DeeCee and Sam show how same-sex relationships work in practice!
Mannie De Saxe and Kendall Lovett, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne 2/12 Murphy Grove, Preston, Vic 3072
Phone(03)9471 4878 Email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au
John Howard, Prime Minister, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
Prime Minister,
One of the fundamentals of the English language is the understanding of the meaning of words.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th edition, 1990, defines:
Fundamentalism: 1) strict maintenance of traditional Protestant beliefs such as the inerrancy of Scripture and literal acceptance of the creeds as fundamentals of Christianity;
2) strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, esp. Islam
You were quoted as saying that people campaigning for gay marriage were fundamentalists, it was not discrimination to deny gay men and lesbians equal marriage status with heterosexual couples, and you were challenged to defend what one student at a Dublin university called your efforts to entrench homophobia in Australia.
You were quoted as having replied that your government had remedied much of the financial discrimination, but that most Australians did not want gay couples to have equivalent status.
“I think it is a form of minority fundamentalism to say that you have to, in every aspect of one’s institutions and one’s arrangements in society, to have technical equivalence.”
Discrimination is very large on your agenda for a section of the population who are actually demanding the same human rights as the majority of Australians already have.
What gays, lesbians, transgenders, people living with HIV/AIDS are demanding, are not special rights, but equal rights.
Just as many heterosexual couples choose not to marry, so too, do same-sex couples choose not to marry.
However, same-sex marriage, or its legal equivalent as would remove discrimination and provide all citizens with equal rights in their relationships. Are there other citizens of this country who are also accorded second-class citizenship status, or is this status reserved for same-sex relationships only?
When you have conducted a referendum on same-sex unions in Australia, and have the results available as numbers of the population who support, or do not support, same-sex marriages, or unions, then, and then only, will you be in a position to state categorically whether most Australians do or do not want gay couples to have equivalent status.
Much of your agenda in relation to this issue seems to be driven by fundamentalists on all sides of the political spectrum in the current parliament.
All you have succeeded in doing, while remaining out of touch with such issues, is entrenching discrimination and homophobia, entrenching majority fundamentalism, and ensuring human rights abuses to many citizens of Australia.
When it comes to taxation, there is no discrimination, so our taxes go towards ensuring human rights abuses by entrenching unequal rights for some in our communities!
Signed: Mannie De Saxe and Kendall Lovett,
Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne
Copies To: SBS, ABC, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney Star Observer, MCV, Melbourne Star/BNews, Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, PinkBroad, Ozhomohist, The Sunday Age
Prime Minister John Howard Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
2/12 Murphy Grove Preston Vic 3072 Phone(03)9471 4878
Email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au 10 June 2006
Your attitude to same-sex unions would be more understandable, even if still unacceptable, if you were consistent in your homophobia.
We are denied equal rights with other members of the community in relation to issues such as superannuation and other connected financial and legal matters, but when it comes to taxation, you are quite happy to tax us on the same basis as the rest of the community, and use those taxes against us by having the Attorney-General waste tax-payers? money to overturn the legitimate laws of the ACT.
Gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS (GLTH) members of the community don?t want special rights, they want equal rights, human rights which are supposedly legally available to all citizens of Australia.
We know from you that there are first-class citizens such as heterosexuals, then second-class citizens such as gays, lesbians et al., and then third-or lower-class citizens such as Aborigines, Muslims and others who are treated by your government accordingly.
Our campaigning has already started to take up the challenge, and we will fight for equal rights for all.
Divide and rule can take you just so far, but in the end the policy will just collapse.
How many same-sex couples, let alone GLTH citizens have you ever met? Have you ever made any attempt to find out what differences there are between heteros and homos? Of course not! You are simply not sufficiently interested to ensure that human rights are provided to all citizens of this country. Why don?t you publicly debate the issues with members of our communities?
You wouldn?t have the courage!
* Time to check out your parliamentary colleagues to find out how successful their marriages have been, how many of them have been ?a marriage between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, and for life?!I was married for 31 years, have three children and three grandchildren, have been in a same-sex relationship for over 13 years and defy you to explain what is unacceptable to you.
What we want is equal rights and we want them NOW!
