"No to gay marriage" – MPs

www.samesame.com.au
  • 22
  • 2
  • 6542

We’re not going to sugarcoat this – yesterday’s MP feedback session in Parliament on the gay marriage issue was a tough setback for marriage equality.

But of the thirty MPs who reported back to Federal Parliament, the vast majority said their electorates were opposed to marriage law reform, citing a high levels of correspondence they’d received knocking back the idea of gay marriage for various reasons.

For some of them, it was the first time they’d spoken publicly on a topic they’d been reluctant to acknowledge was even an issue. Several said they considered a ‘civil union’-type scheme to be an option for same-sex instead of redefining marriage.

Kooyong’s Liberal MP Josh Frydenberg’s view was typical of most. He said: “My view is that marriage is a unique relationship between a man and a woman. It is much more than a simple debate about preferred terminology. Relationships between same-sex couples are equally special but nevertheless by definition different.”

But he added that correspondence he’d received from gay couples and parents of gay children “were all powerful pleas that had an impact on me.” Frydenberg’s full speech is here.

SOME SUPPORT

But it wasn’t all bad news. Several MPs said they still hadn’t made up their minds of the issue. Labor MP Catherine King suggested she was being swayed. ” I am on the public record of supporting the current definition of marriage,” she explained, “but I have to say that belief has been fundamentally challenged by the representations I’ve had by same sex couples.”

Malcolm Turnball added that his electorate in Sydney reported strong support for marriage reform, while lobby group GetUp! handed over its petition signed by over 55,000 people who want marriage equality.

See a guide to how each MP reported back to Parliament about gay marriage here.

DISAPPOINTMENT

Australia’s foremost marriage equality activists have found little to smile about in yesterday’s result, but stress that while a vocal minority may well be writing letters to their MPs, a range of recent opinion polls show a majority of Australians believe same sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Australian Marriage Equality spokesperson Peter Furness congratulated those MPs who consulted in their electorates.

“We are pleased many tens of thousands of Australians have contacted their MPs to express their support for equality, but clearly there are many who have yet to raise their voices and it remains our job to encourage them,” he says.

“It was particularly pleasing to see MPs comment on the quality and heart-felt nature of many of the letters they received from supporters of equality in their electorates.”

“Our focus now is on the ALP National Conference and ensuring the strong support for this issue among the ALP rank and file is reflected in a new party platform supporting equality,” he adds.

Earlier this week PM Julia Gillard met with marriage equality activists to chat about the marriage issue. See the photo and update here.

Social

  • shapeupwithsimone
  • tamaz

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
24581
DaddyWayne

DaddyWayne said on the 27th Aug, 2011

I think this is the main problem. The people who are against gay marriage are fanatically against it. They're willing to do whatever it takes to prevent it. They're often well-organised groups, usually religious-based, and they're able to tell their members to bombard MPs with anti-gay-marriage messages.. which they do, in huge numbers.

On the other hand, the many ordinary Australians who are OK with gay marriage (possibly the majority of Australians) simply don't care enough about the issue to bother contacting an MP and expressing their views.

I know a lot of straight people who are perfectly fine with gay marriage and will say so if asked, but I doubt many would actually be bothered to send an email or a letter to a local MP about an issue that doesn't really affect them directly.

Therefore, MPs get bombarded with thousands of anti-gay-marriage phone calls and emails from organised groups, but they don't hear nearly as much from people who are in favour of gay marriage. So they assume that their electorates are overwhelmingly against gay marriage, although that might not be the case at all.

Some of us are our own worst enemy. They won't get off their fucking asses to write to the various politicians but will complain at every opportunity at the lack of equality.

But you could bet your bottom dollar the the religious fundies are up their in their pulpits exhorting their congregations to write, fax or email their local and federal members of Parliament to oppose it. And a lot of queens can't be bothered. They don't see it as necessary.

But the law won't change on it's own. We have to get off our fucking behinds and write, fax, email (or carrier pigeon) those messages to those in Macquarie St and Canberra. For every letter or email from those that are opposed to same sex marriage are sending to the pollies, we should be sending 3 times that amount.

But if you'd rather just sit in a bar having another drink you only have yourself to blame.

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 27th Aug, 2011

http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2011/08/right_to_marry_more_remote_for.html

Right to marry more remote for low-income LGBT couples
Published: Friday, August 26, 2011, 8:02 AM

By Arlene Stein

Today, New Jersey gay and lesbian activists gaze longingly at the legal rights their neighbors across the Hudson now enjoy.
The fight for marriage equality has captured the imagination of many men and women here who never before saw themselves as activists — such as my neighbors in Maplewood.
They are predominantly middle-class men and women, who are in long-term relationships and have children. At dinner parties, these LGBT folks discuss their children’s school performance and athletic pursuits, assess their children’s teachers and debate recent school controversies. In 2006, when the state Legislature began to offer civil unions, giving same-sex couples nearly all of the rights granted to married couples under state law, many of them eagerly signed up.

Just down the road in Newark, another LGBT community is busily mobilizing. Here, there are scores of mothers who are lesbians, a burgeoning population of gay youth and enclaves of racially mixed gay men, to name but a few groups.
Several years ago, Mayor Cory Booker appointed a commission to deal with the concerns of Newark’s gay/lesbian communities. And a local group is collecting the stories of gay Newarkers in preparation for a conference at Rutgers in November.

But the right to marry is not high on their list of priorities. As of last month, eight times as many Maplewood couples had obtained civil unions as those in Newark — though the population of Newark is 12 times larger.
The comparison of Maplewood and Newark raises questions about whether same-sex marriage is a one-size-fits-all solution.

For those who wish to publicly affirm their relationships, and establish legal and economic bonds — like middle-class families in Maplewood — marriage is a no-brainer.
But those in the lowest ranks of the workforce, the bulk of Newark’s population, are less likely to have jobs with benefits and are more likely to be coupled with people who don’t either. And since they’re also less likely to own property, they’re unlikely to be very concerned with questions of inheritance.
Gays and lesbians in Newark are also more likely to be embedded in family networks, less likely to move away from their families of origin in order to act on their homosexuality, and consequently they are less likely to construct identities in which sexuality is primary — and they have less incentive to marry.
Popular images of the “gay community” — circulated by national LGBT leaders and amplified by the media, activist Kenyon Farrow told the crowd at Newark Gay Pride last June — suggest that “LGBT people do not come from places like this.”

Such images also claim that the right to marry will benefit everyone equally.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will not make our unequal society suddenly fair, though it will close some of the gaps.
But as sociologists tell us, marriage tends to bring together people who are very much like one another: Highly educated men and women are more likely to marry those who are also highly educated, and low-income men and women tend to marry others like them. This pull toward similarity has accelerated during the past few decades among heterosexuals; homosexuals are not all that different.
So while middle-class gays and lesbians will certainly benefit from symbolic recognition of their relationships, and from greater legal and economic parity — that’s less true for their low-income counterparts.
“All this talk of marriage is just a luxury,” says James Credle, a longtime Newark educator and gay activist. “For us, it’s about survival.”

So let’s join in celebrating the long-awaited nuptials of our gay and lesbian friends. But as we do, we should pause to consider those who are absent from the party. How can we create a more just society for them, too?

Arlene Stein is a professor of sociology at Rutgers/New Brunswick and the author of “The Stranger Next Door: The Story of a Small Community’s Battle Over Sex, Faith and Civil Rights.”