Postcard copyright 1991 AIDS Council of NSW
Same-sex marriage became an issue recently because it was realised that marriage was one of the last bastions of inequality under the law.
Lesbian and Gay Solidarity (LGS) does not necessarily support marriage as an institution because it is religion based, but it becomes a major issue in terms of denial of basic human rights to all citizens. Because of this ongoing discrimination, LGS has become involved in doing what it can to fight this issue with the limited resources at our disposal.
LGS has written letters to newspapers and politicians, particularly where politicians have made statements which are outrageously homophobic and will again lead to violence against members of the gay, lesbian and transgender communities. Many of these statements are full of religious mumbo jumbo, to try and justify their anti homosexual stances.
We intend to place on record below as much of the correspondence as possible which we have dealth with in 2004, and trust that this will lead to people contacting us so that we can record their comments on this web page.
The letters will be placed, as far as possible, in chronological order.
Letters Editor, The Age Newspaper, 250 Spencer Street, Melbourne Vic 3000. Email: email@example.com
4 MARCH 2004
Thursday, 4 March 2004.
From: Kendall Lovett, 2/12 Murphy Grove, Preston Vic 3072. Email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au Tel: (03) 9471 4878
In “Queer eye for the straight tie” (A3, 4/3/04) Helen Razer quotes the PM’s ludicrous statement that legalising same-sex unions could jeopardise the survival of the species which just goes to show that the present federal government is not just living in the 50s but is a throwback to the 19th century.
Governments really have to come to terms with current thinking and current life situations.
Instead of the official government marriage licence for heteros so that the state can recognise the marriage legally, some of us agree with Mary Tanner of Sydney’s Queens Park (SMH, 27/2/04). She argues a change to the terminology, remove sexuality from the discussion, and call it a Life Partners Licence.
Registered in this way, people could still have the same rights and obligations as the marriage licence confers now. For instance, if one party dies the survivor would have the same rights to the estate, life insurance and superannuation as those in holy wedlock. It would licence those who marry in churches or where-ever, defacto and same-sex unions like us gays and lesbians, even siblings and those who buy a house and live together as friends. Such could terminate the licence in the same legal form as a heterosexual divorce.
Nevertheless, we would not continue to be treated as individuals but as couples for tax purposes and in pensionable retirement.
Signed: Kendall Lovett Preston
The above letter was published in MCV on 12 March 2004, and then also in Sydney Star Observer and BNews. The Age did not publish it!
29 MAY 2004
The email below is 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----- From: josken_at_zip_com_au Sent: Saturday, 29 May 2004 1:07 AM To: Roxon, Nicola (MP)
Cc: Latham, Mark (MP)
Subject: gay and lesbian marriage
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 web: http://home.zipworld.com.au/~josken
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 hetoresexual 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
9 JUNE 2004
Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600.
Wednesday, 9 June 2004.
From: Kendall Lovett & Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian & Gay Solidarity (Melbourne),
PO Box 1675, Preston South, Vic.3072.
Why, John Anderson, does our lifestyle mean that other life options are closed to us? (7.6.04). You chose a “particular lifestyle” that of Coalition politician but those unspecified “certain things” that you deny us are certainly not closed to you.
We challenge you to prove that your heterosexual lifestyle with your wife is better for children than the two lesbians featured with their daughter and her friend on the ABC Play School programme.
For that matter, the two Australian gay men and their baby son from overseas, featured on the SBS Storyline (20.5.04), is their lifestyle less nurturing, less loving and less secure for their son than yours is?
The only reason there’s an overheated debate on gay rights to marry and adopt children overseas is because you politicians inflame each other with your homophobic fears and unbelievable ideas stuck in the 19th century.
And, by the way you politicians, it isn’t exclusively your ABC !
With concern for your attitude in this more enlightened, freer 21st century society,
Kendall Lovett and Mannie De Saxe,
For Lesbian & Gay Solidarity (Melbourne).
