Either way, I’m writing to my local member Swan.

I would much prefer to think it would be possible to break down (decompose) goals for change into smaller and smaller goals so that, this side of the next federal election, both Mr. Howard and Mr. Rudd would have the courage to initiate â??greater equal treatment under Commonwealth law for same-sex couplesâ?? for the benefit of two people entering into same-sex co-dependency.

Justin, nothing motivates right-wing recruitment and fundraising campaigns like rolling incremental changes like you describe. It is easy to stamp out hundreds of little technical amendments and small-scale “education campaigns”. There is a lot of goodwill for sweeping away discriminatory measures and you ought not take a US-style conservative governing paradigm as given. It will be necessary to outflank well-funded and tactically clever reactionaries.

While not gay myself I am tired of liberal causes being defeated because advocates underestimate the conservatives, and are reduced to either passive bemusement or else reiterating that We Are Right And They Are Wrong. Time to get clever and get some results.

I agree with the sentiment that it is sad that those in the closet that there is still a societal stigma on being gay. But anger that some of these will actively campaign against laws that would prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians. I’m still perplexed how the idea of homosexuality still scares the bejesus of people and turns them into irrational vehicles for intolerance.

“The question is: are you going to get a landslide win at the next election? Will progressives will have forward momentum with the reactionaries not be in a position to stop it?”

The problem with landslide wins is that Governments potentially take actions without having thought about what might be termed “the critical issues”. It’s becoming more and more evident that John Howard’s WorkChoices may become a historic case study of that very point.

It would seem that a work breakdown structure is needed. What I mean by that is a thought process that a) thinks of everything that likely should be considered and b) understand how it all fits together.

I would much prefer to think it would be possible to break down (decompose) goals for change into smaller and smaller goals so that, this side of the next federal election, both Mr. Howard and Mr. Rudd would have the courage to initiate “greater equal treatment under Commonwealth law for same-sex couples” for the benefit of two people entering into same-sex co-dependency.

Not forgetting that so-called “equality” in practice only works in “greater than” or “less than” terms. Setting smaller goals of “Greater Equal Treatment” might result in greater equality in some ways, but still less equal treatment in other ways. However, what matters to me as a gay man in a relationship is that the Greater Equal Treatment that is implemented addresses “critical issues to me” as a priority.

What’s critical for me in somewhat less “big picture” than the opinions we’re getting in the op-ed pages.

Consider the opinion of Chris Meney, director of the Marriage and Family Office for the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney:

“The continuing debate over the access of same-sex couples to social benefits and so-called entitlements is a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is not about infringement of rights. Rather, it is about what heterosexual marriage can offer society that other forms of relationships cannot.

There is no need to move down the path of providing unimpeded access to a range of benefits to any two or more people who say they are in a relationship. Simple co-dependency is not enough.”

Simple co-dependency is not enough…….in relation to what goal or sub-goal?

It makes me frustrated when certain people treat gay relationships in the “painfully narrow context” of “culture wars”, when you have a clash of big picture goals, with both sides pushing for one, ultimate unilateral decision that applies for all time.

What this does is impose the critical issues of a select few on the rest of society, with howls of “discrimination!” from the left-wing and arguments from the right about the “social benefits of discrimination”, just as Chris Meney has attempted to justify in his argument.

Yet as Paul Robinson’s book about gay conservatives called Queer Wars challenges, greater social inclusion of gays compared to the past means less need for all gays to display a united ideological front, while the same gradual change also makes it less likely “the mainstream values” of modern families are therefore threatened by a radical push of gender, sexual and political deviance. Rather, the gay community is made up of a mixture of liberal and conservative genders, sexualities and politics (just like the rest of the greater community is made up).

The answer is not to treat this latest development as a crisis (there’s not enough evidence to feel that pressured and emotional), but the answer is also not to plan towards some day of unilateral decision-making in parliament which changes policy without changing attitudes.

…From Justin

Finally, advocates have identified exactly which legislation they want changed and there is some degree of political organisation. Certainly, opponents are well organised, well-funded, motivated and entrenched in the political system, with leading members of both major parties as well as a significant constituency outside the major parties (e.g. Fielding First). Where is the factional chieftain – yer Bill Ludwig, yer Martin Ferguson – who’ll go in hard for the queers?

It is significant that even though Andrews is politically buggered (as it were) over Haneef, opposition to these measures could revive him politically.

The question is: are you going to get a landslide win at the next election? Will progressives will have forward momentum with the reactionaries not be in a position to stop it?

I think Labor will win the coming election with a fairly small majority, similar to the initial victories of the incumbent state governments. Even if they reduce the Coalition to a phone-box sized minority (Grandpa, what’s a phone box?), there will be reduced scope for policy adventurism except in a few fields. It’s likely that this limited scope will mean Rudd will concentrate on issues like health administration or environmental issues. There’s three years work in that at least.

In the Senate, it’s highly unlikely that numbers will switch from an absolute Coalition majority to an absolute ALP majority. Minor parties that might be likely to support anti-discrimination, such as the Democrats, are not polling well. Minor parties that are likely to oppose it are polling strongly.

This means that in his first term, Rudd will need to negotiate with a conservative Senate to get through the things he regards as important, such as health and environmental issues and goodness knows what else. Anti-discrimination measures would piss the minor parties off and give the Libs a rallying point, without any effective corollary from the progressives, and leave the big issues stymied so that Labor looks like a bunch of trendies who can’t get the big issues through.

After a competent first term, Rudd will get re-elected in a landslide, which will hopefully drown out cries that he’s sold out on things that he never really believed in. At this point, the anti-discrimination reforms go through with too long to the election after that. Let’s hope Johan van Vloten, suz and others can wait, and resist the temptation to not give a new government room to move on this.

A generation ago, this was the pattern for decriminalising homosexuality. Governments from both major parties put this legislation through immediately after landslide elections.

Contrast this with the push for a change to NSW law in 1994. A sympathetic Liberal government facing a resurgent opposition dithered: it did not oppose reform, which would have shored up conservative support, nor did it embrace reform wholeheartedly, hoping that progressives made up for the loss of conservatives. This dithering showed that they didn’t have what it took to govern. Mind you, since then Labor governments have been elected overwhelmingly with gays in Cabinet, and they did nothing on this (I said can be done, not will). Interesting to see what happens I suppose.

On top of that, they will not grant people born overseas a full passport in their correct gender after surgery without permission from the Department of Immigration, who will not update our documentation if we are still married.

So, in practice, I will have to divorce my wife in order to hold an Australian passport. There is a small chance I will be able to slip by, as I already have a temporary passport, but going forward transgender people will not have this option.

PDF’s of the relevant sections are available on Zoe’s blog, which also has information on her own struggles with exactly this.

Back OT. Don’t Howard and co realise that rising property values show many correlations with same sex couples moving into the neigbourhood? Not offering them the same financial/property/power of attorney status under law as heterosexual couples enjoy will not enhance dreams of a comfortable and relaxed white picket fence steadily growing in equity value.

Regardless of moral issues, the Government’s stance makes no sense economically.

Perhaps you could talk Kim into bringing back her great one with the wine glass, and then the two of you could team up to solve crimes whilst being very stylish and cracking the mystery in time for cocktails. I know I’d pay attention!