Rodney Croome . gay advocate

Marriage equality (national)

'Public benefits'

A successful movement for marriage equality encompasses different perspectives on the importance of reform.

Figures recently released by Australian Marriage Equality about the cost to the Australian economy of not allowing same-sex marriages have been contested both for accuracy and relevancy.

Jim Woulfe makes the point that the figure of $742 million is not recurrent.

In other words, if all those same-sex couple who we believe want to marry, were to marry today, their weddings would be worth $742 million to the celebrants, weddings planners, caterers, florists, photographers and other wedding-associated business people the couples employ.

In effect when AME said

"marriage discrimination costs the Australian economy $742 million"

it should have said

"marriage discrimination has cost the Australian economy $742 million"

Jim and others also ask, why even bother with the economic case for marriage equality when the symbolic issues are so much more important.

"Compared to the symbolic arguments, the economic ones are so marginal that they teeter on the edge of absurdity. I don’t think it’s worth making this case at all."

For me, the human rights case is the most important. But this shouldn’t preclude other arguments for equality.

An effective movement for marriage equality must include people from across the political and social spectrum, including those for whom dollars are the bottom line.

This is why the economic cost of inequality has become the subject of academic inquiry in the US.

The final issue, raised by other people pondering the AME figure, is that if the $742 million is not spent on weddings it will be spent on other things, so, in and of itself, marriage equality will not make a special contribution to the economy.

Of course, some money that could be spent on weddings may instead be spent on other things – mortgages, travel, consumer goods. But there’s no way to be sure those other things will be as useful in generating profits and jobs for Australian small business. There’s also no way we can be sure that money will spent in Australia, given the increasing number of Australian same-sex partners marrying overseas.

I’m reminded of Bernard Mandeville’s famous saying, so beloved of financial conservatives, that "private vices have public benefits."

His example was the libertine whose extravagant habits keep tailors, cooks, decorators and prostitutes in business.

But Mandeville could just as easily have been talking about weddings. Sometimes they seem needlessly lavish, even a bit tasteless. But few of the things we will buy have the same immense, immediate and localised economic impact.

***

In other news,

The Age argues there’s nothing about employing gays and lesbians that is destructive of a school’s religious ethos so schools should not be able to "protect their ethos" by discriminating.

If a charter of rights is dead in the water, as some conservatives argue, why are some other conservatives still pumping out propaganda against it? Maybe it's not as dead as they hope.

Katrina Fox calls on the straight relatives of LGBT people to stand up for us.

Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays national spokesperson, Shelley Argent, goes one step further and argues for same-sex equality on national TV.

And

I want Australia to have conservative political leaders who speak out for LGBT equality and journalists who are not afraid to hold them to their word.

[ comments? ]

Australian LGBT rights

'Wear it with pride'

A ground-breaking education campaign must focus on regional and rural LGBT people.

Today saw the launch of "Wear It With Pride", a new $350,000, government-funded campaign to educate same-sex partners about their rights and responsibilities following the recognition of same-sex de facto relationships in federal law in 2008.

The Wear It With Pride campaign sets an important precedent.

It’s only fair that government allocate resources to explain such an important and complex set of legal changes to those many tens of thousands of people these changes will affect.

In the past, when it came to LGBT law reform, governments generally shirked this responsibility and left under-resourced community groups to fill the gap.

However, the fact WIWP is breaking new ground doesn’t mean we should refrain from questioning the shape it has taken.

One persistent criticism I have heard in recent weeks is about the name “Wear It With Pride”.

“Why should we be proud of a reform that was way overdue, disadvantaged vulnerable people in the LGBT community with too little consideration of their needs, and/or only got us half way to equality anyway?”, the criticism generally goes.

We could add, why use a slogan that is already taken by dealers in Australian-flag wear?

As someone who advocated for this reform for many years, I do feel proud.

However, I can understand why others with less investment see the campaign’s name as an instruction about what they should feel rather than a reflection of what they really feel.

Another criticism is that the community consultation about the campaign’s direction was limited and tokenistic.

I understand consultation only occurred in the eastern states (with all references to the Tasmanian leg mysteriously not included in the draft consultation report).

Moreover, participants in the consultation report that they felt the direction of the campaign was set before the consultation occurred. “Font size was about all they wanted my opinion on”, was one participant’s assessment (fonts seem to be a major issue for WIWP).

