, who also oppose equality and have traditionally beaten up on the issue to win support, experienced a swing in their favour, but not one large enough to give them Government.

The Greens, who strongly support marriage equality and were increasingly vocal about it as the campaign went on, were the big winners, seizing a Lower House seat and the balance of power in the Senate.

The minor parties that have most staunchly opposed marriage equality, including Family First, have virtually disappeared.

Of course, marriage equality was only one among many issues that led to this result.

But as the campaign went on it became an increasingly important one.

Indeed, marriage equality strode to centre stage thanks to the fact it was raised by such a wide variety of people in forums across the nation.

Long gone are the days when beating up on marriage equality was considered politically advantageous.

Now, as the retiring member for Denison, Duncan Kerr, acknowledges, it is electorally foolish to oppose it.

Just as the 2010 federal election campaign will be remembered as the time marriage equality went mainstream, so the election result will be remembered as moment the major parties began questioning the wisdom of being against it.

*

Not only were the 2010 campaign and 2010 vote both good for equality, the governing arrangement that will come therefrom will probably also be good.

It is too early to know who will form government minority government.

But from my experience of two Tasmanian Labor minority governments and one Liberal minority government, minority governments of either major party are good for LGBTI issues in general and hot-button LGBTI issues in particular.

In Tasmania this has been partly because the balance of power has rested with the Greens who have strong LGBTI policies.

But it is also because of the simple fact that the Government has to negotiate co-operatively with others to get its program through, opening up surprising possibilities for reform.

This is why I am optimistic about the future, regardless of the outcome of current negotiations over who will govern.

Whatever influence the Greens end up will inevitably be wielded by them to benefit equality.

And even though the three centre-right independents in the Lower House may not be as strong on LGBTI human rights as the Greens, as independents they understand the importance of individual conscience and may be persuaded to support, say, a free vote on marriage equality.

The duopoly of the equality-denying major parties has been broken, and that can only mean progress.

***

A survey of civil celebrants reveals some marriages may not be valid because legally-ordained word formulas have not been spoken correctly in some ceremonies, including the most controversial words of all "marriage in Australian law is the union of a man and a woman...".

This is put down to too many poorly-trained celebrants. But that is unfair.

One obvious problem is that the restriction of marriage to heterosexual unions does not sit well with an increasing number of heterosexual Australians.

When they ask for their marriage ceremony to be respectful of their gay friends and family members, the Government's officious response is "no".

We shouldn't under-estimate the extent to which this officiousness has increased support for marriage equality still further.

Another problem is the Government's lack of concern about celebrants.

In the past twelve months I have trained 50 to 60 Tasmanian civil celebrants about the new officially-recognised state partnership ceremonies, and the near-constant complaint I hear from them is how little useful information or help they receive from the Federal Government body responsible for registering them.

The problem is clearly the indifference of the Government, not the ignorance of celebrants.

So much for the Government's commitment to "upholding and strengthening traditional marriage".

[ comments? ]

Election (Aus, 2010)

'Christian heritage'

The more ridiculously our national leaders oppose marriage equality the more mainstream the issue becomes.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard continues to escalate her rhetoric against marriage equality right up to tomorrow’s federal poll.

To divert the attention of Christian conservatives from the “no God, no husband, no children” thing, she has declared she opposes marriage equality out of respect for Australia’s “Christian heritage”.

Gillard’s words are a stronger version of Senator Penny Wong’s “respect” for the cultural, religious and historical barriers to marriage equality.

But they also take the argument to a whole new level of conservative religious chauvinism and sectarianism.

Indeed, they elevate Gillard to the same league as former Tasmanian Attorney-General, Ron Cornish.

In 1994, in response to the UN's condemnation of Tasmania's former anti-gay laws, Cornish defended these laws by declaring "Tasmania is a Bible-based society", to the deep embarrassment of most Tasmanians and the amusement of most mainlanders.

If I start dissecting Gillard’s shocking statement, I will never stop. Instead, I’ll leave you in the capable hands of Peter Furness from Australian Marriage Equality.

Suffice to say, Julia Gillard has just become the world’s first openly-atheist theocrat.

*

Commentary on marriage equality continues to grow.

Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of people are talking about it.

And more and more people are talking about why lots of other people are talking about it.

I agree, the sudden high profile of marriage equality is remarkable.

In the 2007 election campaign nobody much was talking about the issue because the leaders of the major parties were against it.

In the 2010 campaign everybody is talking about the issue because the leaders of the major parties are against it.

What’s changed?

Public opinion hasn’t. It’s been near or at 60% for four years or so.

What seems to have captured the public imagination in 2010 is that the issue is raised at every forum, including those in suburban and regional areas and including by non-LGBTI people like Geoff the Plumber.