Mannie De Saxe
Copies to: SBS, ABC, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney Star Observer, MCV, Melbourne Star/BNews, Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Pink Broad, Ozhomohist, The Sunday Age, GLBTI Ageing, Matrix Guild, Vintage Men, Mature Age Gays, Victorian Premier Steve Bracks, NSW Premier Morris Iemma, ALSO, Rebellion, CAAH
COPY BELOW OF LETTER TO PREMIER OF NSW MORRIS IEMMA
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne PO Box 1675 Preston South Vic 3072
Phone:(03)9471 4878 email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au
Premier,
It is time to stop the homophobia ever present in your parliament and from you as Premier.
The latest incident involving the Tillman Park Children's Centre in the Marrickville Coucil area would be laughable if episodes like these didn't have disastrous consequences.
The homophobes roaming the streets of Sydney see that the politicans give them carte blanche to attack gays, lesbians and transgender people, either verbally or physically or both, and end up committing heinous crimes because of the irresponsibility of your attacks.
Do you really think it is going to affect the population at large because a few young children have Brenna and Vicki Harding's books read to them?
Morris IemmaWhat do all of the above have in common?
An intensive campaign to stop the national sport of homophobia becoming a pandemic.
Minister for citizenship? An oxymoron if ever there was one! To make second-class citizens of so many of his constituents in the electorate of Lakemba who are gay, lesbian, transgender, HIV/AIDS voters in the electoral district of Lakemba!
And what about the other polticians mentioned above. What is their role in propagating hate speech and discrimination leading to all the abuses known to members of the Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and HIV/AIDS ( GLTH) communities?
Added to all of this is the action of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General to stop the legitimate passing of legislation in support of same-sex relationships in the ACT. Taxpayers' money - we are all taxpayers and I find it totally hypocritical of governments to take our money without question and then use it to make us second-class citizens!
Time to stop the rot, stop the homophobia, publicise the hypocrisies of governments, turn all GLTH communities into activists!
Mannie De Saxe
Copies to: SBS, ABC, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney Star Observer, MCV, Melbourne Star/BNews, Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Pink Broad, Ozhomohist, The Sunday Age, GLBTI Ageing, Matrix Guild, Vintage Men, Mature Age Gays, Victorian Premier Steve Bracks, NSW Premier Morris Iemma, ALSO, Rebellion, CAAH
Monday, 29 May 2006
There is a basic problem facing same-sex couples and the Commission in this Inquiry. The problem is simply the extent to which homophobia is entrenched in Australian society. It will continue to divide the country to such a degree that any recommendations the Commission may make about discriminatory parts in various laws it identifies will just cause time-wasting parliamentary arguments ending in minor changes to a few federal laws.
Comments(1) Homophobia --(fear, hate or unreasoned ignorance about people who do not fit an heterosexual norm)-- is rife in sport, in the workplace (particularly in heavy, manual, male-orientated employment), in education, in police and defence personnel, in the family, in religion (especially in Christian, Jewish and Islamic sections of Australian society), in the media, in the judiciary, in fact in some form actively or passively in every occupation one wants to name, and from the lowest to the highest individual in the land. Currently, the most blatant example occurred this year when the Australian Prime Minister on a visit to Ireland told students at a Dublin University that most Australians do not want gay couples to have equivalent status. “I think it is a form of minority fundamentalism to say that you have to, in every aspect of one’s institutions and one’s arrangements in society, have technical equivalence,” he said.
Someone tell Prime Minister Howard that same-sex is not a religion.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines Fundamentalism: a) strict maintenance of traditional Protestant beliefs such as the inerrancy of Scripture and literal acceptance of the creeds as fundamentals of Christianity; b) strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, esp. Islam.
(2) The Prime Minister’s quoted statement is rank hypocrisy on his and his government’s part to deny a government licence with the ensuing special benefits and rights to same-sex couples as proof of their decision to live together with or without adoptive children. Australia provides a licence to a woman and a man who want to live together in a relationship whether or not they reproduce or adopt children. The licence is proof of their decision, not a religious ceremony. That government licence automatically provides rights and special benefits not available to single people. That is where, in a secular democracy like Australia, hypocritical discrimination occurs. It was set in concrete in 2004 when Prime Minister Howard amended the Marriage Act 1961 to define “marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others” blocking any federally sanctioned same-sex marriage in Australia. The government cannot continue to discriminate by law against a legitimate section of the population and tell its neighbours it’s a democratic government in a democracy.
