It is so pertinent to what is happening with the conservative religious right forces in Australia in 2004 that we thought it was worth reprinting the whole article because of its importance to human rights issues which affect everyone.
Jacqueline Tomlins petitioned the Family Court to have her legal Canadian marriage to her partner Sarah validated in Australia, but she didn't bank on the Government amending the law to prevent it. Now she wants to know why.
Last week my partner and I celebrated our first wedding anniversary. Twelve months ago, we had forsaken the Melbourne winter and taken our baby boy to spend the summer with his grandparents in Toronto.
We had no plans other than to spend lazy days at the family lake-side cottage, watching our son and his cousin learn to crawl. But half way through our trip things took an unexpected turn. Gay marriage became legal in Canada.
We were sitting in the car driving to Sarah's parents when we heard it on the radio, and, to be honest, it took a while to sink in. We'd been together for 12 years, lived under the same roof for most of that time and had a child, and had hopes for more. We felt like a married couple. We looked and behaved like a married couple. But, of course, we weren't.
Slowly, the realisation dawned on us. We could get married! I mean, legally. Properly. Not a commitment ceremony, not a civil union, but a legally sanctioned marriage.
It didn't take long to make the decision, especially as Sarah's parents were so keen. It seems mums everywhere like to see their daughters married, even if it's to another woman!
Time was short and the budget limited, but we fixed a date, sent out invitations, booked caterers and went shopping: a red, spaghetti strap dress from a boutique in Montreal for me, a bright blue floral print, sweeping and gorgeous for Sarah. We'll go big or go home we said.
Despite the distance, the cost, the short notice, kids, work and busy lives, friends and family flocked from all over: my brother and sister from Perth and our best friends from Melbourne, with their young children in tow, old college friends from all over Canada, Britain, Spain, Bermuda, and even my 76-year-old aunt from the US. (Wouldn't miss it for the world, girls!)
They said this wedding was different, somehow. Special. It had been hard fought. It was everybody's first same-sex wedding and that meant something.
What was so strange about the whole thing was how normal it all felt, in large part, I think, because that's the way people treated it. I don't mean our friends and family, or the gay community. I mean the woman in the jewellery store who sold us our rings, the people from the party-hire place, the delivery guy, the mail-man, the caterers. They all thought it was a great thing. They said it made them proud to be Canadian.
We returned home unclear about the status of our marriage and lodged - along with a recently married gay male couple - an application in the Family Court seeking clarification of our legal position. We travel between Canada and Australia a lot; were we going to have to play “Now you're married, now you're not” for the rest of our lives?
Last week we were meant to be in court to hear the progress of that application, but that was not to be. The recent Marriage Amendment Bill, rushed through Parliament specifically to thwart our application - Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said so in Federal Parliament - means that our marriage cannot be recognised.
Over the past few months we have watched quietly from the sidelines as the arguments raged. The Government, the Labor Party, and even the Christian right variously said this was not about “attacking gays and lesbians” but about “protecting” marriage and the family, the bedrock institutions of our society. But no one ever explained how my marriage threatened theirs, or what exactly they needed protection from.
If the institution of marriage can survive no-fault divorce, “open” relationships and Britney Spears' drunken one-night courtship followed by a wedding ceremony the following day, how is it suddenly so threatened by the marriage of two people - forsaking all others - who happen to be of the same sex?
How do Sarah and I and our son, living our quiet, law-abiding and boringly respectable lives actually undermine anything? It seems to us that our marriage impinges on no one else's rights and takes nothing away from any other couple, married or not.
But it's not really about protection, it's about exclusion. Why have private clubs throughout history excluded people - black people, Jews, women? They exclude them because they believe, and want to show, that those people are in some way lesser, and that their club will become sullied if they let them in.
But while it is no longer acceptable to denigrate and exclude black people, Jews or women in this way - though, of course, it still happens - it is still acceptable to denigrate and exclude lesbians and gays.
The arrival of the Marriage Amendment Bill on our statute books is a testament to nothing other than plain old bigotry and prejudice. Gay marriage is, very simply, an issue of equal rights; it is about some people having those rights and some people not.
