Sexuality

As a fervent lobbyist for the Marriage Equality movement, or in the past a Musical Theatre performer or before that a male dancer in everything from Ballet to Rock n Roll, the tag of “Gay” has followed me for much of the latter half of my life. So is now the time to be coming out? I still do a regular Tap Dance Classes even though at times my feet reflect my years with grumbles of “let me know when your admitting your age and giving this up”.

An associate on a Facebook page now called “Equality for LGBTIQ Australians” sent a message to me. The renaming of the group is one I am accredited with having suggested when it’s original identification with the marriage equality debate was over because we won that fight in parliament.  He asked if I would submit a few words about “coming out” as part of a call for submission for an anthology called “Growing up queer in Australia“.  As usual, I was both flattered and took pride (if I may use that word) in earning yet again, the suspicion that I must be “gay”.  The truth is, I am not!  Not that I haven’t had some misgivings about that in the past, but I will tell that story later herein.  I belong to that common garden variety “heterosexual married man with a female wife and a child living in suburbia” class.  Well, perhaps not “common garden variety” but “straight” nevertheless.  A “coming out” story of sorts, I can, although, provide which carried me from a North Queensland boy in the heartland of rampant proudly anti-gay heterosexuality to the fervent lobbying for marriage equality evident in the history or articles here in my blog and other media publications.

The Deep North

Brought up in the deep North of Queensland and North Western outback schooling where the suggestion that you might be “gay” was an insult, I never thought I would consider the tag of gay as something I might take as a point of pride.  One boy in our school amongst the mullock heap of Charters Towers‘ former gold fields, did associate himself with that tag.  Alan was a long and skinny lad whom I often suspect made that claim more out of a desire for notoriety and a desire be noticed.  Nobody was ever sure if he was, but he certainly got noticed and not in a kind way.  Boarding schools in the deep west between Townsville and Mount Isa were not places where comradery and tolerance were features of the schoolboy culture.  Teachers still canned students for misbehaviour and these teachers were rated by students by how much blood they could draw in canning. Students, encouraged by an atmosphere of abuse, provided a reflected pattern of pain upon anyone that was classified in any manner as different.  In my case, it was a congenital physical disability with my feet, and in Alan’s case, he claimed to be gay.  Bullying was just something you lived with, and the only relief was the short few weeks you spent at home between terms.  I felt sorry for Alan, and I thought, if it is true, this was not the place to “come out”.  After extensive surgery at 17 at least my feet could pass for “normal”, and I would never need orthotic calipers again. The subsequent sporting achievements that I pushed myself through gained me some small respect and a little less of the usual schoolboy oppression. Alan’s claims diminished over time, and he left the school, and I never saw him again.  I never returned to Charters Towers and never responded to any of the “old boy reunion” treaties that followed me around for many years after that.

College

College life at University was a sudden immersion into a level of freedom, I’d never experienced before, and on reflections years later would describe my first year as “fun”, going wild with the consequential failures in some course subjects.  I settled down thereafter and completed my degree over a longer time than the university normally allocated for it. Part of the settling influences was the local Uniting Church and a fellowship of what would be, lifelong friends.  The Uniting Church was gaining a reputation as the “rainbow church” because of their social justice agenda that supported the Gay community.  Despite that, I still held a perspective that being tagged as “gay” was something to be avoided.  I honestly don’t believe I was ever comfortable with the more ardent evangelical opinion of some college evangelicals, that being gay was a “God-ordained hated sin“, but by the same token, I wasn’t defending the gay community either.  Then on a holiday visit to Brisbane, a friend offered me a stay overnight at a home of a lesbian couple. I was pre-warned and told not to “freak out” at witnessing any “affection” as people of a religious persuasion were want to do. I was a typical poor student and free lodgings for the night was never to be refused.  They were not weird or unusual and were delightful hosts, and I left wondering, why all the fuss?

Dancing my feet off

After College, I moved to Brisbane and resumed dancing which had more to do with the disability I had been born with, than any emerging gay leanings.  Part of my early childhood therapy my mother put me through, was being taught an “adjusted” form of ballet by Anne Roberts. As an adult, I eventually did private training and competed in dance competitions and emersed myself in the world of dance continually challenging myself to see how far a person with my remaining foot disabilities could take it before someone realised I was a fraud.  In Sydney, I took up Ballet, Jazz, Ballroom, Tap dance, Rock n Roll and eventually competed in state and countrywide competitions earning merits and in some cases, later winning open level competitions in Pas de Deux and Rock n Roll.  I would dance with as many as three dance partners at any time in different dance styles each week.  I would later go into the auspices of musical theatre and perform on stage to dance and sing for appreciative audiences.  Following that, I would teach & run a “disabled” dance project for seven years. You can probably begin to see why the tag of “gay” began to follow me. In the meantime, I revelled in being able to move on my feet in a manner which doctors long ago had cautioned my mother, was an impossible dream.

Tagging

In the midst of all that, the “gay” tag arose with frequency.  One partner with whom I danced for six years, finally asked me after our first three months as partners, whether I was gay. I was both amused she hadn’t figured out I wasn’t but complimented that she thought I must be. She was a Pas de Deux partner with whom intimate physical handling was part and parcel of our choreography.  Together we later won the South Pacific Dance championships in Pas de Deux held in Sydney in 1994 to which my entire family were witness.  Our choreographer told me she saw my tearful mother crying in the stands. A Jazz ballet choreographer I had was mentored by for nearly two years asked my “jazz” partner whom I’d been dancing with all that time, the same question about my gay status.  Kylie burst out laughing while denying the assumption. It had been asked behind my back, and when I later asked what she had been laughing at, she told me. I thought that was cool.

For me, the point at which I shifted from my North Queensland biases with finality was the very first “Stamping Ground” men’s dance festival. It ran as a dominantly men’s dance festival for two weeks in Bellingen, NSW, for ten consecutive years.  I attended every one, but the first one was the game changer or the point at which I “came out” from my fear and bigotry.  Being the only male in some dance schools where there would be as many as 20 adult female dancers was a lesson in holding one’s tongue when a degree of “sexism” occurred from time to time.  Because I was a guy, in what some women, felt was an intrusion on their domain.  Others like the Dance Captain held me with a different perspective. One evening during rehearsals and the frequent calls for the “girls” to perform better and stop “marking” the routine, I coughed loudly in an attempt to bring to her attention, I was not a girl.  Donna turned to me and said, “You’re just one of the girls, get over it”.  Not unlike the status that was given to me by the militant lesbian conclave, with which my girlfriend regularly hung out.  Over dinner in an Italian cafe, they decided to tag me with the moniker “honourary lesbian” as an induction concession into their community.