Having seen reform occur overseas and having seen other non-gay people standing up for equality, more and more non-LGBTI Australians are asking “why can’t we just let gays marry”.

The fact Gillard and Abbott won’t give straight, and in Gillard’s case, believable answers, just makes them ask “why not?” all the more insistently.

Of course, the challenge after tomorrow’s poll will be to keep the issue front and centre by mustering the strong support we now know runs through Australian society.

But for now all long-time advocates for marriage equality can take heart from the words of the prominent Tasmanian social justice researcher and historian, James Boyce, directed my way yesterday afternoon in a South Hobart grocery shop:

“Remember when we talked about how no-one in the political and cultural elites seemed to be taking marriage equality seriously? Well, thanks to the hard work of all you guys, they all have egg on their faces now. The people of Australia have told them IT’S AN ISSUE!”

***

Indeed they have. And while the major parties won’t be changing their anti-equality policies immediately, they have at least stepped back from scaring people about the possibility of equality.

Most newspapers have quietly dropped “gay marriage” from the list of "scary", "radical", "extreme" Green policies.

As far as I know, no-one, including the Liberal Party, has authorised any election material that beats up on LGBTI human rights, including marriage equality.

James was right. The People have spoken. They’ve said "no more hate", "no more discrimination".

The question now is when, and by what means, will our national leaders get the message?

Happy voting!

[ comments? ]

Election (Aus, 2010)

Really moving forward

The major parties may not support marriage equality but they have made progress on other LGBTI issues.

While the 2010 federal election will go down in history as the moment marriage equality shot, seemingly from nowhere, to the centre of the national political stage, there are other equally important issues for LGBTI people.

These include improved protections from discrimination at a national level, more resources for tackling prejudice, discrimination, exclusion and the health problems they create, and formalised liaison with the Federal Government.

The state and territory governments have made much more progress on these issues than the Commonwealth. So will anything change after this election?

A number of organisations have surveyed the parties.

Here's a list with links to their election sites, the responses to their surveys, their media statements and summaries about these responses and score-cards.

Organisation: Australian Coalition for Equality. Focus: LGBTI human rights nationally
Media release and summary
Party responses
Scorecard

Organisation: Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group. Focus: LGBTI human rights in Tasmania
Media release and/or summary
Party responses

Organisation: Australian Marriage Equality. Focus: Marriage equality
Media release and/or summary
Party responses

Organisation: National LGBTI Health Alliance. Focus: LGBTI health
Media release and/or summary
Party responses
Score card

*

These surveys reveal that the two major parties, for all their strident opposition to marriage equality, have taken some other important steps forward.

For example, both Labor and the Coalition have committed to supporting sexuality and gender identity (SOGI) discrimination laws at a national level (oddly, the Coalition made this commitment to the Australian Coalition for Equality but not to the Tas G&L Rights Group, but at least it’s made).

Neither party has said exactly when this will occur, although Labor has provided the harmonisation of all discrimination laws as a context.

Neither party has ruled out religious exemptions.

This latter point is made more significant by the fact that the Australian Christian Lobby has quietly dropped a question about national SOGI laws from its 2010 election survey, even though it was present in 2007.

It would be safe to assume the ACL did this in return for some less-than-savoury promises about ensuring “religious freedoms”.

But at least now the issue is on the table and we can begin to propose and debate what form these laws should take.

This is a particularly big step forward for the Coalition.

I vividly recall when a Sexuality Discrimination Bill proposed by the Democrats was brought forward for debate in the Senate in 1995.

Senator Eric Abetz’s response, on behalf of the Coalition, was that the Bill wasn’t necessary because therapies are available to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals.

Don’t say things never change.

The other big step forward is that the Labor Party is highlighting the LGBTI components of some of its health initiatives, particularly in the areas of aged care and suicide prevention.

These are precisely the issues LGBTI marriage skeptics cite as being crowded out by marriage equality.

But the fact Labor is keener than ever before to develop and spruik these initiatives says to me that the marriage equality debate is actually encouraging a focus on other issues.

Again, never say nothing changes.

Of course, the smaller parties deserve a great deal of credit for dragging the major parties forward.

The dauntless Greens, mercurial Democrats, flashy Sex Party, serious Secular Party and ever-hopeful Socialist Alliance have all set high standards for LGBTI policy making, yet again.

But the greatest credit goes to those advocates who have worked for years on these issues, refusing to be bought off, intimidated or generally diverted.

When history records that the major parties really did move forward on key issues in 2010, it is these advocates for whom the loudest and longest applause will be reserved.

[ comments? ]

Election (Aus, 2010)

The hard decision

Soon it will not be enough for the Greens simply to support marriage equality. They will have to oppose its substitutes.

Julia Gillard must be pleased Tony Abbott has finally come under the marriage equality spot light.