This letter was published in MCV on 18 June 2004 and BNews on 1 July 2004
25 JUNE 2004
On 25 June 2004 John Anderson responded as follows:
Dear Mr Lovett and Mr De Saxe
Thank you for your letter of 9 June concerning my comments on 'Meet the Press'. It is one of the great attributes of democracy that all opinions can be expressed and respected.
John Anderson MP
26 JUNE 2004
Danny Gocs in Melbourne (firstname.lastname@example.org) or Vic Alhadeff in Sydney (email@example.com)
------- Forwarded message follows ------- From: Self josken_at_zipworld_com_au To: dan goldberg (melbourne ajn) Subject: Gay Marriages
Date sent: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:05:48 +1000
Dear Marsha Foxman (AJN 25 June 2004), it really is irrelevant that your Torah considers homosexuality an abomination. Nobody is flaunting their sexuality, merely homosexual people fighting for equal human rights with heterosexuals, rights which are denied because of the outdated, outmoded and homophobic religious biblical incantations spewed with hatred by the likes of you and your fellow fanatical fundamentalists.
You would probably be horrified to discover that members of your family or people who have been your friends have in their midst some -shock! horror!! homosexuals!!!
I do not believe in marriage as an institution, either for heterosexuals or homosexuals, but in order for people to have equal rights under the law, without discrimination of any sort, homosexuals are as entitled to marriage as heterosexuals.
As a matter of concern to you with your religious prejudices, you should be worried at the statistics of marriages, divorces, and the resulting effects of children ending up in single parent homes.
I agree with your statement that God, Judaism and mankind have never consented to marriages - after all, didn't so many of your biblical heroes - males - have several wives?? and God is a male construct anyway!
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 web: http://home.zipworld.com.au/~josken ------- End of forwarded message -------
12 JULY 2004
The Secretariat, Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, Room S1.61, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600.
Re: Senate Inquiry into the provisions of the MARRIAGE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2004
Monday, 12 July 2004
From: Kendall Lovett and Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian & Gay Solidarity (Melbourne),
PO Box 1675, Preston South, Vic. 3072. e-mail: josken_at_zipworld_com_au Tel: (03) 9471 4878
Apparently the purpose of this Bill is
a) to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life;
b) to ban the recognition of a same-sex marriage that has taken place in another country;
c) to prevent Australian same-sex couples from adopting a child from another country and bringing that child to live with them in Australia;
d) thereby denying same-sex couples the right to bring a lawsuit before a Court of Australia seeking legal status to their same-sex marriage obtained in another country or to legitimise their adoption of a child from another country that would be acceptable if they were an heterosexual couple.
We assert that such a Bill is illegitimate because its purpose is solely to discriminate against a legitimate section of the Australian community. Furthermore, it indicates prejudice and a fear within the government that under current laws the Court may very well recognise the legal status of a same-sex marriage licence obtained overseas.
Marriage Definition Amendment to the Marriage Act 1961
Such a definition as proposed to be inserted in Subsection 5(1) of the Act, we consider to be unnecessary because protection for the Institution in common law is adequate.
To add at the end of 88B that “to avoid doubt, in this Part (including section 88E), marriage has the meaning given by subsection 5(1)” to be equally unnecessary.
The most homophobic, prejudiced and discriminatory addition is proposed at the end of Section 88E, to wit 88EA: “Certain unions are not marriages; a union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.”
This assumes that marriage is entirely a religious rite. It isn’t. The proposed addition to the Act takes no account of the fact that this is a secular country and the Marriage Licence is a civil document and very many couples have no religious affiliation and regard the ceremony and licence as obligatory if they are to live together in a stable relationship.
For religious institutions to argue that, by normalising same-sex unions, marriage and family values are devalued is quite unacceptable in modern Australian society. Lesbians and gays are born of heterosexual unions and are in normal families. For the Prime Minister to have told the Courier Mail Newspaper (August 2003) that same-sex marriage could jeopardise “the survival of the species” is probably one of the silliest statements he has made. He completely disregarded the wealth of lesbian couples who have conceived by artificial insemination and love and care for their children. He also seems to be unwilling to recognise IVF as a current and future means of reproduction as a choice to be used by lesbians and gay men. They cannot continue to be denied use of IVF programmes. However, it does explain to some extent why prejudice, discrimination and homophobia is the basis of this amendment.