Ironically, it was at least in part to protect our family that we sought recognition of our marriage in the Family Court. We have a child. Notwithstanding the fact that there are many single mums and unmarried couples out there raising great kids, Sarah and I want the security that marriage provides for our son.
We were not sure how legal recognition of our marriage would affect his circumstances, but we hoped it would go some way to affording him the legal protection he is currently denied. At the very least, it would be a legal recognition of his reality - that he has two parents who have made a life commitment to him, and to each other.
Much was made of the fact that the gay community is “divided” on this issue, that not everyone wants access to marriage. I don't dispute this, though all of those people still recognise the importance of having choice to marry or not.
That some gay people don't want to get married, however, is not an adequate justification for denying access to marraige to those people who do. I must have had dozens of conversations with heterosexual friends who - for a range of reasons - do not believe in the institution of marriage and wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, but I don't hear anyone suggesting heterosexual people shouldn't be allowed to marry because some other heterosexual people don't want to.
Gay marriage is an important social issue, one that, I believe, warrants widespread and thorough community debate. The Government has asserted loudly and repeatedly that the "majority of Australians" believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman, but surveys show that Australians are fairly evenly divided on the issue of gay marriage, although most younger people are in favour of gay marriage.
This has certainly been our personal experience during the past year. So many people both in Canada and Australia, and from all sorts of backgrounds and political allegiances have said, "good on you" or, at worst, "who cares?"
This debate could have happened if the Government and the Labor Party had allowed the Senate committee of inquiry to do its job. Instead, they bowed to pressure from the Christian right, whose views are not, I believe, shared by the majority of Asutralians - in fact, not even by the majority of Christians!
And let's remember here, too, that although marriage and religion have historically gone hand in hand, for a long time now, and for many people, marriage has been a civil right, not a religious one. We are not asking to get married in church.
The Marriage Amendment Bill was hurried through Parliament without adequate public discussion.
Parliament was extended in order to hear it, anti-terrorism legislation was initially bumped so it could go to the front of the queue, debate in the Senate was guillotined, and it was finally rushed through the Governor-General's office to be given royal assent. All so they could knock us out before we got to court last week. And all with an impending election in mind, of course.
So, yes,we are very disappointed. At a time when Canada, parts of the US, New Zealand, and big chunks of Europe are all moving to protect the rights of lesbians and gays, Australia is doing the opposite.
Do I feel any less married now this law is in place? Of course not. When I stood in front of family and friends on that beautiful August day last year and said "I do", I said it for Sarah and me - and our son - not for anybody else. Despite its best efforts, the Australian Government cannot unmarry us.
For now, gay marriage slips off the agenda, and it will take a while for it to re-emerge. When it does, I am more than confident that with the opportunity for genuine public discussion, the issue will be decided in our favour. Meanwhile, I content myself with the incredible support we have had from so many "ordinary Australians" who do not feel the need to exclude us, who do not feel threatened by us, and who do not feel that our marriage somehow undermines theirs.
When we returned to Canada this summer, it was interesting to see that with the course of time, and the failure of the sky to fall in, many of those people who initially objected to the legalisation of gay marriage have now come around to the idea.
The doom and gloom prophesies of the unravelling of the fabric of society have not eventuated. The institution of marriage survives and is largely unaffected by the joining of same-sex couples. On the other hand, a significant minority of the country's people feel empowered, enfranchised and more equal than they've ever felt before. I look forward to that day in Australia.
Jacqueline Tomlins and Sarah Nichols were one of the two couples whose application to the Family Court to have their same sex marriages recognised in law prompted the government's recent Marriage Amendment Bill.
Alastair Nicholson retired as chief justice of the Family Court in July 2004. He was so incensed by the actions of the major parliamentary parties in colluding over the Marriage (Amendment) Act 2004 that he wrote the following article which appeared in The Age, Melbourne, on 20 September 2004.
ALASTAIR NICHOLSON
The recent legislation to proscribe same-sex marriage is one of the most shameful pieces of legislation that has ever been passed by the Australian Parliament.
