A Tale of Two Pollies

www.samesame.com.au
  • 34
  • 6
  • 2432

The Labor Party may be projecting a unified front regarding their refusal to allow same-sex marriages, but it seems things are a lot more heated behind closed Parliamentary doors.

Speaking on 2DayFM yesterday morning, the Prime Minister was questioned directly by gay newsreader Geoff Field. “Mr Rudd, I don’t want to be rude to you,” said Geoff, “but can I just put this to you, while Jason [my partner] and I are not legally allowed to marry that makes us second class citizens. Do you get how we feel?”

“It’s important that everyone’s relationships are treated with respect,” Rudd trotted out, “Marriage is a particular type of relationship… Our position is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don’t mean any disrespect to same sex relationships.”

Blah, blah, blah – we’ve heard this nonsensical argument many times before. Rudd says that he wants to remove all discrimination against same sex couples with one breath, and with the other says “except marriage – we want that to ourselves.”

So it was very interesting when Penny Wong, Kevin Rudd’s openly lesbian right hand woman, was on a panel on ABC’s Q&A last night.

Referring to marriage as a “heterosexual institution”, she was quizzed by host Tony Jones over whether civil unions were acceptable: “Is it enough for you?”
Penny fumbled her way through an answer.
“It’s not where you want to be, is it?”
“My view is that I’m a member of the party, the party’s got a very clear view and that is a view that is supported, let’s be frank, by the vast majority of Australians.”

Tim Wilson, another openly gay panel member from the Institute of Public Affairs, would not take this for an answer. “But what have you done, Penny Wong, from inside the party to advocate for an alternate position?” Wilson said. “There’s two gay people on this panel, you and I, and I find it very frustrating that in your party room you may very well be vocal, but when you come out here you defend it. It’s okay to have a different opinion form your party. I think the public expects that people have different perspective from time to time.”

“I’ve been in parliament now for six years and I’ve put my view forward on a whole range of issues in the party room,” replied Wong. “We do that in parliament, we put a range of views and then we come to a particular decision. My view is that frankly that’s where most of the community is at. It may not be where you are… but most Australians still regard marriage in the way I’ve described and the Labor Party accepts that.”

Despite towing the party line, it sounds like there were indeed some pretty heated discussions behind closed doors in Parliament.

Come on Penny, it’s time for you to come out and tell us what you really believe.

Social

  • chromaBYTE
  • GenesisInVain
  • antspants73
  • Bren
  • morgan
  • genkij

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
4243
Bren

Bren said on the 2nd Aug, 2008



Marriage should be an equal right. Equality includes marriage.

We have no need whatsoever to "get over" the word marriage because most of us -- including a simple majority of the Australian people, if polls are correct -- have no hang-ups about marriage becoming equal.

The people who actually need to "get over" the word marriage are the unrealistic fusspots who keep thwarting marriage equality for no good reason.



Ditto!

An aspect of GLBT apathy is perhaps that some inequality issues are so dry. It's easier to get in a bother about [URL="http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=4175"]one man's careless words than write yet another letter to [URL="http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3956"]yet another Committee about [URL="http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=38057"]superannuation discrimination against same-sex couples. We generally prefer simple outlets and instant gratification. Online and in-person protests can give that, but they are not the only tools in the toolbox of change and won't achieve desired outcomes on their own.



Those same points were probably argued in other countries too, yet other countries moved forward and effected change without the sky falling in.

Once marriage equality becomes law in Australia, it's unlikely that a same-sex marriage ban would be reintroduced. Any future government trying to do that would face a public backlash and a legal minefield, because they would either have to have a special exemption for all existing same-sex married couples up to that point or legally nullify those marriages.

I expect that's partly why religious groups in this country have lobbied so hard on this issue. They know that once the change has happened, it probably won't be reversable.

Bren

Bren said on the 3rd Aug, 2008



Why not? Equality and human rights have always been provocative issues. That is no good reason to stop advocating for them.

Agencies of change need to tread boldly, not lightly, because it is no small task to win hearts and minds for this sort of change. But it can be done, because it has been done elsewhere.



Being gay is not a new thing. Gay people having children is not a new thing. Even the concept of same-sex marriage is not a new thing. These are not incremental changes, they are fundamental realities of human history. It is sometimes a modern conceit that we look down upon, or are ignorant of, the past rather than learn and benefit from it.