Stamping Ground

So when Peter Stock in Bellingen decided to run a men’s dance festival, I enrolled the moment I heard about it.  The initial 100 men in attendance were predominately from Melbourne Dance companies (probably because that is where Peter had a dance history) and the teaching was a smorgasbord of styles and opportunities.  I revelled in not being a minority, and the guys were predominately fabulous, intelligent, energetic, talented, encouraging, and … gay as all hell.  I found myself conflicted.  The turning point for me was late one night lying in the dark in a lower bunk in the local backpackers.  I couldn’t sleep as I wrestled with how attracted to these men I felt. Did that mean I was gay? Then something happened I have never forgotten.  I was in the mixed bunk room, presumably because the owners probably thought a male dancer had to be gay and therefore a safe occupant to share a room with members of the opposite sex. A young and beautiful Scandinavian girl climbed back down the upper bunk ladder opposite my bunk, clad in only white underpants and bra. Suddenly distracted from my brooding, I watched her descend and head off to the bathroom.  I suddenly laughed at myself and whispered, “Nope, I’m just fine as I am“.  I just thought these guys I danced with were great and I enjoyed their company as dancers and men. Frankly, they were men of better character than a lot of the heterosexual men I encountered in the dance halls, who often confessed they were not there because they revelled in the joy of dance, but simply to “meet” women.  I rolled over and went to sleep, finally at peace. I never saw the young scantily clad Scandinavian girl again. But whoever you were, “thank you!”

The Flatmate

Years later a woman applied to a flatmate matching agency looking for a vetted person with which to share a house.  She phoned me upon being matched via the agency’s profile matching program.  But we had trouble arranging an appointment because of my musical theatre rehearsal schedule.  On the day she did arrive, she met me outside on the footpath just as I was saying farewell to an occasional ballet partner from Bellingen who had stayed the weekend.  I shepherded her through the garage which had been converted into a dance studio complete with mirrors, sprung floor, ballet bars, wallpaper displaying ballerinas dancing and a mirror ball twirling from the centre of the studio.  My Cat rushed past her legs, and I introduced the multicoloured short-haired tortoiseshell cat to her as “Sarafina“, named after an African dancer.  Her first thought was “GAY!”. Absolutely and verifiably!  Perfectly safe to move in with this prospective flatmate.

Two years later we were married in the Uniting Church in Bellingen and on that day, two men (a gay couple of several years) stood beside us in our wedding party, to support our vows to one another.  We deliberately changed the phrase “man and a woman” to “two people” in our vows, officiated by the Uniting Church minister from my college years. The two men were her best friends, and they have been lifelong friends to both of us before and since.  It was for them that my wife wanted to have our vows changed from the “standard”.  Over the years even though these friends have moved to Melbourne, we have encouraged each other’s respective relationships, tackling the concerns that the struggles of relationships we mutually often encounter. We stay in one another’s houses when we are in each other’s respective cities and have honoured the bonds that have held each other together.  It was for them that I have written and argued and lobbied for marriage equality over the years because I dreamed of the day when we could both stand beside them as they took their vows, and make promises to uphold their marriage, as they had done for us.

Finally the end game.

It was a cool Saturday afternoon in June 2018 when in the halls of Montsalvat in Melbourne, when the celebrant asked myself and my wife, “Who gives these two men to be married?”  My wife and I replied simultaneously, “I do!“.  Dressed in a white suit, not unlike the one his dad was wearing, I watched with pride as my small son stepped forward as “ring bearer” to hand the rings to our two friends.  After two decades of being together, they could finally marry.  It was my privilege to be a part of their wedding, and a long-held ambition which if you look through my blog you will find was clearly articulated as the reason I defended Marriage Equality and repudiated the postal survey across all manner of feeble excuses by the political, religious, libertarian and just plain unthinking list of obstructors.  As darkness descended on Montsalvat and the joyous sounds of over a hundred guests revelling in the final victory of equality and love, one thought repeated in my mind.  “Mission accomplished!”

There will still be battles to fight against the ongoing bigotry of ignorance and small-mindedness but I am now OUT and proud of who I am and whom I seek to defend.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Has the cover-up of sexual abuse by the religious leaders in this country ceased, or is a culture of concealment still entrenched and showing up in new forms, as art (or what occurs to art) reflects life?

There is a pub in Newtown I walked past last week, in which the artist, Scott Marsh, was on a small scaffolding rig painting a multi-storeyed image of Abbott and Pell. It was being painted in a rear alleyway at the back of a local pub.  I could not recognise the characters as the painting had only recently started and thought to return later to see how it turned out. Unfortunately, within 6 hours of it being completed – according to the staff at the Botany View Hotel – Pell’s image had been defaced with a paint splatter leaving only Abbott recognisable.

Sometime after that, it was entirely painted over in black allegedly by members of a right-wing Christian religious group, offended at the portrayal of Tony Abbott in a Wedding dress beside a half-naked muscular Cardinal Pell. An interview with a local resident revealed that earlier on, people had gathered to protest over the wall’s image on Friday night.  While initially claiming to be Catholics complete with incense burners waving ceremoniously at the wall, my catholic informant noted some discrepancies in their “Catholic” behaviour. Upon befriending them – to seek further information – he learned they came from three separate Christian churches and were not the “Catholics” they initially pretended to be.

The vandalism of Scott Marsh’s work didn’t stop at the image of Abbott and Pell. A Facebook group called “Christian Lives Matter” instigated and provoked “Christians” to continue attacking Scott Marsh’s work which included a privately commissioned image of George Michael on Devine Street Reserve, painted by private commission a year ago. One person has been arrested for defacing that image, and another lost his job, when he was filmed defacing the mural while wearing his employer’s logo on his shirt. They are both facing fines for vandalising private property.

Social media from the “No” and “Yes” vote campaigns reacted.  Abusive phone calls were received by the hotel staff and licensee.  Lyle Shelton defended the vandalism equating either Pell and/or Abbott to religious leaders such as Mohamed. One might understand if it was an offensive image of Christ, but Cardinal Pell?  All these factors have made me aware, that the fight for Equality for the Newtown’s community of diverse gender, sexuality and race, is far from over. (The Newtown electorate of Grayndler had a 79.9%  “Yes” vote)  An associate on Facebook titled his long opposing proclamation against the images with “Sodomite Nation!“.