As for my beef, regular readers will recall I was critical of what was to become the Wear It With Pride campaign when it was first being developed because it was run by health organisations, not human rights bodies.

At the time I wrote that human rights groups are familiar with running effective campaigns on shoe-strings, whereas…

“I fear that the money will be squandered on the kind of focus groups and advertising agents big-budget health promotion organisations are addicted to.”

Today’s launch did nothing to assuage this fear: artist-inspired t’shirts (that how many people will actually wear?), Hill's hoists outside the Opera House (as if it was still the Olympic Games opening ceremony), pop songs, celebrities, designers, all of it thanks to Satchi...I can’t imagine how much this would have cost to develop and organise (even given the donation of time and effort by artists and celebs).

Meanwhile, the amount left over for local implementation of the campaign is tiny – a couple of thousand in Tassie, a few hundred in the Northern Territory (although I understand raising further funds for local initiatives is a campaign objective).

The problem here is not only extravagance, but a failure to properly understand where the need lies.

Funding for both local initiatives and local advertising seems to have been allocated on a population basis.

But cultural and demographic factors make this unreasonable.

It’s much easier and cheaper to reach LGBT people who live in inner-city, metro areas with an established community media, a friendly mainstream media and a plethora of friendly NGOs than it is in, say, Central Australia.

Localisation is crucial to the success of a campaign like this.

Even though the reforms in question are national, their impact varies immensely across the nation: parenting laws are all dealt with differently in WA, civil partnership schemes in Tas, Vic and the ACT give the federal reform a different complexion, LGBT people from Indigenous and non-Anglo backgrounds will have a different take on what the reforms mean.

Then there’s the simple fact that the more isolated LGBT are, the more information and awareness-raising they need from WIWP.

When the Tas G&L Rights Group and the Hobart Community Legal Service conducted workshops on this reform around Tassie last year the largest audience was not in Hobart or Launceston. It was in Burnie.

Why? Because LGBT people in Burnie don’t have the regular information sources available to people in bigger centres.

WIWP should be developing targetted materials for non-metro communities. Instead Sydney is once again absorbing the funds as well as setting the tone.

Anyway, enough whinging for now.

Check out the WIWP website and let me know what you think.

*

In other federal-entitlements news,

According to the Federal Government there has been a remarkably high rate of compliance with new social security rules recognising same-sex partners, and only 358 people have had their entitlements cut altogether.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t acknowledge the fear some older couples feel about being outed, or the far greater number who have had their entitlements reduced, making it harder to make ends meet.

The Government’s figures do not exonerate it from failing to exempt older partners from reform and providing others with longer to adjust.

In other news altogether,

Ian Roberts has joined Gary Burns in fighting Footy Show homophobia.

UK activist group, Outrage, is looking for couples to challenge marriage discrimination in the European Court of Human Rights, a vital step towards the recognition of equality in marriage as a human rights issue.

A registered British therapist is exposed for believing homosexuality is caused by everything from birth trauma to Freemasonry.

A broadcaster associated with the American Family Association calls for all homosexuals to be imprisoned.

And

Twitter employees respond amusingly to an anti-gay picket.

[ comments? ]

Marriage equality (world)

'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.

[ comments? ]

Human rights charters

'Cisgender'

Obama lifts the US ban on...haggis.

In the wake of an Australian Christian Lobby petition against a charter of rights, conservative commentator, Gerard Henderson, writes that such a charter is all but dead*.

His reasoning?...

"In the lead-up to this year's federal election, Rudd and his colleagues do not need an argument with Christian groups - including the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, who has expressed concern that the human rights lobby is intent on constraining religious freedom.

"The new Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott…is capable of running a very effective campaign against a charter presented as giving more power to unelected judges and bureaucrats at the expense of the elected representatives of the people.

"(Attorney-General Robert) McClelland said it was the Government's philosophy that ''the enhancement of human rights should be done in a way that as far as possible unites a community rather than causes further division'."

And just in case there’s any doubt,

"The tone of Australia Day suggests that most Australians are happy with their lot."

In other words, Christians want to be free to discriminate against other people, the Government is too afraid of them to disagree with them and the majority of Australians are too complacent to care.