(3) As senior gay citizens we have found evidence of direct as well as indirect discrimination which no amount of legislation will affect because it is ingrained and subtle. Homophobia is like that. It should be recognised as abuse. It is limiting in practice as generational social attitudes entrenched in discriminating legislation. For instance, in a NSW Committee on Ageing Study in August 2001, Keeping the Balance: Older Men and Healthy Ageing, not one of the participants in its focus groups and seminar identified as gay. The study report suggested that the use of heterosexist language and the expectations of the organisers of the focus groups and the seminar acted as barriers to the participation of older gay men in the research. This was also borne out by Darebin Council in Melbourne when we made a submission commenting on its 2001 Draft Aged and Disability Services Strategy. The Review Team admitted that their Focus Study Groups did not identify any gay or lesbian issues from participants. This bears out our contention that homophobic social attitudes can have a limiting affect on ageing same-sex individuals which discriminatory legislation only exacerbates.
We suggest that by providing legislation that recognises same-sex relationships as legitimate with equivalent benefits, rights and responsibilities as bestowed by the Marriage Act, this will go a long way to correcting the imbalance. It should also force the States and Territories to review their legislation that discriminates against the same-sex Australian population.
ConclusionWe urge the Commission to recommend to the Federal Government that it issue an alternative licence for all couples who wish to live together in a loving lifetime relationship whether of opposite sex, because they dislike the religious significance implicit in the Marriage Act, or of same-sex that provides the same rights, obligations and benefits of the Marriage Licence.
Such a non-discriminative couples licence would be proof of commitment without a religious connotation and allow the Marriage Licence to remain as a religious instrument. We believe that it is not up to us as participants in this Inquiry to identify discriminatory passages in any other federal, state or territory legislation. It is the job of our elected representatives in parliament.
Sincerely,
Signed: Kendall Lovett and Mannie De Saxe,And still waiting!
Till the next election???
Mannie De Saxe
Since we have not yet had a response, we thought we would give you a reminder that we are waiting to hear from you.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Forwarded message follows -------Dear Nicola,
The Melbourne Star of 20 July 2006 carries as its banner headline on the front page: "Roxon hits back". It says Shadow Attorney General Nicola Roxon says she's perplexed that some gay groups don't see her proposed anti-discrimination bills as a major step forward. The Australian Labor Party has been homophobic from its origins and has shown little interest in human rights and anti-discrimination legislation ensuring all citizens - including those of alternative sexualities - of this country have equal rights under the law.
Which part of the expression "EQUAL RIGHTS" can't be understood by the homophobic ALP? What you are proposing is NOT equal rights and yet you have the temerity to complain that gays, lesbians, transgenders, people living with HIV/AIDS are not bowing in obeisance to the ALP for their charitable condescension? If you think that members of the GLTH communities are going to vote for the ALP at the next federal election because Nicola is putting a few crumbs on the table, I think you need to take a cold shower, drop your religious affiliations and look at the issues from a human rights perspective. What do you know about the lives of people in these communities? What consultations has the ALP had with them? How interested in them is the ALP? Only interested at election time and for the five minutes it takes to fill in the voting forms?
Warren Entch's proposed relationship recognition bill is supposed to be a sop to those who want marriage and relationship equality. Nothing will be fixed before the next federal election, and as the ALP hopes to gain some votes out of your proposed bill, state gay lobby groups are really going to be pleased to be called "silly" for criticising your efforts. You need to try harder than this! Go back to the drawing board and start from scratch and produce an offer of equality legislation in ALL aspects of current discrimination - including religious exemptions - and maybe the ALP will get some support. As things stand at the moment we will do our best to ensure that the ALP does NOT get that support at election time.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne
See earlier correspondence below:
The emails below are in reverse order.
First is the response from Nicola Roxon, and below it is the email sent on 29 May 2004
Nicola Roxon MP Shadow Attorney-General Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on the Status of Women Media Release
Marriage will remain a union between a man and a woman, but same sex couples are entitled to recognition as de factos. Labor position on Government Bill :
The Labor Party will not oppose the PM's measures to confirm in the Marriage Act the common law understanding that marriage is "a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others".
Consistent with this, Labor will also not oppose a prohibition on recognising foreign same sex marriages.
While Labor questions the PM's motives and reasons for bringing on this issue for debate now, and questions whether it is necessary - Labor does not oppose these parts of the Bill which merely confirm existing law and our previous commitments to keeping marriage as a heterosexual institution.
However Labor does not support the Government's attempts to interfere in adoption issues. Adoption has always been an issue for the States and Territories to determine, as the PM himself acknowledges. It is inconsistent and inappropriate for the PM to try and interfere in this issue simply because some children are being adopted from overseas.