“Sodomite Nation” is an interesting turn of phrase. It is more interesting to note – like the word “gay” – how the meanings of words change over time. Religious concerns about homosexuality are often based on the fallacious belief that sodomy, as it was expressed in the Bible, was about homosexuality – a word that didn’t emerge in English till the 19th century.  The biblical text, although, had no such connotation.  Even Robyn Whitaker from Trinity College pointed out that Sodomy, as it was revealed in the biblical literature, is about rape and sexual abuse. Sodom and Gomorrah is a story about people rocking up at your door wanting to break it in, to have their way with you or your guests. It’s not about love or sex; it’s about abuse, it’s about rape. If what happened to Lot and his family occurred today outside your house, you would phone the police, scream for your neighbours to help and load your shotgun in defence. It is not about sexual preferences it is about RAPE and SEXUAL ABUSE. It’s sure as hell not about LOVE – gay or otherwise!

That the church has illegitimately changed the meaning of the word is understandable if you’re in the Catholic priesthood, as you wouldn’t want the bible to be condemning your particular predilections towards activities you’re infamous for, concerning small children. Two men who defended Sodomy (in its original biblical meaning) were adorned in effigy on the back-wall of a Hotel at the end of Newtown. One representative guarded the other via enormous political power, while the other defended and hid perpetrators of a crime only to be rewarded by the Vatican, while the biblical God allegedly destroyed a city over that evil. Pell was himself accused of sexual abuse and although an unproven accusation, his defence and lack of concern for sexual predators in the church have been well established.  The church whose original role as defenders of the poor and disenfranchised has been co-opted to enrich and protect the wealthy and powerful and further disempower the class it once served. Abbott content to safeguard this rising new religious force in the world, and set about bringing about changes in the political system to achieve more significant protections for this conservative “Christian” force. Abbott redirected funding from the Royal commission into sexual abuse which attacked his religious friends, to the probe into Labor’s insulation scheme which effectively attacked his political enemies.

These examples of this corruption of:
1. language to misdirect people about the real sin of sodomy,
2. Identification and prosecution of sexual predators,
3. Justice by seeking to de-funding abuse investigations,
4. the mission of the church to protect the poor, marginalised and our children,
are becoming more efficient.

When considering what harm has been done to children generally by religious and political leadership, we need to consider the broader scope of injury. These include:

1. Attempting to protecting Pell and the church from an investigation into sexual abuse. Abbott and his support for Archbishop Pell’s character and redirection of funding belies Australia’s apparent repulsion for child abuse.
2. Immigration detention and abuse of children which both Morrison and Dutton oversaw. This refugee child abuse was even confirmed by their own instigated investigation by Philip Moss confirming the abuse, as did the one by the Human Rights Commissioner.
3. Increasing entrenched poverty for children by “attacking” single parents such as did Kevin Andrews by defunding of single parents via a thinly disguised excuse to rebuke their choice of children, over attempting to acquire rare full-time work.  The examples of further political child abuse are numerous from cutting aid overseas, or locally by reducing the Child Care Subsidy, or removing access to the affordability support element under the Community Child Care Fund, or slashing $930.6 million so that family day care educators cannot receive Commonwealth child care fee assistance.  These are just some of a list I have referenced before.

These actions are all being instituted by people who publicly claim a religious affiliation. To be fair, both the religious and political classes are acting entirely consistent with one another to attack what Christ most vehemently opposed. “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.”(Mark 9:42).

Christ said nothing about homosexuality. Although he did indicate that being a “born eunuch” (an ancient reference to homosexual men – Matthew 19:11-12) was a gift from God.  On the other hand, Christ had a lot to say about abuse of children and the marginalisation of the “least” of people, as well as about Loving one another, which seems to be points that many in this conservative evangelical community appear to have missed. That anyone in the church could mount any defence for either Pell or Abbott speaks, in my mind, volumes about the person they choose to be.

So a local artist chooses to celebrate “love” as opposed to “abuse” by having painted two of the figureheads of “child abuse” on a wall in the back alleyway of a Pub in a manner that would be “offensive” to them.   Scott Marsh recognised that both these men are offensive to the Newtown community. Art is supposed to challenge society, and it certainly seems to have been challenging to some. “Christians” from churches defended Pell and Abbott by painting over the image that apparently offended, despite that the wider community finds these two men, offensive! Who, pray tell me, stands on the higher moral ground? Is “art” and even the “obscuring of art” reflecting society or in this case segments of the church. It seems to me that the conservative church would still prefer, the sins of these men, were covered up.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Dear John Howard,

I noted that on the eve of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade and Labor’s renewed efforts on Gay marriage you have responded to something old and something new and I think introducing a little blue. The “new” would be opposition frontbencher Terri Butler’s attempt to reintroduce a cross-party same-sex marriage bill back into parliament, and the “old” would be the now nearly three-year-old “Safe Schools” program.  The “blue” is simply how others and I feel about it all.

Baffled Johnny.

It would seem that you are being reported as either baffled or puzzled on the subject of the “Safe Schools” program being taken seriously.  What is puzzling to me is your “puzzlement”.  Mr Howard, you say you see a need for anti-bullying but then are puzzled by the “social agenda” that pursues a significant cause for bullying.  You went on to say,  “I’m just puzzled that it got there in the first place.”  It would appear you think it should have been nipped in the bud.  Is the fact that it has successfully served to reduce bullying of LGTBI people in schools somehow offensive? Urging for “better ways to do it” despite it having been a success over the last few years, but providing no suggestions or insight into how you might have produced better results, is just empty rhetoric. In the absence of any viable alternative, just what is wrong with such successful advocacy?

Following your concern that the Safe School’s opponents were being labelled as bigots or homophobes, it was reported:

“Howard said Australia is at risk of becoming too politically correct, and those religious conservatives are less likely to speak their minds due to a fear of being persecuted.”

Persecution of conservatives?

“Persecuted”?  “Religious conservatives” are being “persecuted”?  Pitchforks and burning torches at dusk, John?  Really?  I think the term you are struggling to identify is “criticised”, “disparaged” perhaps, “rebuked” even, but not “persecuted”.  Not “assaulted”, “picked on”, “belittled” or “attacked physically”, either.  That is what the Safe School program is trying to prevent.  Having conservatives play the victim is ironic, given it is that community that is doing the bullying.  Unlike the many stories these children and adults can and do testify to,  nobody is attempting to beat up your white conservative religious mates because you’ve expressed preferences for some one of the opposite sex or want to remain your current gender.  Nobody is taunting you or “sly hitting” you or attacking your children behind the school’s darker corners because you or your family are conservative heterosexuals.