Prominent human rights advocate, Susan Ryan, and the chair of last year’s national charter of rights consultation, Fr Frank Brennan, couldn't disagree more.

They point out that,

a) two of Australia’s three largest churches support a charter of rights, as does a majority of the broader population (over 80% according to the latest Neilson Poll on the issue),

b) the right wing fear campaign against a charter of rights is full of holes, and can easily be diffused,

c) there is no evidence either the ACT of Victorian Governments have suffered electorally from enacting their own charters, and

d) groups like the ACL are coy about how many people they actually represent.

The Rudd Government may have gone quiet on a charter of rights, but does that mean it's gone off one?

My intuition is that Henderson has made a premature call.

But just in case, click here for information about how to show your support for a charter of rights.

*

I was away in October when the report of the national human rights consultation was released, and didn’t blog on it.

The responses were pretty predictable.

Common sense on one side.

Fear mongering and sniping on the other.

And some interesting commentary in between.

To its great credit the report recommended a national charter of rights, something that was naturally welcomed by LGBT human rights groups.

It also highlighted the absence of national sexuality and gender identity discrimination laws.

Its position on marriage equality was more ambiguous.

While the report respectfully noted and gave a good airing to the large number of submissions it received in favour of marriage equality, it made no recommendation one way or the other.

Although it did recommend a charter include a right to marry, it refrained from expressing a view on how that right should be defined, a critical issue if any future charter is to allow the courts to examine the issue.

Knowing that same-sex marriage is one of the key “hot-button” issues raised by the prospect of a charter, the report declares it to be a matter that “would be best left for parliament to resolve”.

But taken in context, that’s not such as dismissive as it first sounds.

The report recommended a type of charter that would allow courts to look at alleged human rights abuses, but which would leave the final decision about remedying all these abuses in the hands of Parliament.

On top of this, charters generally contain rights to equality and non-discrimination which, unless the right to marry was defined to exclude it, would allow courts to at least consider the issue of marriage equality.

As cautious as it was, the report left open the possibility that a charter of rights will allow marriage equality its day in court.

The job now before those who support equality is to convince the Government not only to act on the report, but to retain in any charter it puts forward the report’s spirit of openness to difficult but important issues.

***

In other news,

Yesterday was a big day for me.

I came across a new word, “cisgender”.

Although my history degree rarely comes in handy, it immediately provided me with a clue to the meaning of this strange term.

“Cisalpine Gaul” was the name of the Roman province in north Italy. It meant “Gaul on this side of the Alps”.

Could “cisgender” mean gender that is “on the same side as” (i.e. conforms with) biological sex?

Yes!

So should we now add “C” to the alphabet soup of LGBTI(QQF...)?

No way!

There should be a moratorium on all new terms until we find another one that starts with a vowel (besides, "cisgender" refers to a discrimination-free majority which sort of defeats the purpose).

And

I played my first ever tune on the bagpipes.

I’ve been learning for 18 months (the last couple of months on the actual pipes, as opposed to a chanter).

It’s harder than I thought it would be. I’ve encouraged myself with the hope that I could master “blow / squeeze / play” just as I eventually got the hang of “accelerator / brake / clutch”.

And yesterday, finally, unexpectedly and happily, I did!

What a great way to mark the Obama administration's decision to lift the 20 year ban on the importation of haggis.

Forget lifting the HIV ban and the whole gay soldier thing...as the Spectator notes, free-trade in haggis is change we can believe in!


*I met Gerard Henderson's wife Anne the other day. She was in Hobart researching her upcoming book on Australia's only Tasmanian-born Prime Minister, Joe Lyons, following the success of her book on his equally ground-breaking wife, Enid. I asked her if Tasmania will be a character in the book. She said "yes", but I was left doubting if it would the major player it deserves to be. I can't wait to find out.

[ comments? ]

Australian life

A bright, cloudless antipodean sky

From a very little thing, my sense of national identity grows.

Can you spot any openly-LGBT people on this year’s Australia Day honours list?

I can see Peter Brennan AM, the former president of the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation and financial supporter of various gay and lesbian organisations.

If you come across anyone else let me know.

*

Australia Day isn’t my cup of tea, especially this year because the boyf is in Melbourne for work and I’m here…blogging.