Last night on the ABC’s Q&A a Vietnam Vet, supporter of Liberal philosophy and father of a gay son took Abbott to task over his opposition to equality (click here and ff to 12:40mins).

Abbott’s response was no different to usual – same-sex relationships can be just as loving and committed as heterosexual ones, they just shouldn’t be called marriages.

Why not?

Abbott has a different definition of marriage to most Australians, a traditional Catholic one that says marriages must be procreational, not that he would say this.

Abbott is as unwilling to admit his opposition to marriage equality is based on his own personal religious views as Gillard is to admit her opposition is based on other people's.

*

Marriage equality has been the dark horse of this federal election, coming seemingly from nowhere to dominate debate.

Gillard, Abbott and many of their respective party candidates have had to field constant questioning on the issue.

The party that has benefited most from this is the Greens. Their support for marriage equality has situated them well to gain the support of those who are disaffected with the major parties opposition to it.

Crucially, this includes people in suburban electorates like Q&A's Vietnam Vet, as well as progressives in inner-city electorates.

In years past the Greens have worked hard to gain this support. They advocated in parliament, introduced landmark legislation and took a lot of flak for it.

But I can’t help but feel they are now coasting on the issue a bit.

For one, marriage equality does not have a profile in their mainstream advertising, certainly nothing like the other hot-button social issue, asylum seekers.

Is this because the Greens feel it is only an issue for the LGBTI community? Is it because they fear a focus on marriage equality may alienate voters who see it as a low priority?

Either why, they’d be wrong.

The other more worrying problem is the Greens’ failure to plan for the future of marriage equality.

The high-profile of marriage equality in this election is placing immense pressure on the major parties, particularly Labor.

If the Gillard Government is re-elected it is almost inevitable that it will do something to ensure this pressure is not applied again.

But, at least in the first instance, this probably won’t be reform of the Marriage Act.

However personally familiar commentators like Ryan Heath may be with some Labor figures, I’m afraid it is naïve of them to believe a Party re-elected on an anti-equality platform will transform into an equality-friendly Government (especially if that re-election is a narrow one decided in outer-urban seats where mega-churches are perceived to have a cultural influence).

Even a Gillard Government that is equality-agnostic and simply favours further consultation seems unlikely given Labor's failure to support the recommendation for a further relationship law reform inquiry made by last year's tri-partisan Senate inquiry into marriage equality.

As for a a conscience vote, while that may be the final outcome for Labor, it will not be the Party's first resort.

More likely, Labor will attempt to ease the pressure over marriage equality with a proposal for some kind of national civil union scheme, probably a lowest common denominator version of existing state and territory schemes.

The policy choice for the LGBTI community will be framed as equality in marriage vs participation in a sparkly, new institution. The strategic choice will be something concrete now vs something uncertain later.

For me the choice is simple. While I support alternative schemes for recognising diverse relationships alongside marriage, I don’t support such schemes as a substitute for allowing same-sex marriage.

This is because in principle such substitution is not full equality, and strategically it delays the achievement of full equality.

The UK and New Zealand are prime examples. Their national civil union schemes have been in place for five years with no sign they are either an equal substitute for marriage equality or a stepping stone to marriage equality.

Furthermore, the advantage Australia has over these two countries is that over half of all Australians already have access to state and territory civil union schemes that offer full entitlements, with other states likely to follow.

This makes a national scheme less necessary.

The Greens have repeatedly said they agree there is no substitute for marriage equality.

But they refuse to take the next logical step and declare that they will vote down any national relationship-recognition scheme that isn’t marriage, before and until marriage equality is achieved.

This commitment has become even more important in the last few weeks.

It seems increasingly likely the Greens will have the balance of power in the Senate. Two weeks ago the Coalition said it will not support any national scheme for recognising same-sex relationships be it civil unions or marriage.

In short, the Greens will have the casting vote.

Other minor parties vying for balance of power have seen where history is heading and made their positions clear.

The Democrats, the Secular Party and the Sex Party have all said "no" to a national civil union scheme before marriage equality is achieved.

But still the Greens hold out.

Up until now it has been enough for the Greens to declare their support for marriage equality; to advocate for it, legislate for it, to stand up for it.

But very soon that will not be enough.

Marriage equality is now a national issue. Many powerful people who balk at marriage equality will soon turn their attention to taking the wind from its sails.

This will require hard decisions from those of us who support equality, including the Greens.

And the sooner these decisions are made the better. If a re-elected Gillard Government knows it can't get away with second-best, it will be less likely to try.

If the Greens increase their vote on Saturday it will be in no small part because of their supporters' desire for marriage equality.

They will have a mandate to achieve equality, and nothing less or other than equality.

The question then becomes are the Greens willing and able to do what will probably be required of them to fulfill this mandate?

They cannot yet say. But hopefully history will answer "yes".