The revolutionary change that needs to happen is for more eyes and minds to be opened and our legislators to act in the best interests of the country as a whole. They need to legislate for marriage equality.



Polling suggests a majority of the broader community are ready. The next increment is marriage equality in Australia. The sticking point is that vocal traditionalist religious lobby groups seem to have the ears of our decision-makers. As long as our politicians are politically dependant upon securing votes from those blocs, they won't care what a majority think because they know that not implementing marriage equality is probably not a vote-changer for the wider community (despite in-principle community support for it).



Opinions like that blur the issue and help opponents of change (by downplaying the importance of the issue). We shouldn't have to be on par with imprisonment or execution before issues that affect us "qualify" as important in the court of opinion. Moreover, just because an intolerant law is not hurting you personally does not mean it isn't hurting others. An acknowledgement of different perspectives is necessary.



Any well-intended person who thinks different from you on this subject is "wasting their life"? How charmingly rude and presumptuous. For comparison's sake, what do you "waste your life" on?



(Why are you fighting over a word, "equality"? Isn't that pointless and a waste of energy? :))

The global institution of marriage is no longer just for a man and a woman. The marriage inequality that prevails in this country is an equal right denied.
[COLOR=White].

Bren

Bren said on the 4th Aug, 2008

On the Submissions page of the Senate Inquiry into various bills (for same-sex superannuation entitlements, etc), there is a recent thesis entitled "A Political Trophy or an Essential Human Right? The Federal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships".

Its author Kate Whitehouse neatly concludes:

A wide range of legal scholars, same-sex lobbyists and Australian citizens believe that federal legislative reform to better recognise same-sex relationships is inevitable. There is a growing impetus for the Commonwealth to provide an opt-in system to recognise same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Relationship registries currently exist at the state and territory level, whilst hundreds of Australian couples are travelling overseas to formally solemnise their relationships. Until Australia implements a federal opt-in recognition system for same-sex couples, it will continue to breach its international human rights obligations whilst being further out of step with the growing number of Australian states, territories, municipal councils and other countries that now recognise same-sex relationships. Australian social values are changing and the law must necessarily reflect such changes.

Finally, it should be remembered that federally recognising same-sex relationships is not a matter of giving same-sex couples additional special rights. To quote the Former Chief Justice of the Family Court, Alastair Nicholson, recognition is “simply a case of the law having failed to provide the equal protection to which they are entitled by virtue of their essential humanity.” One can only hope that the Australian public and legislature wake up to this reality and afford same-sex couples the federal recognition that they deserve.

individualstill

individualstill said on the 10th Aug, 2008

I agree with honest. Thanks again for more enthrallingly intelligent comebacks bren-duh they make me laugh also. I cant wait for gay marriage and gay divorce, it will be hilarious, some peop le will be having a divorce every year that many of us know. I hope a lot of people think carefully before tying the knot lol. Also good to know that some cant answer a simple question about their next gay bandwagon they will be jumping onto? Superannuation? Gay adoption? I guess we will never know. Easier to make a smart ass comment than be honest i guess lol. It is clearly obvious to some of us that some opinions people have are typical regurgitations of gay issues and its funny when they say all the same things that many of us have heard being regurgitated by many a gay person for many a year, but yes they are all your own thoughts i am sure. Sorry for thinking outside the square and thinking what's the difference between equal rights with a different word and not calling it marriage? Same difference but if people want to get "married" then they can call it whatever they like if it has the same rights. You are obviously hung up on the wording so thats fine. Equality is equality no matter what word you call a partnership. Pulling apart little quotes from a paragraph and saying I am not cogent, okay. Pot meet Kettle. Certain types of people think only their gay opinions count. You are obviously one of them and dont respect others for having differing views. I find that perverse and sad (boo hoo i cried for hours over that, not) and your replies are once again childishly basic and riddled with negatives instead of intelligence. My mind and eyes and thoughts are my own at least unlike some. You may not be the voice of the gay community after all, just another sheep. baaaaa. No wonder gay rights took so long to achieve when some peoples best come back is the word duh? I wont bother replying to more ridiculous quoting out of context with stupid small minded replies. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaai. Baa Baa.