Most nationalism turns me off.

The kind of low-brow nationalism that celebrates barbeques, intoxication and sunburn, and largely overlooks Australia's achievements in the world of the mind and the heart, is particularly repelling.

I’d go so far as to say it repells most Australians, but they’re too polite or afraid to say it.

I’m not a contrarian by nature. I want to find a way to participate.

But this is made very hard by the ridiculously narrow terms in which Australian national identity is defined.

As a gay man and as a Tasmanian my place is in this identity is peripheral, at best.

Popular images and ideas about what it means to be Australian barely if ever include homosexuals or Vandemonians.

If they do, it is more often than not a way of demonstrating what about “Australianess” is second-rate, unworthy, broken or at high risk of being un-Australian.

That can leave me staring at a banknote or a passport and wondering whether the word “Australia” means anything to me at all.

There is truth and beauty in what I feel for my same-sex partner and in what I feel for my muddy island home.

But is there anything true and beautiful that unites me with other Australians?

If there is, it will be found, not in flag waving and jingoism, but in the smallest of things.

One such thing I came across just the other day.

I was cleaning the house when my iPod shuffled into “From little things big things grow” by Paul Kelly and Kev Carmody.

The song itself inspires love and hope for Australia. It says that we can be a just people.

But there is something else quite remarkable near the end of the song, just before the song's writers let loose a Fitzroy-pub-style jam session complete with didgeridoo.

Kelly and Carmody introduce a children's choir to chorus his song’s refrain (which is the same as the title).

The nasally pronunciation of the sound “oh” in the word “grow” - elongated until it is almost a diphthong - is a unique marker of an Australian accent, something we all share no matter where we live or what background we come from, and something which isn’t heard anywhere else.

It is more common in, and peculiar to, Australia than, say, the equally nasally and elongated "ay" sound in "mate", despite "ay" being more often recognised as "Australian".

Often the Australian "oh" is lampooned. The way the characters of Pru and Tru in the comedy series "Kath and Kim" strangle the sound with their now-famous line about "jojoba left over from October" is just one of many examples.

Not surprisingly, Australians who want to appear cultured or worldly often go to great lengths to turn their "oh" into a rounder, throatier sound.

The choir in Kelly’s song pronounce "grow" in an unmistakably, perhaps even deliberately, Australian way.

But there is nothing silly or ugly about it. Their “oh” is so pure and beautiful it soars up into a bright, cloudless antipodean sky and takes the listener’s heart with it.

When I hear that sound I realise I am linked to other Australians by much more than just currency and official documents.

I am linked by a language, history and culture that can transcend all its limits and stray effortlessly into beauty.

And about that link I am immensely proud.

***

In other news, Margaret Court is an Australian with whom I’m not entirely happy to share a nationality.

[ comments? ]

Marriage equality (national)

Public consciousness

The task ahead is to convince Australians that marriage equality matters.

Although I am an advocate for optimism on marriage equality, I have to admit there are moments when I wonder what's wrong with Australia.

For example, when I saw Cindy McCain, wife of 2008 US Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, endorsing marriage equality, I shook my head in disbelief at how there are no Australian public figures, let alone conservative public figures, of similar stance and standing.

Is the fault one of national character? Are we too complacent, too afraid to stand apart from the pack, or too frightened by controversy? Alternatively, is it a national strength that we don't engage in polarising political debates?

Is it the issue? Are marriage as an institution, equality as a principle or religion as an argument against change less important to Australians?

These theories do not stand up to historical scrutiny. There have been plenty of public controversies that involve some or all of the elements present in the marriage equality debate.

The only conclusion I can come to is that marriage equality has yet to assume a place in public consciousness that engages Australia's McCain-level public figures.

The fault, if there is one, lies with those who advocate change. We know marriage equality matters. Our job is to convince our fellow Australians of this.

I will be away until Monday, showing a friend around the fructifying, sun-bathed wonderland that is Tasmania in January. Catch you after that.

[ comments? ]

Correspondence

'Unhappy times'

Is Australia a lost cause when it comes to marriage equality?

Time to check the in-tray.

On the Tasmanian election DavidB writes,

You said:
"The state election in March is an excellent opportunity to highlight how and why Tasmania can continue to improve its response to the prejudice which has blighted our reputation for too long."