Not all same-sex couples are keen on the institution of marriage any more than very many heterosexual couples. Statistics provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) indicate that at least one in three heterosexual marriages end in separation and/or divorce. This is hardly the state the Prime Minister envisages from this Bill as “a marriage entered into for life between a man and a woman!”
However, heterosexual couples have a choice that same-sex couples don’t have --the conferred rights of the official Marriage Licence.
Due to the lack of Commonwealth laws for same-sex couples they remain discriminated against financially and legally in taxation, immigration, superannuation, veteran’s pensions, industrial relations, the defence forces, social security, aged care, etcetera.
Equality in marriage legislation would change that discriminatory situation. One contract for all would be the sensible way to go. A change in terminology could be the solution. Call the marriage licence a Shared Relationship Licence. People these days say they are ‘in a relationship’ and refer to each other as ‘partners’ even if they have been through a religious ceremony. Much has changed since the 19th century!
Christians in churches, Moslems in mosques or adherents to any other religious belief could still refer to the contract between two people of their persuasion by any name at all. Nevertheless, for civic purposes they would still have to complete the state licence for their relationship to be recognised for the conferred benefits. One contract for all would then be inclusive of those without religious obligation such as those using civil ceremonies and same-sex unions.
This Bill reinforces bigotry. It ensures that the children of same-sex couples are left in legal limbo without the protections and legal certainty that other parents can provide for their children. The permutations of parent-child relationships are many. Surely the most important considerations are that these relationships are caring, nurturing and in the best interests of the children and adults involved.
Why does this Government see lesbians and gay men as threats? What are same-sex couples threatening?
We want the Parliament to address the inherent fear that pervades this unworthy Bill.
Schedule 2 –Amendment to the Family Law Act 1975
Without any indication as to why this government sees a need for the additions proposed in this Bill to amend the 1975 Act, we feel it must be simply unreasoning prejudice and therefore the additions should be rejected.
To add after subsection 111C(4) the insertion of 4A: “However, regulations made for the purposes of this section must not facilitate, or provide for, the adoption of a child by 2 persons of the same sex who live together as a couple” is sheer prejudice without any foundation whatever and would not apply to heterosexuals in the same circumstance.
And then, at the end of Division 3 of Part X111AA to add: “ Certain international adoptions not allowed. A person (including an officer of a State or Territory) must not, for purposes of :
(a) the Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption signed at The Hague on 29 May 1993;
Or (b) a bilateral agreement or arrangement on the adoption of children made between a State or Territory and an overseas jurisdiction; facilitate, provide for, the adoption of a child by 2 persons of the same sex who live together as a couple” is utterly unacceptable because there would be no such restriction on a heterosexual woman and man living together as a couple. This restriction on same-sex couples is tantamount to saying the child will be treated cruelly, molested sexually, or abandoned. It is homophobic and discriminatory in the extreme without proof. It prevents the same-sex couple from ever countering the discrimination drafted intentionally into the Act.
This Bill sends a strong message to the rest of Australia that same-sex relationships are second class and aims to internalise a sense of unworthiness in young lesbian and gay people. It further suggests that gays and lesbians are bad parents.
This flies in the face of all credible research which suggests that it is family processes, not family structures, which determine children’s health and well being. In other words, it is the love and care within a family, not the gender and sexuality of the parents, which is of real importance to a child, and in the child’s best interests.
If this Bill is passed lesbians and gay men will still be able to adopt but as individuals. Denying both persons in a same-sex relationship from adopting a child will serve only to deprive that child of important rights such as child support payments, inheritance rights, etc. This Bill punishes a child for the sexuality of the parents.