Protecting the Status Quo

Let’s be clear; you are being criticised and critiqued, not persecuted or punished.   The Safe School’s site is about protecting people from being persecuted (in the proper use of the word) or punished for their non-conformance to mainstream sexual and gender preferences.  For you or Cory Bernardi to be reversing that and suggesting the far stronger majority of heterosexuals and conservatives are being persecuted or bullied by this site or its adherents is just being absurd.  Cory Bernardi even went as far as suggesting it was pushing a sexual agenda.   For political proponents opposed to the Safe School’s initiative, who spent $244M on a chaplain’s advocacy program, to accuse an $8M program ($2M/yr for four yrs) of advocating is perhaps “a little rich”.   Given the Safe School’s track record of saving lives, you’d think that is something worth being advocated.  It’s not about their sexual agenda; it’s about advocating for protection against your conservative sexual agenda and the particularly vicious way some of your supporters “protect” the status quo.

Disturbing Links?

The accusations by Cori Bernardi and George Christensen don’t stop there, as they were trying to say it is providing links to pornography and grooming of children. If that were even remotely the case, call in the Federal police to report a crime – which it is.  One woman in the comments of the aforementioned Buzzfeed article said of the Safe Schools Program, “its content and the links it provides are disturbing”.  The unanswered challenge, which I have yet to see addressed, was a reply that asked, “Cite your sources. What about it, exactly, is “inappropriate”?”.  Just where are this grooming and pornography, etc occurring on the website links?  No answer has been forthcoming, but that doesn’t stop the objections becoming consistently mired in unsubstantiated opinions that have become a substitution for facts.  Facts – that even if remotely true – would constitute a crime.  If you believe so, call the police!  Seriously!

You changed the Marriage Act without a Plebiscite!

I noted, Mr Howard, you went on to talk about marriage equality following disparaging the Safe Schools program. While admitting it ought to be the subject of a free vote in parliament, you expressed support for the promised plebiscite.  Given that in 2004 you had the Marriage Act changed to explicitly exclude same-sex marriage one might think for a moment you were softening your stance. Not so though! You did although make it very clear that people who make a stand against marriage equality should not be called homophobes or bigoted just because they hold a conservative view that marriage was (and I am paraphrasing here) the restrictive right of people who preferred the opposite sex and to the exclusion of all others options.  While couching it regarding the “traditional definition of marriage”, you did admit it is no longer a widely held view.  That would be because 72% of the population is known, in some circles, to be a majority. If the Liberal Party won the 2013 vote by 53.5% (of which only 45.55% were first preference votes of our voting population) in 2013 and Abbott pronounces his “mandate” loudly – as he did on numerous occasions – then imagine what he would think if he had 72% of the population on his side.  72% being that which polls show is a majority of “equality” believers, which you said, is a recent phenomenon.  I presume you are taking a very localised perspective, because so many western countries around the world have voted for marriage equality.

A global perspective

For example the current list is: The Netherlands (2000), Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Argentina (2010), Iceland (2010), Portugal (2010), Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013), England, (2013), Wales (2013), France (2013), New Zealand (2013), Uruguay (2013), Luxembourg (2014), Scotland (2014), Finland: (signed 2015, effective 2017), Ireland: (2015), and just over a year ago your long time partner, the good ol’ US of A. Considering that only 5.8 million people voted for the coalition in 2013, and 7.1 million voted for someone else, the perspective that believes that a mandate exists, has to be one that ignores the concept of a national population’s view and only considers it in terms of electoral boundaries and preferences. The problem is that a plebiscite – as desired by coalition – does not see Australia regarding its electoral boundaries nor regarding preferences but as a “first past the post” vote by the population.  From that perspective, there is neither a mandate for conservative views on marriage equality nor any likely possibility of winning an argument via a plebiscite that holds the view that marriage and its legal protections and recognition of couples should be the exclusive domain of a subset of the community, no matter how large that subset is.  Even if the polls are out of kilter with the community by a few percent here or there, it would have to be wrong to a margin of error of more than 22%, for the conservative view to win.

Why a Plebiscite?

Since the plebiscite is not legally binding on any government and it is only being proposed as a consideration for after the next election, then the only reasons for raising it as a possibility appear to be:

1. They hold to the belief that they will be able to change the minds of over 22% of the population in the midst of a history of being unable to get single digit percentage changes of views to keep them elected.
2. It is a delaying tactic designed to head off, having to deal with it in this term of office and hoping some new bluff will present itself in the new term.
3. Not intending to hold one, but are using the proposal to do so as a distraction from dealing with the issue on the pretence you are consulting all the stakeholders (to reference Morrison’s concerns).
4. Although the idea of the plebiscite came up during Abbott’s term as PM, Turnbull may be favouring it now as it permits him the chance to abdicate responsibility for making a call on marriage equality himself – which he agreed not to – to acquire power, and blame the decision on approving of it entirely at the people’s feet.
5. They intend to hold the plebiscite and then ignore it, as it has no legal impetus.

So how could your colleagues begin to hope to change over a fifth of the population’s mindset?  By communicating a clear argument with integrity or via misdirection and misinformation?  There is no more classic an example of the latter than the latest pamphlet that has hit the headlines, and which the Hon. Chris Miles plans to distribute.  A fascinating document full of, off point accusations and broad stroke claims of how it will disintegrate the social fabric of Australia.  It accused the same sex marriage agenda of increasing unemployment, STDs, family anxiety, depression, suicidality, single parenthood and drug abuse.  It said it would lead to “education” in schools on LGBTI issues (which is the Safe School’s agenda not the marriage equality agenda). Perhaps Chris misunderstands this.  The pamphlet takes a very narrow definition of “marriage”, the issues for which I have dealt with previously,  so I will not go into that in this letter.  I will though repeat something I have written before to put some perspective on all these outlandish claims.

Two People – not a tribe, animal, vegetable or mineral

“The impediment to the recognition of Gay marriage in Australia is five unique words in the Marriage Act. The words “two people” will replace “man and woman” and the words “husband and wife” so that the act then reads: “the union of a two people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life“. That’s it! No more.”  [From: http://auswakeup.info/sex/]

It is a legal recognition of a civil union between two people.  All the rest of the palaver is just that.  It’s a distraction and fabrication.  It doesn’t change the church or require them to do anything they are uncomfortable with as it is about legal unions, not church unions. I have dealt with the church’s issues in other publications so you can read that separately. I dare say very few LGTBI couples will even want to be married in a church (which is pretty much what heterosexual couples prefer nowadays).  As for the rest of Chris Miles’s pamphlet, I have to wonder how the author of this even came to these conclusions.

Economically positive!