It was clearly intended by the Howard Government to constitute a pitch to the religious right and mirrored a similar attempt in the United States introduced by President George Bush for the same purpose. Unfortuately, it was more successful here than there.
The reason for its success reflects no credit on the Ltham Opposition, which abandoned principle for pragmatism rather than hand an election issue to the Government.
The definition of marriage that the bill adopts reflects that by Lord Penzance in Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee in 1866: "The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others."
It is worth noting that Lord Penzance's definition was inaccurate at the time that he gave it and remains inaccurate today.
It is difficult to understand how, even in 1866, marriage could have been defined as a union for life after the passage of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act in England in 1857. The latest divorce figures also make clear what a nonsense it is to refer to marriage as a union for life today.
Similarly, since the concept of matrimonial fault has been abolished by the Family Law Act 1975 and, in particular, that adultery is no longer a ground for divorce, it is difficult to argue that a modern marriage necessarily excudes all others. All this seems to have escaped the Government and Opposition.
None of the proponents of this legislation seem to have asked themselves if it is not a bit strange to fall back on 19th century definitions of marriage in seeking to define marriage in 2004.
In 1866, homosexual acts between adult males constituted a crime, and it was not long since adultery had been also described as "criminal conversation" in the law. There have been other changes to society far too numerous to set out here but they include the emancipation of women, the widespread introduction of anti-discrimination legislation, changing attitudes to human relationships and the adoption of international standards as to human rights, to which this country has always been a party. This latest legislation ignores all of those developments and treats them as if they had not occurred.
The legislation is a dangerous step in the direction of establishing religion in this country, for we must make no mistake that the sort of marriage the Government is talking about is Christian marriage. I am concerned that the Government, with the compliance of the Opposition, is attempting to entrench Christian dogma in relation to marriage on all of us, whatever our religious persuasion or lack of it.
For a variety of reasons marriage rates have declined in the past few decades, with a concomitant increase in the numbers of de facto relationships. However, many couples still seek marriage and it behoves the law to develop in a way that gives marriage a modern contemporary meaning. Why same-sex couples should be excluded from this process is beyond me, particularly as theincreasing recognition given to non-marital heterosexual unions from the 1980s on has more recently been extended to same-sex unions.
At least one factor seems to be an assumption that it is better for children to have a parent of both sexes than otherwise. This is a big assumption. My own experience in the Family Court suggests children need a loving and caring relationship with their parents of whatever sex. There are many cases where children may in fact be better off with one parent.
The passage of time has also seen marriage become more secularised in nature, and since 1973 civil celebrants have provided a secular alternative to couples who choose not to have a religious ceremony. In 2001 more marriages (53 per cent), were performed by civil celebrants than by ministers of religion.
What the Government, with the help of the Opposition, has succeeded in doing is to turn back the clock nearly 140 years. They have done so at the expense not only of the gay and lesbian community, but quite possibly the transsexual community as well. They have passed one of the most discriminatory laws that could be imagined. They have ridden roughshod over the legitimate rights and aspirations of these citizens. Not satisfied with this they have also struck at the right of single-sex couples to marry or adopt children elsewhere.
No one seems to have asked whether the amendments were necessary given that it would have been impossible to have successfully argued that "marriage" as used in the Marriage Act 1961 contemplated same-sex marriage. One can only hope that a future Australian Parliament will approach this issue in an informed and principled way and repeal this shameful piece of legislation.
This letter attacked these rights as follows:
Jonathan Wilkinson claims that if same-sex marriage is legalized the sky “will not fall here” (Same love, same sex. Why not same deal?”, Opinion, 3/1). Really? What does he mean? I doubt if even the most strident of moralists believes that the sun will not rise the next day.
But fast-forward a generation or two and pay the price of a massive increase in social instability as roles and understandings of sexuality become even more confused.
The traditional family unit is one of the cornerstones of every strong, mature civilization. Erode it and the inevitable collapse may not be tomorrow, or be dramatic – but it will fall.