***

In other news,

Prominent LGBTI human rights campaigner, Simon Margan, is among a number of men bashed on Oxford St in Sydney last week.

Frustratingly, NSW Police still don't know a hate crime when they see one.

[ comments? ]

Election (Aus, 2010)

'The power of the churches'

Mark Latham finally admits what all his former colleagues are too scared to say: the Labor Party lets religious bigotry stand in the way of equal rights.

Thousands of Australians have again rallied and marched for marriage equality.

This year’s National Day of Action commemorating the ban on same-sex marriage in 2004, saw rallies and marches in all state capitals and several regional centres.

Here's some news items and pics from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Darwin and The Old 'Bart.

I am ceaselessly amazed by this event.

National Days Action on LGBT issues were near-impossible to organise before the ban on same-sex marriage in 2004. Now they occur annually and are entrenched as part of the Australian LGBT human rights landscape.

An issue that was declared not-an-issue by some gay community leaders just a few years ago continues to mobilised more people than any issue ever has.

But my amazement doesn’t blind me to problems.

Numbers seem to have been down on last year in Sydney and Melbourne, but well up in Perth, Brisbane and Hobart.

I fear this may be because Melburnians and Sydney-siders are protested out after the Year of Action on marriage equality saw them called on to attend rally after rally.

Rallies are great for raising the profile of an issue and galvanising supporters. But they have rapidly diminishing returns if over-used.

*

Also reflecting on the events of 2004 has been then Labor leader, Mark Latham.

He has declared he supports marriage equality, he regrets not opposing it in 2004, and he has blamed his Party’s opposition to equality on “the power of the churches”.

For Latham’s full quote, as well as Australian Marriage Equality’s response, click here.

My first response to Latham’s comments was relief.

Finally, a Labor leader has admitted what I have been saying for six years – the block to marriage equality is the major parties’ fear of anti-gay priest, pastors and preachers.

After years of telling those confounded by Labor’s stance that the problem was religious conservatives in key marginal seats I can finally point to public evidence.

Of course, naming the problem doesn’t solve it.

But it does give supporters of equality another way to up pressure on a Party that explicitly says it doesn’t pander to prejudice.

***

In other marriage-equality-and-the-election news,

The further journalists dig into Julia Gillard’s personal opposition to marriage equality, the less sense it makes.

Thank goodness there is a growing number of Labor candidates willing to be honest about what they really think.

And

It's not just Yours Truly who believes we are finally having a national debate on marriage equality There are principles at stake which go far beyond whether or not same-sex partners should be able to walk down the aisle.

In other election news

Concerns about LGBTI students falling foul of school chaplains hit the blogosphere

And

Family First falters.

And in other news altogether

Daniel Witthaus’ Beyond That's So Gay tour hits the headlines where it matters most.

And

People who should know better still insist on conflating gender non-conformity with same-sex attraction.

[ comments? ]

Election (Aus, 2010)

Plan B

Marriage equality is now at the centre of Australian public debate.

Many people are understandably disappointed by the major parties’ unrelenting resistance to marriage equality during this election campaign.

But the silver lining is that the issue has never been more widely discussed, despite AND because of this resistance.

Our national leaders’ resistance to same-sex marriage is now a staple of comedy shows – a sure sign the issue has entered public consciousness.

Most recently the issue was raised at what was intended to be a leaders Q&A for middle Australia at the Rooty Hill RSL in western Sydney.

The passionate applause from all present for the question shatters the myth that this is an issue for inner-city progressives alone.

It is an issue for everyone with a heart.

This has prompted commentary, most of it focused on the weakness of the case against reform and the strength of the case in favour (although inevitably there are dissenters).

It would be naïve to think public debate will continue this way.

Major opponents of reform have been holding their peace in the hope the issue goes away.

Now they know it won’t, I assume they’ll be fine tuning Plan B – a post-election shock and awe campaign similar to the ones we have seen in the US, bringing in spurious claims about everything from religious freedoms to school curricula to scare the public away from equality.

Expect this campaign to begin the moment the leader of one of the major parties equivocates by acknowledging there are good arguments for reform, saying s/he understands the pain felt by same-sex partners and their families, or just hesitates before declaring "marriage is between a man and woman".

But before that storm hits, supporters of equality can take heart their attempt to bring marriage equality to the centre of Australian political debate has succeeded.

***

In other election news,

Last night’s LGBTI election forum in Launceston was well attended, except by the Liberal Party.

What a sad irony that Sue Napier, the first Liberal ever to attend a Tasmanian LGBTI election forum and a champion of equity and personal freedom, was laid to rest in Launceston today.

We can only hope that in the years ahead the Liberals will honour Sue Napier's legacy better than they did in the days after her death.

In other marriage equality news,

Tomorrow is the National Day of Action on marriage equality.

Check for events in your locality.

[ comments? ]