But how do we do this? The current Labor government appear to be reasonably supportive of our (the GLBT) causes here in Tasmania, but this is countered against the appalling way they are managing most other aspects of government. Whereas the Liberal opposition has made no statement (that I am aware of) that supports or otherwise our causes-their government management skills are unknown at this stage.

The Greens seem to be sympathetic to our causes and from what I have seen reported, the current leader would be a beneficial friend if he was in a position of influence. Of course, like the Liberals, the Greens government management skills are unknown. But I guess the Greens would inject a certain 'freshness' into there management, whereas the Liberals would rely on the same old values based rhetoric we are used to hearing from that side of politics.

What an amusing idea, LGBT issues as the one and only thing a Tasmanian Government gets right!

Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. After a decade in office, and some outstanding successes in the area of legislation and services, there is still much the Tasmanian Government has promised but failed to deliver, chiefly in regard to tackling homophobic prejudice and discrimination. Its job will be to convince LGBT voters that it still has the energy and skill to reach its remaining goals.

It is not a foregone conclusion that the Liberals would fail to deliver further reform, especially with pragmatic conservatives Will Hodgman as leader and Vanessa Goodwin as Attorney-General. A lot will depend on whether ideologically-driven theocons increase their numbers in the Liberal Party room, as many fear they will.

The Greens have strong commitments, but their capacity to deliver will depend on their ability to a) achieve the balance of power and then b) some influence over government decisions making. Neither are foregone conclusions.

In sum, Tasmania's political parties may be closer than they seem when it comes to their capacity to deliver further reform.

In other Tas election news, the Ethics and Sustainability Party has distanced itself from perceptions of anti-gay prejudice in this letter to the editor of the Hobart Mercury.

On marriage equality in Portugal and Latin America Brenton writes,

I think a lot of people will be enrolling in Spanish and Portuguese language classes. For American couples, south of the border will become a stampede if more South and Central American countries introduce marriage equality. Australia is a lost cause. I see no hope whilst Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister and regressive policies in regard to homosexuality will be put quickly in place if Abbott and his religious henchmen come to power! Shockingly, Australia had not commented in any way to the political situations affecting homosexuals in Malawi, Uganda or Rwanda.I am ashamed at times of my country and it seems that the Australian population are 'happy' with our Parliaments being filled with 'religious' Members. I think that there are many unhappy times ahead!

One of the biggest challenges facing supporters of marriage equality in Australia is to distinguish between appearances and reality.

It may appear that “Australia is a lost cause”, thanks to the insistent opposition of the leaders of both major federal parties.

But walls that appear unbreachable can in fact be brittle or thin, or for whatever reason, suddenly crumble away.

Polls show that a solid majority of Australians support same-sex marriage (if they didn’t, opponents of equality would have produced polls showing otherwise).

Overwhelming support for marriage equality at last year’s Tasmanian and Victoria state Labor conferences shows that this support extends well into our political structures.

How long can it be before the upper crust of opposition to equality cracks open?

My predication is not long at all. I’ll also venture the turning point will be something unpredictable and seemingly small. That’s how all great moments of change begin.

In other marriage equality news, before you enroll in a Spanish class, you might want to consider Nepali.

In other news altogether,

Luke Williams asks whether the Melbourne Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle, is really as gay friendly as he seems, while Brian Greig asks if retired General Peter Cosgrove is as keen to oppose prejudice as he seems.

[ comments? ]

Election (Tas, 2010)

Neither ethical nor sustainable

Inconsistencies in the anti-gay cases of two public figures belie a deeper problem.

What do these two things have in common?

In the Weekend Australian Christopher Pearson took issue with those who blame Uganda’s anti-gay laws on Christian preachers and turned instead on those who support LGBT human rights.

Then, in the Sunday Tasmanian, Dr Kathleen Petrovsky launched her new Ethics and Sustainability Party with an attack on same-sex marriage.

The inconsistencies in both is one common element.

Pearson sympathises with homosexual who, in his words, think the hardest aspect of their lives "is not having a stable family life with a lifelong partner, children and grandchildren". Yet, he vehemently opposes the idea of same-sex couples marrying and having children.