Kendall Lovett and Mannie De Saxe
Lesbian & Gay Solidarity (Melbourne)
14 JULY 2004
------- Forwarded message follows ------- From: josken_at_zip_com_au To: josken_at_zipworld_com_au Date sent: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:36:36 +1000
Subject: marriage - response to letter in Fifty~Plus News Priority: normal
Mannie De Saxe and Kendall Lovett, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne
PO Box 1675 Preston South Vic 3072 Phone:(03)9471 4878
email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au web: http://home.zipworld.com.au/~josken
Alan Barron (Letters, Fifty~Plus News July 2004) must know many lesbians and gay men because he writes with authority that “for a vast majority of homosexual relationships, that's very temporary (under two years)”. Where did he get these “statistics”?
Pleased to know, also, that Barron has such an intimate knowledge of homosexual couplings that he dogmatically declares, oxymoronically, that this cannot be anything else other than a shacking up arrangement. Barron also congratulates that great Australian homophobe, Prime Minister John Howard, in taking steps to protect the dignity and sanctity of marriage.
It would seem that marriage needs to have its dignity and sanctity protected since at least one in three marriages ends in divorce or separation (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003, 2002, 2001).
Lesbians and gay men seek marriage no more and no less than their heterosexual counterparts for one reason only, and that is equal rights under the law.
This is a human rights issue and one that all governments should be addressing, instead of passing regressive and retrogressive legislation.
Reactionary religious organisations have assisted in the breakdown of heterosexual marriage by failing to come to terms with societal changes in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, by not addressing the problems of employment, education and relationship stresses.
The oxymoron is actually heterosexual marriage, because so many couples - hetero as well as homo - choose to live in de facto relationships
Mannie De Saxe and Kendall Lovett.
------- End of forwarded message -------
8 AUGUST 2004
Mark Latham, MP, Leader of the Opposition, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600.
From: Kendall Lovett and Mannie De Saxe,
2/12 Murphy Grove, Preston, Vic. 3072. e-mail: josken_at_zipworld_com_au
Sunday, 8 August, 2004.
What is Labor’s problem with leaving the Marriage Act to remain without change until after the election?
The Prime Minister’s amendments already have been sent to the Senate Committee to examine the legal, constitutional and social impacts of the legislation. Surely Labor must recognise that the Prime Minister’s decision to reintroduce the legislation is a ploy to defeat any contrary recommendation from the Committee in October. He is trying to force the ALP to tell the people of Australia that it considers the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee of Inquiry worthless. Labor senators don’t believe that otherwise why would they have referred the legislation to committee?
Why did John Howard want to introduce such a ridiculous change in the first place?
1) Perhaps he thinks George would approve;
2) Because he is concerned that the courts would adopt a more liberal interpretation of the Marriage Act if challenged;
3) Because he is aware of the statistics that prove one in three marriages currently end in divorce and doesn’t want to know of the number of marriage partners who live separately in defacto relationships without being divorced.
Come on, take the wider view and refuse to pass his amendments. Demand a proper researched review of marriage in Australia. Find out how the twenty-first century views marriage before any changes are made to the Act.
As for Margaret Court and the members of the Australian christian lobby and Catch the Fire ministries, they won’t vote for the ALP. They’re all born again conservatives.
For your interest, enclosed are photocopies of some interesting published letters on the issue from voters.
Kendall Lovett and Mannie De Saxe
The above letter was sent to Mark Latham, Nicola Roxon and all 28 ALP senators.
13 AUGUST 2004
Postcard by Senator Kerry Nettle - cake courtesy Sweet Art Paddington - 2004
13 August 2004
This letter was sent to all ALP members of the Federal Parliament, lower house MPs and upper house senators. There have been a few responses, some of which are more or less standard letters. A few have offered more original thoughts about the issues.
The ALP's homophobia has reached new depths with this latest betrayal of the gay, lesbian and transgender communities over the Howard Marriage Amendment Bill.