Mark Rabich, Mount Evelyn
I sent the reply below to The Age on 4 January 2006, and The Age chose, as ever, not to publish a letter which contradicted their world view on such ideas of human rights for all as equal partnership rights. After all, John Howard and Kim Beazley (Assistant Prime Minister) have said that marriage is between a man and a woman, and no laws shall tear that asunder!
More censorship by that so-called newspaper The Age!
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne, 2/12 Murphy Grove, Preston, Vic 3072
Phone: (03)9471 4878 email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au
Mark Rabich (04/01/06) asserts that "The traditional family unit is one of the cornerstones of every strong, mature civilisation". This requires proof because Rabich's homophobic letter suggests that eroding this unit will lead to civilisation's inevitable collapse.
The traditional family unit is already in a state of collapse due to the changing nature of our societies, and has nothing to do with homosexuals demanding marriage rights, so that statistically at least one in three of these heterosexual units disintegrates after a few years.
Perhaps Rabich supports the Iranian government's state sanctioned murders of homosexuals, and the western world's unsanctioned murders of homosexuals. Discrimination continues against gays, lesbians, transgenders and people living with HIV/AIDS and it is time this was stopped.
Until such time as we are given equal rights with other citizens, we will continue to demand them, and as marriage is a religious construct, civil unions recognised by law and giving superannuation and other rights taken for granted by heterosexuals will serve just as well.
Homosexuals have been around for as long as heterosexuals and are entitled to the same human rights.
Mannie De Saxe, for Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne
Now, let’s look at Mark Rabich’s credentials. He is a supporter of creationism, so god is on his side. What more needs to be said!
The following letter appeared in The Age newspaper on 16 January 2006 under the heading “Theatre of the absurd”:
The Australian Government would be perfectly justified to take sanctions against the Dutch Government, and any other government complicit in spreading the homosexual lobby global campaign for perversion of marriage and child-rearing. Same-sex “marriage” laws enacted in a few misgoverned countries conflict with Australia’s Marriage Act. The notion is absurd that foreign same-sex unions override Australian law, but this is homosexual politics – a theatre of the absurd.
I wrote a response to the paper on 17 January 2006, and of course it was not published – The Age’s homophobia is quite clear and unambiguous, although it carries this veneer of “friendliness and fair reportage”. What a joke!
This is what I wrote:
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne 2/12 Murphy Grove, Preston, Vic 3072
Phone:(03) 9471 4878 email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au
GA Thompson is fond of using expressions such as: "Puling", "correctoid chatterati", "anti-democratic, anti-family ploy", "hysterical bed-wetting Philistines", "dangerously disturbed people"! I have to agree with the last sentiment - GA Thompson's homophobic rantings and ravings (16/01/06) show that he belongs in this category.
Thompson says "The notion is absurd that foreign same-sex unions override Australian law, but this is homosexual politics - a theatre of the absurd".
Well, the news is that more and more countries are discovering that human rights for its heterosexual citizens need to be made the same for its homosexual citizens, who are not expecting special rights, only equal rights.
To re-phrase the above quotation, just imagine the outcry if that sentence read "The notion is absurd that foreign/Australian heterosexual unions override Australian law - but this is heterosexual politics - a theatre of the absurd".
One in three Australian marriages break down, child abuse in heterosexual families is rife - and homosexuals are a threat to the sanctity of marriage?? Give us a break!
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne
John Howard is attempting to take his homophobia to new heights – or depths – depending on your perspectives – as he branded civil unions for homosexual couples a “cop-out”!
The following article, which appeared in The Age on Wednesday 8 February 2006 is revealing of the Prime Minister’s character which has really sunk to its lowest level yet – if that really is possible, after all the other scandals of his 10 years of Prime Ministership:
By Jewel Topsfield, Canberra
“Prime Minister John Howard yesterday branded civil unions for homosexual couples a ‘cop-out’, putting the kybosh on a push by Liberal backbenchers to follow Britain’s lead and legally recognize gay relationships.