Against all the facts, he tries to exonerate fundamentalist American preachers from their complicity in fuelling the hatred behind Uganda's anti-gay laws. Yet, without one scrap of evidence, he suggests there is a direct line from supporting gay human rights to advocating sex with children.

There are many insightful commentators on gay issues, including some sensible, well-respected conservatives. So why is the Australian only interested in those who take aim at human rights advocates rather than anti-gay laws and at homosexuality rather than homophobia?

The inconsistencies in Petrovsky’s views are just as glaring.

Laws against same-sex marriage violate the principle of equality and non-discrimination, and exclude an entire segment of society from a key social institution.

What’s more, 60% of Australians believe same-sex partners should be able to marry. In July last year the Tasmanian Labor Party state conference overwhelmingly endorsed same-sex marriage. During the Christmas / New Year period, same-sex marriages were supported by governments in traditionally-conservative Portugal, Mexico and Argentina.

In short, opposition to same-sex marriage is neither ethical nor sustainable.

ESP spokesperson, Paul Wilson has tried to defend Petrovksy on the basis that the Party has a "no-change social policy". However, Dr Petrovsky's views on the matter make it clear that her opposition to marriage equality is stronger and more pointed than that. Besides, in an election campaign having no policy is itself a policy.

What Pearson and Petrovsky share even more than inconsistency is a special vehemence arising from their links to what they attack.

Pearson is a self-admitted same-sex attracted man, and a one time gay liberationist. His apparently unhappy experience of both, plus a heavy dose of Vaticanism, seem to have a created a kind of psychological whirlpool of condemnation from which the love of other s-s attracted men, however profound it may be, and the way they choose to defend their love, however dignified it may be, cannot escape.

Petrovsky is the same insofar as she is a long-time environmental campaigner (she was a candidate for the United Tasmania Group - the world's first Green Party) who has broken with the Greens over issues like same-sex marriage. I’m reminded of those ALP members who left Gough Whitlam’s Labor Party over its support for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the mid 1970s. One of them, Rodney Cooper, went on to become a notorious advocate against that reform in Tasmania in the 1990s. If she is not careful Petrovsky also risks being defined by one prejudice than by all her worthier aspirations.

There are differences of opinion on LGBT human rights right across the sexual and political spectrum. No-one should expect or even want conformity on such an important issue.

But when the pronouncements of public figures on homosexuality seem to be more about their need to distance themselves from the issue than the merits of the issue itself, the people they hurt most are themselves.

***

In other Ugandan news,

That nation's proposed anti-gay laws have been condemned by the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, US Republican Congressmen and a Ugandan Government Minister, amongst many others.

Little wonder Gary Burns asks, where is Kevin Rudd?

[ comments? ]

Parenting

Unreliable and cunning

Never trust governments.

At New Year, new laws commenced allowing lesbian IVF access in Victoria and legally recognising lesbian co-mothers in Victoria and Tasmania.

Surprisingly, it was the Herald Sun that covered the Victorian event fairly positively while the Age beat up fears of a run on donated sperm.

I say “beat up” because for years many of Victoria’s fertility refugees traveled to Hobart, Albury or Adelaide for fertility treatment. If those much smaller supplies were enough for them then, Victoria’s will be now.

But the Age redeemed itself by publishing this analysis of the dark side of Victoria’s reform, police checks.

It seemed the Xmas-NY news was peppered with same-sex parenting stories, not always very edifying.

A precedent-setting custody dispute made the Fairfax press.

While the Murdoch press insisted on highlighting that two parents accused of abducting their own child were LESBIANS, even though it was utterly irrelevant to the story.

But what attracted most attention was a decision by the NSW Government not to allow same-sex couples to adopt, despite a parliamentary committee recommending the reform.

The excuses given by the new right-leaning, election-fearing government of Kristina Keneally were laughable: “the community is divided”, “we need a national approach”.

These clichés are now so debased by over use they only have one real purpose, flagging political cowardice to the reader.

NSW and Labor LGBT human rights advocates were naturally annoyed.

But, from what I understand, part of their annoyance was with themselves for trusting the NSW Government to do the right thing.

Perhaps they had a naïve faith in the ALP or in Sydney. Perhaps they under-estimated the religious right’s animus to the idea of same-sex adoption.

Whatever the reason, it would be deeply hypocritical of me to judge them.