In reality, it will probably increase employment frankly.  It will provide a boost to the wedding, retail and tourism industry.  Seriously, the Gay community is over the top when it comes to celebrations.  Just stop by the Gay Mardi Gras, and you’ll note that.  Money galore to be made in Gay marriage. It provides joy and family enrichment for the couple concerned.  It provides for children that may be later introduced, (if they don’t already exist) with two parents rather than a single one.  Healthy relationships reduce suicide, depression and drug use. It will increase love and equality.  Although, according to the pamphlet as mentioned earlier, apparently issues like love and equality are “veneers of superficiality”.  Really Chris?

Unjustified Fears – chill out Johnny.

Look, Mr Howard, I get that you don’t like advocacy for LGBTI kids and adults and you don’t understand same sex attraction.  You and Jannette are very happy.  Good on you!  That’s your thing, and I’m sorry, but nobody is persecuting you over it.  Last I looked, this country still had some resemblance to democracy.  The majority of that democracy thinks it’s a fair thing that people should love whom they want to and that we should legally recognise that.  Why are you opposed to a fair go for everyone in this country?  The reasons any of you or your conservative colleagues have given, don’t stand up to scrutiny.   None of the countries that have recognised Marriage Equality have shown any of the issues any of which you seem so afraid.  It would be a simple thing to point to as an example if it was occurring anywhere, but none of your colleagues can because your fears are not being actualised anywhere.  All that is happening is LGBTI people are being married, and real persecution is being reduced.  Canada made their ruling over a decade ago and hasn’t reported any of the consequences raised by the pamphlet being touted by Chris Miles!

Any real evidence?

Given that you have so many countries to draw on for signs of societal breakdown, that doesn’t exist, and nothing other than misrepresentations as an argument, how can you legitimately hold the position you do?  Can you understand why some of us feel that the only reason left standing, is that of bigotry or homophobia?

Regards,

A white, university educated, multi-degreed, middle-class, religiously oriented, heterosexually married, child raising, baby boomer male who doesn’t agree with you despite my demographic.

I’d like to commence this line of argument by acknowledging a philosophical opponent to marriage equality who – according to his face-book profile – has the nomenclature of “Greg Rams”. I have argued with or responded to opponents whose arguments are fallacious and absurd such as Senator Eric Abetz’s article or fabricated like the “natural marriage” petition being distributed in Mackellar, via Parliamentary Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop in recent times. Greg actually presented a researched argument that made me “work”. While we sat on opposing philosophical seats in regards progress on marriage equality – initially I assumed pretentiousness based on previous experience with others and a misunderstanding of his perspective. Instead, I grew to respect and find merit in his opposition even in disagreement. As such, I quote him directly herein. Having said that, I want to explore the definition historically of marriage that we ended up discussing and that has inspired this post.

There is very naturally, an instinct to acquiesce to the biblical origins of marriage in the Western world. Intriguingly the definition of marriage from a biblical perspective has undergone radical and – by today’s standards – disturbing changes, specifically concerning its early history. I will although, come back to these later.

It is the contemporary historical changes (i.e. the last couple of centuries) that have and seen the most radical changes in its purpose and meaning for western society. Prior to that in Western and Eastern cultures, a marriage ceremony served a purpose for the elite of society and was rarely entered into amongst the hoi polloi. In fact, in many ancient cultures, there is no evidence of marriage ceremonies, but rather at best a contractual agreement often involving money, power and survival. In fact, the early Church had no marriage ceremony until the 9th century and didn’t include a priest till the 12th Century. Peg Helminski’s blog on “Redefining Marriage” has a brilliant opener (right from the first sentence) about how marriage was defined.

In the beginning…

“In the beginning, marriage was a relationship between two men. A man exchanged goods or services with a girl’s father to procure a virgin bride who likely became one of several wives. This way, he could assure himself that any children he supported held valid claim to his property. Yes, marriage began as a business transaction to assure male property rights. Often, marriage provided other benefits; increasing the family labour force, acquiring a trade agreement or securing a political alliance.”

Until the 18th century, western society continued to view “marriage” as a property settlement issue and to frame it in the terms the famous jurist William Blackstone, gave us: “By marriage, the very being or legal existence of a woman is suspended, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, or cover she performs everything.” Is it no wonder that by the late 18th century the analogy of “slavery” to define a woman’s compliance with the terms of marriage was invoked by both English and European women.

It was only historically recently, in the 19th century, that there slowly emerged a representation of marriage as a romanticised concept by women, and even occasionally, men. Prior to these centuries, before the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, men found more passion in adultery and friendship, than in marriage. Eventually the relationship of marriage moved from the concept of a property settlement – often not between direct parties to the marriage – to involve courtships between the actual participants in the marriage. Although, always encompassed within the patriarchal confines of western or eastern civilisations desire for men to hold the primary authority within the relationship. Historically, it was capitalism and its invocation of motivations for inspiring men to don their battle apparatus for “war” or “work”, that was significantly responsible for redefining what “marriage” was.

The Capitalist need for “romance”.

In a world of increasing production and the need to protect the State, in western economies, it was necessary to convince otherwise authoritarian, independent and autonomous men to risk their lives in defence of the State. Patriotism by itself, was never as strong a motivator, unlike the perception – built by the State’s propaganda – that men were defending private interests, property, domestic relationships and dependants.

Hence the old catch cry of the “enemy” advancing on your farm or home or even hiding under your bed ready to spring upon your family and do them ill. Still very much a tactic used in contemporary Australian political manipulations, as seen by the concentration of dialogue and finance, dedicated to the apparent threat of “jihadist” terrorism from overseas. Even though it has resulted – in the last century – in so few lives lost in Australia, that its real affect is negligible by comparison with any other rarely occurring event that results in loss of Australian lives. ^{But I divert from my subject …}

Capitalism also required increasing growth in production and economic output by encouraging men to slave their days away for their corporate masters in support of their family. Capitalism required the formerly autonomous man, who held his family as little more than chattels he owned and could dismiss, to develop emotional ties and motivation.  These were targeted towards providing for the continuance of the family, depending on always, upon his work and earning capacity to survive. Incentivising a man to work relentlessly towards greater prosperity for the sake of his family, needed that family, to be something more than private chattels. Marriage had to be redefined in terms of emotional commitments by the individuals. Thus did a societal impetus, egged on by the propaganda of the age, begin to redefine marriage again so that men, women and their children played a role in the extension of capitalist western society. To quote the series on Marriage and Women by cyber parents : “Doing it for my family” thus produced the perfect capitalistic male and the perfect supporting cast “his women and children.”

Feminine independence.