Liberal MP Warren Entsch, a rough-edged, Harley-riding former crocodile farmer from far north Queensland, yesterday ignored the disapproval of some of his colleagues in the Coalition party room and argued it was time they tackled the ‘long overdue’ issue of equality for same-sex couples.
But Mr Howard told the meeting he disagreed, saying a civil union was a ‘cop-out’ and that would remain his view.
Mr Entsch, who opposed the Government’s ban on same-sex marriages in the lead-up to the 2004 election, vowed to pursue his push for Australia to follow nations such as New Zealand, Britain and Canada in allowing civil unions for gay couples.
‘A lot of people would probably not expect anyone with my background as an ex-crocodile farmer and Cape York grazier would be supporting this cause,’ Mr Entsch told The Age.
‘I’ve got no issue with my own sexuality – I’m fiercely heterosexual – but I will defend (homosexual couples’) rights to any extent to ensure people in that situation are fairly treated.’
While he views marriage as for heterosexuals, Mr Entsch said he believed the Government should allow civil unions or some other form of legal recognition for gay couples. His stance is backed by other Liberal backbenchers including Victorian Petro Georgiou and West Australian Mal Washer.
‘Most of the gay people I talk to, all they want is to have an opportunity to formalize a commitment to each other and get the same sort of recognition…..as any other couple who have committed themselves to a relationship,’ Mr Entsch said.
Dr Washer said he did not disagree that marriage was for heterosexuals, but he felt there was a place for some form of civil union for gays.
Mr Howard said in December (2005) that he was opposed to recognition of such civil unions and that marriage was for men and women.”
Prime Minister John Howard, PARLIAMENT HOUSE,
Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. Wednesday, 8 February 2006.
From: Kendall Lovett, 2/12 Murphy Grove, Preston. Postal Address: PO Box 1675, Preston South, Vic. 3072,
Email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au
Prime Minister,
The Age today here in Melbourne reported your pronouncement in the Coalition party room yesterday that civil unions for homosexual couples was a “cop-out.” Who or what were you referring to?
A “cop-out” is what you and your Attorney-General are involved in by claiming that it is up to the states to enact civil union legislation. Your lot with support from the Beazley Opposition altered the Marriage Licence Act to enshrine the word “marriage” as between a woman and a man. Civil marriage is a contract between two people and without it the religions would be lawless in Australia. They only use the Act because they know that their religious laws carry no weight these days except with some politicians.
It is definitely up to you as some of your backbenchers are maintaining to formalise a same-sex legal commitment for those who want it just the same as the Marriage Licence Act is a commitment for heteros. What do you know about the lives of committed lesbians and gay men!
Take the time to read the letter, written by Michael Burge of Pyrmont NSW, captioned “De Facto Warning” that appeared in the Sydney Star Observer, 2nd February 2006 (see photocopy attached).
Better still, read all three letters. It won’t do you any harm. You really know nothing about our lives, do you?
Obviously, you won’t read this letter or the other three. Your minders will see to that. Perhaps they may mention that one of the voters demanded that you stop making pronouncements on issues you know nothing about. “Cop-out” indeed!
Kendall Lovett.
The item below is the Attachment to the above letter - copy of letters in Sydney Star Observer, Issue 801, 2 February 2006
The letter below, from Jenni Millbank, in the Sydney Star Observer, Issue 800, 26 January 2006, is referred to by Michael Burge in his letter "De Facto Warning" above
This letter appeared in The Age newspaper on 10 February 2006 in response to John Howard’s homophobic outburst about same-sex unions, reported in The Age on 8 February 2006:
Making it tough for children
Denying relationship recognition of same-sex couples by stopping civil unions or banning gay marriage will not stop same-sex-attracted people out there from having children.
Please pull your head out of the sand, Mr Howard (“PM sticks to his guns as Lib MPs push for gay civil unions”, The Age, 8/2). All you’re doing is fuelling a hostile environment wherethe innocent children of same-sex-attracted people will continue to be treated as second-class citizens. Recognise parents’ relationships and you’ll give these children a more stable future.
Lee Matthews, St Kilda
To: The Hon. Warren Entsch MP, Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600. Sunday, 12 February 2006.