On the issue of adoption, I too had a naïve faith in Labor and what we then called “the New Tasmania”. I also utterly under-estimated the opponents of reform.

In 2003, when Tasmania was debating same-sex adoption as part of a broader relationships law reform package, the policy of the Tas Gay and Lesbian Rights Group, with me as its spokesperson, was to advocate for adoption equality by highlighting the benefits to those children already being raised by same-sex couples.

We felt that by highlighting the importance of “known-child adoption" for those children to whom it would bring legal security, we would help advance the case for "stranger adoption" as well (stranger adoption being the adoption of children relinquished by other people. This is what is generally understood as “adoption” even though it is only a tiny minority of the overall number of adoptions).

How wrong we were. Caught between our advocacy, the principles of its legislation, a church outcry and the machinations of its own right wing, the Bacon Government devised a policy we had not anticipated – it allowed known child adoption but not stranger adoption.

There was lobbying by couples, protests outside Parliament, even an inquiry by the Tas Law Reform Institute. But every time we made a fuss our words were thrown back in our face: “you wanted known-child adoption and now you have it”.

Never under-estimate how unreliable and cunning governments can be.

And if you do, you’re not alone.

***

In other news,

For all the latest on the landmark marriage equality court case in the US (including a pic of an unexpected appearance at the court by ABC presenter, Kerry O'Brien) click here.

For my views on marriage equality and the Australian Constitution, published yesterday in the Canberra Times, click here.

[ comments? ]

Election (Aus, 2010)

'Compassionate approach'

Federal Labor must commit to enacting a sexuality discrimination law during its next term.

The Sydney Morning Herald has revealed that the Federal Government will consider waiving the social security debt of those elderly or rural-dwelling same-sex partners who fear declaring their relationship to Centrelink may lead to discrimination.

Last year, federal legal recognition of same-sex de facto relationships meant some welfare recipients in same-sex relationships lost their benefit because the law began to see them as partners, not singles.

The debt-waive, announced by Families Minister, Jenny Macklin, will relieve the pressure on many already-vulnerable same-sex partners.

But, of course, it would not have been necessary if the Government had done the right thing and provided an exemption, or at least longer adjustment time, for older and disadvantaged partners.

This is what it did for those adversely affected by changes to student allowances.

So why didn’t it provide a “grandfather” provision for same-sex partners?

If, in response to Macklin’s "compassionate approach", shock jocks and the tabloids press run stories about gays having their financial cake and eating it too, you’ll have your answer.

*

Jenny Macklin’s hat tip to compassion and to preventing discrimination raises the issue of what the Rudd Government intends to do about the absence of a national law preventing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI).

Labor has a specific policy commitment to enacting such a law.

A Federal Court decision in 2008 made such enactment more urgent by robbing people employed by, or receiving services from, the Commonwealth, of the protection of state and territory anti-discrimination acts.

Yet, Labor has so failed to give the LGBT community an election-year commitment that it will enact this law in its next term.

Again, I suspect fear is the snag, not so much of the media as of those Christianists who will insist on religious exemptions so large as to make the law unworkable.

But this is no excuse to shy away from a reform so over due it is now almost a generation since it was first proposed.

Compassion for those same-sex pensioners who are vulnerable to discrimination is necessary and laudable. But the fact is thousands of other LGBT Australians are also vulnerable to discrimination because of a gaping hole in the nation’s law.

One of Rudd’s greatest challenges is to fill this hole if he wins another term as Prime Minister.

***

In other financial benefits news,

Fox News highlights how much it will cost the US Government to eliminate financial discrimination against same-sex couples.

Some Australian media outlets also cited cost-to-government when the same reform was under consideration here.

In both cases, the cost of discrimination to partners, society and government never seemed to figure.

And in other news altogether,

From Rachel Maddow to Anonymouslefty commentators are asking what are the defenders of California’s referendum against same-sex marriage so afraid of that they should insist on no cameras and no airing of their own ads during the Federal Court hearing on the issue in San Francisco?

It seems the answer is they knew some very incriminating evidence against their ads was about to be revealed, including emails showing just how much hate lies behind anti-equality campaigning.

Meanwhile, the hearing's lead legal counsel for same-sex marriage explains why, as a conservative, he supports full legal equality.

[ comments? ]