Rigorous eligibility standards apply at the State and Territory level and we have confidence that those processes ensure the best interests of the child are paramount. Labor will move amendments to this Bill and refer the Bill to a Senate Committee for a full exploration of the technical issues that arise and to ensure the broader community has an opportunity to express their views on this Bill.
Labor position on acknowledgement and recognition of same sex couples
More importantly, Labor restates its commitment to remove discriminatory provisions from Commonwealth legislation on the basis of sexuality, following a full audit of existing laws. This audit will commence immediately once Labor is elected to Government. It will allow issues of substance, such as superannuation, taxation, social security and much more, to be addressed comprehensively. When complete, this will give same sex couples the rights and recognition of heterosexual de facto couples.
-----Original Message-----The ALP seems to have shot itself in the foot yet again. All those marginal seats which the ALP hopes to take from the Coalition which are city marginals will have a strong response to what you are about to do over the gay and lesbian marriage issue. This is not about marriage per se, it is about equal rights for the citizens of Australia.
Marriage is not a very successful heterosexual institution, so those who are defending marriage on a religious basis lost the fight some decades ago. We do have alternatives when we go to exercise our democratic rights at the ballot box. If you think you are playing it for some of your constituents you couldn't be further from the truth!
Mannie De Saxe
Leunig's calendar cartoon has yet again been altered and enhanced to show the direction gays and lesbians are NOT going in Australia due to the homophobia of the federal government in general and the attorney-general in particular.
We sent a letter to John Howard about his homophobia in relation to same sex partnerships and his government's overturning of the ACT's proposed legislation.
Below is the response from Philip Ruddock which is breath-taking in its sheer hypocrisy!.
In the letter, Ruddock states, after explaining why the government has acted as it has in regard to marriage or same-sex unions,
This government has shown in all its actions that it is homophobic and wants no part in recognising the fact that so many of the Australian population live in same-sex relationships which are as stable as, and very often even more so than, heterosexual relationships. And, of course, as we all know, at least one in three heterosexual marriages fail, and many heteros don't even bother getting married any more!
The article below was in The Age on 7 February 2007, and reflects, yet again, if that were really necessary, that the present federal government is one of the most homophobic governments Australia has had, although equalling in many respects those of the state governments around the country now and in the years gone by.
By KENNETH NGUYEN AND ANNABEL STAFFORD
Gay civil unions have been thwarted again by the Howard Government, which yesterday (6 February) blocked a second bid by the Australian Capital Territory to recognize gay partnerships.
The ACT Government introduced its Civil Partnerships Bill in December (2006), six months after the Federal Government disallowed the Territory’s Civil Unions Act on the grounds that it would undermine the institution of marriage.
The ACT Government made changes in the new bill to allay the Commonwealth’s concerns – including removing the earlier statement that a civil union was to be treated in the same way as marriage under ACT law.
But the new bill had not removed the concerns the Commonwealth had with the Civil Unions Act, federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said yesterday. The proposed changes would still likely undermine the institution of marriage, he said.
ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell warned that the ACT voters would likely punish the Federal Government at this year’s election. “This is incredibly high-handed and arrogant,” he said.
Mr Corbell said the ACT had asked the Federal Government what parts of the original legislation it wanted changed, but it had refused to discuss the matter.
“The reason for that is that their position is fundamentally weak and they can’t explain in any substantive way why they oppose this,” Mr Corbell said.
“All they resort to is that this offends the institute of marriage – whatever that means.”
Mr Corbell said he would talk to colleagues about letting “this legislation lie on the table but not pass it”.
“We will simply let it sit in the assembly until after the next election…..maybe then we’ll have a federal government more willing to let the ACT legislate for its own citizens,” he said.
By KAREN KISSANE
LAW AND JUSTICE EDITOR.Over the past decade the High Court (Australia) has moved further to the right and away from legal innovation, particularly when it comes to human rights issues, High Court Justice Michael Kirby said last night.
Recent decisions such as the WorkChoices case “illustrated the rise and rise of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth at the cost of those of the states,” he said.
Research suggested that the last decade had not been good for plaintiffs, with more decisions in favour of defendants and their insurers.
And he congratulated pop singer Anthony Callea for having come out as gay, saying: “(He) has done a bold and correct thing. He is an admirable Australian. “In terms of influencing popular culture and understanding of the reality of human sexual diversity, I would trade 10 judges for one popular singer.”