From: Kendall Lovett, 2/12 Murphy Grove, Preston.
Postal Address: PO Box 1675, Preston South, Vic 3072. Email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au
Dear Member for Leichhardt,
Your active support for Federal legislation to recognize same sex-relationships legally is appreciated. For your information I am enclosing a copy of my letter and attachment to the Prime Minister last week. I trust it will provide you with another view on the inequality forced on same-sex couples by the change made in Federal Parliament to the Marriage Licence Act.
I was extremely angry at the time the change was made because I saw it locking out any hope of same-sex relationships in Australia ever being accorded marriage equality with heterosexual relationships. For heteros the marriage licence is instant proof of the relationship. Only the equivalent Federal licence for same-sex couples would be proof of their relationship at law anywhere in Australia. State registration doesn’t apply elsewhere automatically.
The PM’s utterance, reported in The Age last week, proved to me just how out of touch he is with reality. It fuelled my anger, hence my letter to him.
My partner and I have been a couple for thirteen years. We did not take the relationship step lightly either. We had known one another for five years prior to the decision and were both openly gay so were well aware of each other’s interests and foibles.
It was never our intention to formalize our relationship by licence even if that was a possibility but on the issue of equality with our brothers and their wives then our relationship deserves the same recognition and value as theirs in law and by government. Why shouldn’t we be entitled to the financial benefits of the marriage licence? One of the Prime Minister’s silliest utterances was to the Brisbane Courier Mail in August 2003 that same-sex marriage would jeopardize the survival of the species!
Anyway, last year after the Marriage Act debacle we took legal advice and had our wills drawn up so that if one of us died there would be no problems for the other one. As HIV/AIDS carers, we knew of several gay men who had died from AIDS, and whose same-sex partners had experienced much the same situation as the writer of the letter I suggested the PM should read. A sad situation and so very unnecessary!
I do hope that you will continue your agitation for us in the party room.
Sincerely, Kendall Lovett
To: Martin Ferguson MP, Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600. Sunday, 12 February 2006.
From: Kendall Lovett, 2/12 Murphy Grove, Preston.
Postal Address: PO Box 1675, Preston South, Vic 3072. Email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au
Dear Martin,
Your active support for Federal legislation to recognize same sex-relationships legally would be greatly appreciated. For your information I am enclosing a copy of my letter and attachment to the Prime Minister last week. I trust it will provide you with another view on the inequality forced on same-sex couples by the change made in Federal Parliament to the Marriage Licence Act.
I was extremely angry at the time the change was made because I saw it locking out any hope of same-sex relationships in Australia ever being accorded marriage equality with heterosexual relationships. For heteros the marriage licence is instant proof of the relationship. Only the equivalent Federal licence for same-sex couples would be proof of their relationship at law anywhere in Australia. State registration doesn’t apply elsewhere automatically.
The PM’s utterance, reported in The Age last week, proved to me just how out of touch he is with reality. It fuelled my anger, hence my letter to him.
My partner and I have been a couple for thirteen years. We did not take the relationship step lightly either. We had known one another for five years prior to the decision and were both openly gay so were well aware of each other’s interests and foibles.
It was never our intention to formalize our relationship by licence even if that was a possibility but on the issue of equality with our brothers and their wives then our relationship deserves the same recognition and value as theirs in law and by government. Why shouldn’t we be entitled to the financial benefits of the marriage licence? One of the Prime Minister’s silliest utterances was to the Brisbane Courier Mail in August 2003 that same-sex marriage would jeopardize the survival of the species!
Anyway, last year after the Marriage Act debacle we took legal advice and had our wills drawn up so that if one of us died there would be no problems for the other one. As HIV/AIDS carers, we knew of several gay men who had died from AIDS, and whose same-sex partners had experienced much the same situation as the writer of the letter I suggested the PM should read. A sad situation and so very unnecessary!
I suggest that it’s time for you to agitate on our behalf in caucus. There are so many of us who live in Batman.
Sincerely, Kendall Lovett
Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby PO Box 2156
Fitzroy Vic 3065
PO Box 1675 Preston South Vic 3072 Phone:(03) 9471 4878
Email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au Web: http://www.zipworld.com.au/~josken
14 February 2006
Re Same-sex relationships Recognition and Registration
We are writing to you to enclose copies of letters we have written and issues we have been involved with in relation to same-sex recognition in legislation, in the federal, state and local government areas.
As John Howard’s appalling homophobia sinks to new depths, and as the Alternative Liberal Party (ALP) has supported him all the way, we are reaching a situation where drowning people need to clutch at straws. That is why we have written letters to the Federal Coalition members of Parliament who have expressed support for the recognition of same-sex relationships and unions. We have also written to our Federal Member of Parliament, ALP Martin Ferguson, member for Batman in Melbourne’s north, who has shown over time that he is no more supportive of gay and lesbian rights than the rest of his party.
We are also enclosing a copy of a letter that we received from the New South Wales State Superannuation Board responding to our query about recognition for pension purposes of same-sex couples. We had already referred a letter from them to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) a few years ago, but the NSW state laws have been changed since we referred the earlier letter to the ADB.
Lesbian and Gay Solidarity added the same-sex marriage issues to its web pages at:
We believe that it is essential for all gay, lesbian and transgender groups to continue to publicise the facts of continuing discrimination against us at all levels of government – we have been particularly involved over the last few years with glt ageing issues - and as same-sex relationship is another discriminatory issue, we are working on this as well.Thank you for continuing to keep us informed of the Lobby’s actions in relation to all these matters.
Regards and best wishes,
Mannie De Saxe and Kendall Lovett, for Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne
OPEN LETTER TO PHILIP RUDDOCK - 31 MARCH 2006:
Dear Philip,
Reports in today's (Thursday 30 March 2006) Age newspaper indicate that you intend to prevent the ACT government from enacting the ACT Civil Unions Bill as it currently stands.
It seems you and your government think that gay unions or marriages will undermine the institution of marriage as you know it in Australia today. While you are aware that up to one in three marriages fail, you will also be aware that many heterosexual couples do not even bother to go through the marriage ceremony and believe their partnership to be just as valid as if they had made some sort of vow before some registered person or organisation. Marriage is not for everyone, and there are many members of same-sex couples who are not interested in the idea of marriage, but civil unions and partnership recognitions would give us all equality under the law, which your government is determined to prevent at all costs.
As if to stress the hypocrisy of your government, it seems that, because of shortages of certain skills in this country, you are now going to permit gay people from overseas to come and work here and bring their same-sex partner with them.
What if they had gone through some sort of marriage in an overseas country? We know that you have tried to stop same-sex couples getting married when one is Australian and the other is from some overseas country by trying to stop birth certificate information being obtained by the Australian partner to show that he/she is not already heterosexually married.
What exactly is your problem about homosexuals? Do you actually know any? Do you actually know any same-sex couples? What are you and your government scared of? You would be aware that many members of your party in the federal parliament are against the stand you are taking and are endeavouring to change the climate of fear which seems to infect so many of you. Has it occurred to you that homosexuals are also human beings and you are discriminating against many people in the community by your actions?
Human rights violations are very common by your government and this is yet another example of your hypocrisy in all matters homosexual. You must be aware that ultimately, no matter what you perpetrate now, this will all be changed in a few years because change is inevitable as more and more countries in the world come to accept that homosexuals are part of their societies and that its members contribute in equal measure to their societies, despite all the discrimination they have to face in their daily lives.
Left-handed, right-handed, blue-eyed, brown-eyed, green-eyed, black-haired, brown-haired, fair-haired, bald-headed, black-skinned, brown-skinned, olive-skinned, white-skinned, fat, thin, tall, short, male, female, transgender, healthy, unhealthy, physically-abled, physically-disabled - the world functions with variations and combinations - but maybe you want to try Hitler's Eugenics?
Yours in equality and human rights for all,
Mannie De Saxe
PS: Dont' forget to tell Bill Heffernan that you have been contacted by some real live homosexuals - they really are people!!