One of the threats to “traditional marriage” (the sale and subservience of women) was the emerging capacity for women’s independence, from the economic domination of men in marriage. This began in the Western world during the industrial revolution, when the textile mills recruited thousands of women into the workforce. While certainly the wages paid were minuscule – in comparison to that paid to their fathers and husbands – it did provide for the first time, freedom from the controlling influences of the patriarchal oppression. Henry Ford’s decision in the early 1900s to commence playing his workers “a fair wage” – including some (but not all) of the women who worked for him – in order to starve off the turnover of his staff. It became, unexpectedly, the impetus for significant social change. [But please let’s not pretend it was for Ford’s claimed altruism so his workers could afford his cars.]  ^{Diverting again…}

Fortunately for capitalism, that social change was effective in motivating men to enter the First World War to be seen to be protecting the dependants back home from the “Gerrys” who would otherwise be climbing up from beneath their beds. With women acquiring the means for increasing independence, the patriarchal model of control of the family unit was under threat. Men had to “step up” to demonstrate that they were willing to “fight” for this new definition of “marriage” in the post-industrialised world. [Certainly didn’t the war propaganda machine milk that one!]

Women’s empowerment and, ultimately, social and economic independence came through the feminist campaigns of the 19th and 20th centuries. Marriage as an instrument of an expression of “love” – as opposed to it’s far longer history of ownership, inheritance and power – is a very recent reinvention of the concept, historically speaking. The idea of “marriage” has always been an evolving and developing concept. Holding onto a particular view of loving heterosexual marriage, needs to consider the possibility that it reflects that you are a product (or victim) of your current cultural conditioning. One that was built on an older background underlying your current culture, fed from capitalist manipulations that probably pre-date you. It is a view that inherently neglects or denies the reality – that as a concept – “marriage” as we know it, is a recent reinvention. In truth, marriage has had a far longer history as a tool of patriarchal oppression, ownership, violence and power.

Heterosexual advantage

Towards the end of the 20th and certainly into the 21st century the battle lines have changed about how we as a society define the word “marriage” and who we might concede it is available to. In recent history the non-heterosexual community has raised the societal consciousness that “marital rights” have been denied as a choice. Despite there being a growing and now wide acceptance in the 21st century for gay couples and their families ( including children) to have an established presence. It has although, a limited legal recognition in Australia, and we have continued to deny legal marital choice. Across the globe, Marriage Equality has recently produced significant global headlines with the decision by the American judiciary and the referendum in Ireland. So where other democracies in the western world have ceased to deny this marital choice, in Australia it has continued to demonstrate its recalcitrance.

As the Libertarian associate with whom I had previously argued, pointed out, the legal protections for de facto relationships in Australia are also applicable to gay relationships in theory, although, unfortunately not so much in practice. The issue of evidence necessary to establish that a homosexual relationship exists has impact on access to numerous legal rights and recognition. These are of course is readily available to legally married partners with a marriage certificate. These access limitations – and while some of them may indeed be provided for through the legal protection afforded to de facto relationships – in practice are still subject to social bias and hostility within the more conservative community that often limits (sometimes “illegally”) access to the following:

• Right to marry / right to divorce
• Hospital visitations
• Child custody rights
• Adoption rights

• 

  Parenting rights

• Automatic inheritance
• Divorce protections
• Employment equality
• Immigration law
• Medicare
• Retirement plans
• Social security benefits
• Survivor benefits
• Freedom of gender expression
• Spousal and child support
• Federal taxes / joint taxes
• Legal protection from gender-identity-based discrimination
• Exemption from property tax upon death of a spouse
• Legal protection from discrimination based on sexuality
• Health insurance continuation of health coverage
• Medical decision-making power on behalf of a spouse
• Legal protection from housing discrimination
• Right to free expression and free association
• Right to medial coverage and safe access to care
• Standing to sue for wrongful death of a spouse
• Access to equal education
• Access to family insurance policies
• Domestic violence protections
• Rights to form a family

Now as my libertarian opponent with whom I have previously argued, rightly pointed out, some of these issues do have the protection of de facto relationship laws. But not all, and in Australia it is dependent on which state you live in as to what protections you can access and when you can access them. He also said of the list above: “There were other things you mentioned which are largely based on societies perceptions. Yes it would be good if society could see through these.” While I agree with him in principle, the predominant problem of course is, that the interface for access to these legal protections are often people. Individuals in society who quite frankly do not “see through these“. The dogmatic and disapproving front-line officials (egged on by our leadership examples of ultraconservative prejudice) instead present obstacles to access, built out of their own judgements against the LGBTQ community. Dubiously illegal and/or immoral, though it may be, it is the experience expressed anecdotally by friends frequently in their community.

De facto relationships are not married ones.  For example, the 1942 Act that defines “de facto relationship” states:  “De facto relationship means the relationship between two unrelated adult persons:

1. Who have a mutual commitment to a shared life, and
2. Whose relationship is genuine and continuing, and
3. Who live together, and
4. who are not married to one another.”

Interestingly I imagine any of us can envisage two people still being legally recognised as married but have none of the top three conditions being met.

But it is not merely about access to legal protections. One of the legal discriminations practised against the transgender community is the wilful intent to bring about the termination of a couple’s marriage irrespective of their wishes. The legal requirement that forces divorce upon a couple where one partner seeks to have their birth certificate ratified under their new gender assignment, is unnecessarily cruel as is the requirement to have undergone risky surgery to have their sex identified on their Government records. Legal “marriage equality” means these couple’s retain a marriage that continues to be legal and their choice.

Continuing patriarchal protectionism in the 21st century

If the concept of marriage has evolved to the point where it is acceptable to be the expression of consensual love between two parties, rather than an exchange of consideration and chattels, why indeed, is it only available where those two parties are of the opposite sex? In truth, it’s about continued protection of the patriarchal model. If you have not stopped and read the article by Peg Helminski by now, then I would suggest you do so. It will assist you to understand what it is “the male patriarch” is still committed to protecting for itself. I am not going into that here, as I think her article is excellently thought out and her blog should be read.

Married or Happy?

Why in the world does this particular word – “Marriage” – need to be guarded against being used by people who want to declare their love for one another? Especially in the midst of a particular demographic (i.e. Heterosexuals) who perchance treat it with the utter disrespect that they do?  That disrespect emerges through rampant adultery, domestic economy abuse and the proliferation of divorce that permeates our western society! The flip side of the equation is indeed there are people who do honestly wish to treat marriage respectfully. Yet statistical inferences demonstrate that amongst heterosexuals in the western world the divorce rate has climbed, as has both the remaining number of unhappy marriages and the happiness of single women. In fact, “marriage” has garnered such a unpopular reputation that many women would rather raise children without the assistance of a male partner. The statistic on this used to be 37% in America, although with reduced support for single mothers, particularly under our LNP government, it is possible that Australian women are not following America’s lead in such huge numbers.  It is true though that they are indeed still resisting entering matrimony. The resistance in Australia to entering into marriage – especially early on – and the rise of de-facto relationships may account for the fact that the crude divorce rate in Australia has dropped marginally. Add on to that, the issue of domestic violence associated with Australian marriages, and the very suggestion of “marriage” is suffering a massive “public relations” backlash. All of this leads one to the conclusion, that opening the definition of “marriage” to accept and provide access to the LGBTQ community might create a new and possibly positive paradigm. Although as Greg said to me: “Changing the definitions of words will not bring definitive change“. In fact the personal slogan he reiterated to me was: “To create equality via definition does not bring definitive equality.” While a logical truism, does that mean it is applicable. “Marriage” will indeed still suffer from the abuse the heterosexual community inflicts upon it. I do not, although, believe we should surrender hope for the idealistic potential of marriage but instead strive as a community to support those engaged in it as well as those who choose not to participate. In short, he may be right, but I hope he isn’t. In fact, given the positive direction “marriage” has been developing into over the last couple of centuries, there is good cause to hold out hope.

Holy marriage?

Heterosexuals respect for the “holy traditions” of marriage as were referenced by Senator Eric Abetz as existing over a “millennia and across civilisations” ignores the fact that what marriage is, is very different to what it was. [Incidentally historically his claim is incorrect as Gay marriage was very much a part of older civilisations, but never let it be said that the facts should get in the way of a good argument.]  In truth “marriage” as we know it has neither traditions of a long history nor ones you could describe as terribly “holy”. Marriage is continually undermined by the hypocrisy in which so many of us fail to take seriously the legal or religious vows made as they exist now. That being: “a union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life”. Indeed faithfulness to one’s partner and the longevity of the marriage relationship is often in short supply in contemporary society. Isn’t it about time that the definition became: “a union between a two people, to the exclusion of all others, for life“, as that will radically change the respect given to the institution and possibly even demonstrate that the people who have fought long and hard for the right to be married, actually may demonstrate more respect for the “holy traditions of marriage“. Certainly more than the particular group who have held exclusive access to it to date!

Religious obscuration

Of course for the religiously affiliated amongst us, there is the illusion fostered by the Church of what is known as a Biblical concept of marriage that many conservatives feel the need to defend. That particular theory also leans heavily towards the patriarchal model in which a woman surrenders herself to the will and authority of man. To counterbalance this position, the church goes to some length to point out it is commensurate upon the man to demonstrate love in the same way in which God does for the church and therefore not abuse his position of “authority”. [Yeah umm … good luck with that.] There is of course, a desire on the part of the churchgoing religious community, to avoid discussions in regards the Old Testament’s evolving view of marriage. The position adopted, is that the New Testament proclamations, override that of the Old Testament. This despite the claim by Christ that saw himself differently when he said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” That is not to say there are not reasons to justify overriding aspects of the Old Testament law, I am just saying that it is not as Black and White as some literalists would have you believe. Gray is the new Black or as the Apostle Paul said, “it is the spirit not the letter of the law”. Lets face it, if the church didn’t take that position, than what they would be left with as a definition of marriage? Certainly one that would have to include how radically and brutally offensive to the modern sensibility, the concept of Marriage was. If perhaps you don’t know what I’m talking about, I think I will leave it in the hands of the satire of Mrs. Betty Bowers, “America’s Best Christian”, who will explain it succinctly and brutally in her YouTube clip. <– Click anywhere on the previous sentence unless you are a Christian who is too easily offended (and don’t say you were not warned).

Knock, and the door will be opened!

“Marriage” by definition has, over the centuries, continued to evolve to be something more desirable and more inclusive for all. The path to “marriage equality” is a continuation of that trend for its ongoing evolution and improvement of society. If the LGBTQ community, can demonstrate to the heterosexual community – who have traditionally abused it – that marriage by definition should be positive and life affirming, then why should we deny them the opportunity to make it so. Australia needs to be open to the possibilities of a better definition of “marriage” that gives hope and strengthens commitment. Perchance the LGBTQ community may choose our 2nd hand, battered and bruised concept of “marriage”, and remake it into something we can look upon with pride. Perhaps then, we can actually put it back on the pedestal, that many have always imagined, that it sat on.

Dear Senator Eric Abetz,

A short while back now, you did countenance the idea in an article in the Canberra Times that Asian countries are against marriage equality. I did reply to your article there, but it was lost completely in the innumerable responses you already had so perhaps here I can address a few issues in the quiet of my site. While that applies to the governments of these countries, it is not so true of their populations. In fact in a repressive regime such as South Korea only two years ago over 47% of their population openly stated their views on this had changed in the last five years and by 2013 there were 57% of the folks surveyed that supported some manner of the legally recognised union. The interesting convergence of our government with theirs is an unwillingness to listen to the voice of their “constituents”. I find it a strange argument for an Australian political representative to make especially when it is mostly untrue as numerous surveys, and research centres are discovering. It almost suggests that the views you are representing are of external governments not the opinion of your people’s desires, in our country, that you were elected to serve! Instead, you find it necessary to consider other countries who don’t elect you because why …. they might not buy up all our mining rights and minerals, and land, and farms and houses? So perhaps I am a little behind in pointing this out, but you’re a senator of AUSTRALIA, not China!

Plebiscites

Now you want a plebiscite! I know polls can be inaccurate by a few percentile, plus or minus. It is fair to suggest that there is always elements of bias in the manner in which the data is collected that sways results in one way or another. Do you seriously think that this is a strategy that could reinforce your obviously personal viewpoint in the face of polls showing a 72% approval for legalisation from the Australian community? Who are you representing Senator Abetz? Your opinion, Asian governments or Australia? … and if our country, then perhaps, do you not wonder if a plebiscite is a losing argument also?

Polyamory?

The previous day in the media you argued that legalising marriage equality may “lead to polyamory”? If indeed allowing a change to the marriage act was a slide towards polygamy, why do you give so much support to our Asian neighbours, many of whom allow polygamy? They are already there, Eric! I would have thought we would prefer to align ourselves with other western countries like New Zealand, Canda, the UK, the US or Ireland ñ all of which have marriage equality. We certainly have aligned ourselves with these in the past, why change and move in with the polygamists now, Eric? I am confused by your allegiances, Eric?

For the sake of five words.