Nicola Roxon attending a marriage forum organised by evangelical christian groups and then trying to defend the ALP's indefensible stand on equal legislative rights (sic) for all in her letters to the gay papers is just another example of the immorality of the ALP.
Roxon said Labor would support Howard's Marriage Amendment Bill and Senator Jacinta Collins said when the ALP attempted to divide same-sex marriage legislation from same-sex adoption legislation they would have voted to ban marriage then and there.
Many of us in the gay, lesbian and transgender communities have networks through the internet, and we will use these networks to inform as many people in these communities around Australia why they should not vote for the ALP in the forthcoming federal election.
This information will be particularly useful in those marginal seats where it will be possible to get someone elected from a party which supports equal rights for all in its political platform.
If the ALP is in any doubt that change can be achieved, maybe it should remember that Bob Carr dismissed Sydney and South Sydney Councils, amalgamated them as the Sydney City Council, and hoped to get Michael Lee elected as ALP Lord Mayor of Sydney. But Clover Moore won!
We will do our utmost to effect changes in Australian parliamentary representation which will allow our voices to be heard and where the current Howard-Latham homophobic alliance can be broken.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne.
17 AUGUST 2004
Tuesday, 17 August 2004.
The letter below was sent to the Sunday Age in response to a homophobic article by John Elder in the 15 August 2004 issue of the paper. The paper published it on 22 August with slight changes as follows: instead of ”gutless piece”, the paper merely stated: ”If John Elder's 'Single-minded on the matter of gay marriage” (which was the heading of the article) is not fiction------”. At the end the paper changed the last sentence to start: ”No one's laughing------”.
If John Elder’s gutless piece in Sunday Forum (15 August) is not fiction then Adrian is sending him up shamelessly. Adrian and Peter have been put-down by the neighbourhood for yonks.
On the other hand, if the whole thing is a fiction and “Adrian” and “Peter” are products of Elder’s stereotyping imagination he fails miserably to mimic Hyacinth’s “Keeping Up Appearances” hetero mould.
Nobody’s laughing, John, except homophobes.
Signed: Kendall Lovett, Preston.
In 2008, John Elder sent the following email to us in reply to the 2004 published letter above. This Sunday Age journalist's email is as we received it. We have neither corrected nor edited it. If you need to read his article, click here: Single-minded on the matter of gay marriage
Just saw your website with a reference to a ``homophobic'' article by me in 2004.
I remember the letter we published criticisng the piece as ``fiction.''
Well, it wasn't fiction. The guys interviewed weren't sending me up. They simply weren't into the marriage thing. The godfather of my little nephew, a good mate and confidently gay man, said the response to the piece was based on an aggressive brand of gay politics that brooks no dissent re the legalisation of same sexs marriage. Me? People can marry whoever they want as far as I was concerned.
Your ''homophobic'' claim bothers me. It's wrong, it's lazy and it's kinda pathetic aned I'm wondering if even defamtory. You're writing about someone who scandalised 3AW listeners some years by saying one of my fabvourite memories from school was rubbing cocks with the other boys in the toilet block.
The problem is, when you so easily and wrongly label someone homophobic, you lose credibuility.
Something to think about.
31 AUGUST 2004
To: Nicola Roxon, MP, Electorate Office, 204 Nicholson Street, Footscray Vic. 3011.
Tuesday, 31 August 2004.From: Kendall Lovett, 2/12 Murphy Grove, Preston.
Re: Your letter, dated 25th August 2004, On Howard’s Amendments to the Marriage Act.
Come off it! They are no longer Howard’s amendments. Immediately you voted to pass them into law they became the ALP’s as well.
The Federal ALP has an appalling record on lesbian and gay rights. Your party was in government federally from 1983 until 1996 and you did absolutely nothing for us other than endeavouring to improve recruitment in the military by allowing gays and lesbians to be open about their sexuality. So, why should we believe you when you tell us “only Labor will immediately introduce anti-discrimination laws based on sexuality”?