Speaking at the first of a series of annual lectures in his name at Southern Cross University in Lismore, New South Wales, Justice Kirby painted himself as the odd man out on the High Court bench. He said his rate of dissension from majority decisions was now running at 48 per cent, the next most dissenting justice was only 16 per cent.
To judge whether he was “taking delight in being contrary,” Justice Kirby had checked his dissent rate in his previous job as president of the NSW Court of Appeal: there he was with the majority 85 per cent of the time.
Justice Kirby said the political furore of the Wik case on Aboriginal land rights, which triggered “unrelenting attacks” on the bench, represented “a decline in civil understandings between the branches of government.”
Every justice appointed since Wik had been judged against the promise of politician Tim Fischer to appoint capital-C conservatives: “There can be no doubt that the philosophical balance of the High Court has shifted significantly since my appointment was announced at the end of 1995. Almost certainly, those who have supported the shift would not wish to deny it.”
Justice Kirby believes the resentment over Wik helped fuel the political attack, under a misuse of parliamentary privilege, in which he was wrongly accused of using privileges of office to engage in improper sexual behaviour: “Having got a taste of blood, the attacks in 1996-97 were to be followed up by a personal attack on me in the Senate. This was a sorry episode in the relationship between the Parliament and the court.”
Justice Kirby said his partner of 27 years, Johan van Vloten, was not protected under federal law as a spouse or de facto would be.
But Mr Van Vloten now comes to all High Court functions and attends lunches with the Queen, and dinners with the Governor General and Prime Minister. “People are getting used to it,” Justice Kirby said.
(The Age, 31.3.07)Link: High Court of Australia Publications
By Alison Thorne
This crowd today looks fantastic! I see splashes of red everywhere — and this symbolises our anger. And we have plenty of damn good reasons to be angry!
It is now three years since the homophobic Howard Government — with bi-partisan support from the gutless ALP opposition — amended the marriage act to ban same sex marriages.
While our parliamentary homophobes continue to pander to religious fundamentalists and right wing family values fanatics, the good news is that Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, South Africa and Spain have all legalised same-sex marriage.
Civil Unions are now also legal in 17 other countries. But what has the Howard Government done? It overturned the ACT same-sex civil unions scheme last year!
It’s a homophobic disgrace!
And now the Howard Government has announced that it wants to ram through legislation before the Federal Election to prevent overseas adoptions by same-sex couples.
Are we going to take this? NO!
Are we? No way!
The Howard Government wants to wind back the clock to the 1950s. Commenting on same-sex adoption, the Prime Minister droned on about the importance of every child being brought up in a heterosexual nuclear family with a happily married Mum and Dad. Get real Howard — the world has moved on even if you haven’t! The impact of feminism and gay liberation has seen to that!
This government is seriously out of touch —nearly half of all children will spend some part of their childhood living with a sole parent.
And just as the pill, no fault divorce laws, welfare payments and the majority of women being in the paid workforce has turned domestic arrangements inside out, recognising the right of queers to wed will further change marriage as we know it.
So when we demand same-sex relationship equality we are not begging to be let into an outdated patriarchal institution that holds women in bondage! We are insisting that same-sex relationships be recognised and treated with equality and respect. That’s why, as a socialist feminist who is a member of Radical Women, I am fighting for the right to wed a same-sex partner. And when we win that right — I will happily say no thankyou, marriage is not for me!
This is the third year in a row we have taken the streets on August 12th — and thousands of others are joining us in other parts of the country.
And while we have much to be angry about, we can also be very proud of what we have achieved. We have put same-sex relationship equality and recognition of rainbow families on the political agenda. Discussions about establishing relationship registers have been happening in the most unlikely of places. We have done that!
And, by being loud, proud, visible and organised we have brought the majority along with us. The Galaxy Poll released earlier this year found that 71% of Australians support same-sex relationship equality! That is a magnificent result that has been achieved by our activism.
I’m so proud of that 71%! They won’t be satisfied with second-class schemes, they support equality. And they are our workmates, our families, our friends, and our neighbours. And they have refused to be conned by divisiveness and fear mongering.
John Howard and his big business mates are the minority and they want to keep the rest of us — the majority — divided and fearful of each other.
They want us to feel so scared that we will accept anti-democratic terror laws and the shameful incarceration of Dr Mohamed Haneef.
They use racism to demonise Aboriginal Australians and try to convince us that it is OK to over-ride the Racial Discrimination Act and send in the troops.
And they aim to whip up homophobia and peddle fear when they disparage lesbian and gay parents.