The legislative proposal is to change five words in the marriage act to make it gender neutral. That’s it. Nothing else! Do you not understand that accepting polygamy would require far greater changes in the Marriage Act? The changes for access to “lead[ing] to polyamory” would be far more than five words to make it gender neutral., That is all we are discussing here, making it gender neutral. Sliding down the “slippery slope” to bestiality, marring your direct family members, “polyamory”, or any manner of things you are suggesting it will lead to would require very significant changes to the Marriage Act! Probably a complete rewrite! You have degrees in law and arts, and yet forgive me if I am lead to wonder do you not understand how the law works, Senator Abetz? How is this a rational argument for someone of your legal background? Are you so desperate to resist this idea that you will clutch at any straws that fall from the top of your head?

Churches are not affected

Ultimately, Senator, it’s about allowing a simple choice. It’s about two people (not multitudes) making decisions to stay together because they love doing so and having the state recognise it. Something many do already but which has no legal recognition. The change allows the churches to object to it as you feel “real Christians” should and not perform the ceremony at their discretion. Churches can still refuse to participate. That right is retained. Then there is the Presbyterian church saying they might refuse to perform any marriages if marriage equality goes ahead (also Page 2 & 19 of the SMH on July 6th, 2015). OK! Fine. Do they not understand that you have that absolute right now AND if the act is changed? It is merely about civil and legal recognition. Nothing more. You can still pronounce it as “evil”, still preach against it, still be bigots, still dislike it! It affords the two people the legal recognition of their relationship even if you don’t like or want it for yourself Senator Abetz!

LNP’s approach to Legislative change

It is such a small legislative change. But you and your colleagues appear to stuck on it. Morrison says he’s concerned about consulting a range of “stakeholders” to get their feedback. But he, in particular, will change other major pieces of legislations without consulting any “stakeholders” all the time. For example look at the major change to legislation your colleague Morrison put through before he moved portfolios. Not only did he not speak to stakeholders but he without reservation, used emotional blackmail on opposing senators to get draconian legislation designed to oppress entire communities housed in detention under our care! That was a major piece of legislation that effectively puts children in harm’s way and yet amazingly your next argument was about protecting children. I’m confused, Senator, as to what your party’s position on protecting children is?

Gay couples are already raising children

It would seem to me that protecting Children is a complete distraction, a “strawman” argument if you will. Children are not in the marriage vows! Marriage is not about children; it is about a relationship between two people. Children may result from that union, but marriage is about two adult people. A surprising discovery for many (especially the proponents against marriage equality) is, there are lots of married couples (older, infertile & simply not interested) that have a marriage that does not involve children at all. Another discovery for many is that Gay couples are already raising children. One of them is a fellow parliamentarian. OK, you and Penny Wong are not the best of friends, but you see and speak to her regularly. Let me repeat; Gay couples are already raising children. How exactly will resisting this legislative 5-word change provide greater protection for these kids? I can suggest some ways allowing it does protect children. In fact, it would ensure legal and social recognition of those children. It would protect from the legal discrimination frequently experienced in Gay relationships over inheritance and custody when one parent dies. It provides security for the children as it is more likely to reduce prejudice, stigma and discrimination against these families. How about considering protecting the children to the full extent of the Law by providing children of Gay couples the rights inherent in marriage under the Act? If you are truely concerned about children, then provide for the parents they have. You don’t get a second set of parents, you know, not unless adoption is involved. It would appear that there are more arguments that marriage equality is in the best interests of children being raised by same-sex couples. So your next line was ‘study after study’ had shown that children benefited from having a mother and a father. Although strangely that isn’t what Australian Government literary analysis reveals?

Studies supporting children

The trouble is that there are Australian studies (that’s the country you’re a senator of Eric) that say otherwise.
Perhaps you should read the study conducted by the University of Melbourne researchers that surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children about their physical health and social wellbeing. The results there don’t agree with you, Eric. Don’t take my word for the results, look it up yourself, Eric! Of course, don’t read it if you feel the cognitive dissonance would not be good for you!

Domestic Violence & Separation

So if children thrive with two parents, I can only assume you must be anxious about the obvious issue of single parents and the high rate of divorced couples throwing a spanner into your concerns for children. Equally concerning to you must be family domestic violence in this country is at an all time high although not helped by your government’s removal of funding for legal aid, support and shelters. So surely one would assume you are putting your senatorial weight behind providing as much support as possible for issues of domestic violence and for single parents of these “enormously disadvantaged children” about which you are so concerned. Although aligning yourself in support of the “World Congress Of Families” who are opposed to single mothers as one of societies biggest drain on resources as well as damaging to societies moral fabric doesn’t suggest consistency here. What are you doing to help out folks for whom the failure of “straight marriage” from divorce and violence which results in either denying children their access to a mother and a father or damaging them because they have a violent parent? Still, I am probably wavering a little off topic here.

IVF

Couples have a right to choose to be without children, as they should have a choice about whom they love. Couples don’t usually found their marriages on “sexual complementarily and potential fertility” as Archbishop Hart suggests but on more esoteric values such as “love”. Fertility matching is obviously not a strong factor here when you consider that “IVF” is the most googled “word” in Australia. For many married adults “generating” children “normally”, is not even a physical possibility let alone the focus for getting married. And yet “children” is the fallacious “strawman” argument used to prop up the anti-equality rhetoric.

Legal protection for Children

“The institution of marriage has stood the test of time.”, You said. Really? It used to be about property ownership and dowries. Before that, Gay marriage was an institution of previous dynasties. “Heterosexual Marriage” the way this generation envisages it, is a recent historical invention. As for this generation, it hasn’t been doing so well. It now ends for huge proportions of our population down the familiar path of unhappy families, domestic violence, broken marriages, unfaithful partners, divorce, legal battles and subsequent family disruption! Yeap, straight marriage is doing so well … NOT! I do although agree with your comment (when taken out of context) that “For our children’s sake it [marriage] needs to continue to do so”. Gay Parents will be able to secure legal protections for their children if it is legalised.

Happy children

My son’s school AND our Church is replete with both examples of single parents and same sex parents with normal happy children whose kids play in the church, the soccer field and the school play yard with my Son. We’ve been proud to attend the baptisms of children of Gay couples. Children need not be used as pawns in a fallacious argument!

Choose Love!

The issue in the case for having children or getting married is about – a legal right to a choice for whom you love. Don’t you like it? Well, that’s your choice too! Changing the Law to allow choice doesn’t prohibit your bigotry, hatred, your ranting about polygamy, bestiality, being ambushed OR -alternatively – your acceptance or joy at the opportunity presented by giving LOVE between two people, legality.