You are treating us the same way as you have treated Trade Unions rank and file over the years. Trust us, we’ll look after you. Except that when the big end of town says the workers are costing them, you agree with the bosses. The BLF is an obvious example. And when the Christian Right makes a lot of noise about the marriage ritual belonging to the Church, you cave-in and legalise discrimination in the Marriage Act.
At the same time you elevated the status of my hetero brothers’ marriages above mine reducing my same-sex relationship to second class and worthless as far as all the benefits a civil marriage certificate bestows on my brothers and their wives whether or not they were wedded in church. Your promise of anti-discrimination legislation will never change the superiority of the civil marriage certificate.
By your action you have also placed young gays and lesbians at even greater risk of suicide than the findings of the ARCSHS Report, Don’t ask, don’t tell –Hidden in the crowd, published in 2003. The report said that doubts or questions about sexuality or gender could compound social and emotional risk factors for self-destructive and suicidal behaviours. Same-sex attracted young people will surely read into these changes to the Marriage Act that the lives of their hetero brothers and sisters are worth more than theirs.
Why on earth should we believe that you and the ALP are anymore trustworthy than the Coalition? A pox on both your parties!
1 SEPTEMBER 2004
Senator John Faulkner,
Suite 1, No1 Park Avenue, Drummoyne NSW 2047.
Wednesday, 1st September 2004.
From: Kendall Lovett, 2/12 Murphy Grove, Preston Vic.
Mail: PO Box 1675, Preston South, Vic.3072. Email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au
Re: Your email, dated 17th August 2004,
On the Howard Amendments to the Marriage Act
Thank you for your detailed but disappointing explanation of Labor’s position on the gay marriage ban by the Howard government. Since you voted for his amendments to the Marriage Act, though, a gay marriage ban becomes ALP policy. Your email statement that “we will not be redefining marriage” acknowledges it in fact.
You go on to say in your email “but will work to eliminate discrimination in same-sex relationships across a range of federal laws.” Is this some form of double-speak? Your decision to pass the Marriage Act Amendments is blatant discrimination.
Australia is a secular country and the marriage licence is a civil document and very many couples have no religious affiliation and regard the licence as an obligatory contract to enable them to live together in a stable relationship with conferred rights. As it stands now, the Marriage Act reinforces bigotry and gives heterosexual couples rights and a choice which are unavailable to same-sex couples.
What the ALP is really saying is that my same-sex relationship can never be equal to that of my two hetero brothers. The civil marriage certificate bestows on them and their wives status and conferred rights, which are denied to my partner and me. With a simple change in terminology the civil contract with its conferred rights could have licensed all shared relationships regardless of religion or lack of it. Not now that the licensing Act wording has been changed.
And another thing, by your action the ALP has placed young gays and lesbians at even greater risk of suicide than the findings of the ARCSHS Report, Don’t ask, don’t tell –Hidden in the crowd, published in 2003. The report said that doubts or questions about sexuality or gender could compound social and emotional risk factors for self- destructive and suicidal behaviours. Same-sex attracted young people will surely read into these changes to the Marriage Act that the lives of their hetero brothers and sisters are worth more in this country than theirs.
Why on earth should we believe that you and the ALP are any more trustworthy than the Coalition? A pox on both your parties!
3 SEPTEMBER 2004
An article in the A3 section of Melbourne's The Age newspaper on 3 September 2004 on the subject of same-sex marriage is of such importance on the topic that we thought it should be reproduced in full on our web pages. The following link takes you to the article:
SAME SEX MARRIAGE - PART 2 including "When I do becomes you can't"
Mannie and Kendall Present: LESBIAN AND GAY SOLIDARITY ACTIVISMS
RED JOS: HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISM
MannieBlog (from 1 August 2003 to 31 December 2005)
Activist Kicks Backs - Blognow archive re-housed - 2005-2009
RED JOS BLOGSPOT (from January 2009 onwards)
This page updated 25 APRIL 2012 and again on 17 NOVEMBER 2016