But that Galaxy poll result and public opinion about the Haneef affair and the racist Northern Territory land grab show that ordinary Australians are much smarter than the Howard Government gives us credit for!
By being prepared to fight for our rights and show solidarity with others, the fear has evaporated and we have allies everywhere. And that’s great news.
So, let’s roll up our sleaves for another year of vigorous activism. We want to see the Howard Government go. But we’re not silly — we know that ALP is not going give us anything that we are not prepared to fight for!
Let’s be ready for that fight because it’s a fight we have to win. We must stay mobilised, visible and be clear that we’ll accept nothing less than full equality.
Let’s march and let’s be heard!
Hey hey, ho ho homophobia’s got to go! Hey hey, ho ho homophobia’s got to go!
As Gertrude Stein might have said of the Rudd government: A DISCRIMINATION IS A DISCRIMINATION IS A DISCRIMINATION!
Today, 30 April 2008, we get an announcement from the federal attorney general that the government is committed to ending discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgenders by altering about 100 pieces of legislation affecting superannuation, hospital benefits and other financial related issues.
They also announced in their most pompous and self-righteous manner: "Marriage is between a man and a woman!"
There is a major problem with their patronising attitude and the revised legislation. Marriage between a man and a woman as an institution has been failing for at least the last 50 years and continues to do so.
What is marriage? Ownership in a heterosexual arrangement of a woman by a man.
Gays, lesbians, transgenders do not want anything other than equal rights under the law, not special rights which is what the government is doing yet again in its discriminatory legislation.
Who needs marriage? I certainly don't! Been there, done that, wouldn't ever make the same mistake a second time, and my gay partner and I wouldn't contemplate marriage if it was offered to us on a platter!
BUT! and this is the big but - many people in our communities feel that marriage or its equivalent legal registration process would allow them the same rights as heterosexuals enjoy - adoption rights, IVF rights and other related rights.
So, what do we get? We get the slop bucket of the Howard/Rudd governments waste material thrown at us as a sop.
Is it good enough? Of course not!
What do we want?
Equal rights!
When do we want them?
NOW!!!!!
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne
We live in the federal electoral area of Batman represented in the federal parliament by Martin Ferguson - yes, that's right - he who supports uranium mining for Australia! The following letter was today received from Ferguson, who had the date at the top of his letter as 6 May 2007, which shows he really is interested in the topic about which he wrote to us! Below his letter is an email sent to him in response:
I refer to your letter dated 6 May 2007 (sic) (REF: MF:HE) in which you write to advise of the Rudd government's attempts to placate homosexual Australians by having "some discriminations" removed, while leaving others untouched.
As Gertrude Stein might have said: "Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination"!
Reform is not what is required - equality is what is required, and an end to discrimination and homophobia.
It is not yet clear on what grounds the federal government intends, yet again, to interfere with the ACT's attempts to bring equality to its citizens, but it does show that the Rudd government is just as determined as the Howard government to placate the religious right and leave marriage as between a man and a woman. This is, in any event, a biblical interpretation in a secular state and has no place in the 21st century in Australia.
The following definitions might help you and your government to understand the English language a little better:
Concise Oxford Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990:
Homophobia:
a hatred or fear of homosexuals
Discrimination:
unfavourable treatment based on prejudice, especially regarding race, colour or sex
Equality:
the state of being equal.
Gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS people demand rights which are the same for all members of the Australian population, in other words, equal rights.
Equal rights are not special rights.
The reforms of legislation by this federal government provide limited "equality" which ends as soon as the current attorney general, no less than the previous one, says marriage is between a man and a woman.
The religious right has got this government where it wants it, that is, no partnership rights because it will break up the religious aspects of a man owning a woman and will be a desecration of the marriage ceremony! In 2008 the divorce rate is at an all time high with more than one in three marriages breaking up after a few years, and many couples living together and choosing not to marry at all!
What gay, lesbian and transgender people want is equal rights, not special rights, and although I heartily disapprove of marriage as an institution, if some couples want such certificated approval, it should be their right to have it.
What this government has done is to provide a sop to those who think they have achieved law reform as recommended by the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report which advised of 58 areas of inequality in the law, but there have since been discovered to be over 100 items.
Discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgenders continues to be government policy, no matter which party is in government, and none can be trusted to provide equality! Homophobia is alive and well and certainly living in Canberra!
We are, and remain, second-class citizens who pay the same taxes as "first-class" citizens. Your government ought to be ashamed!
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne