Crossposted from No Right Turn.
The ACT Legislative Assembly has just passed a civil union law, amending its existing civil partnerships legislation to permit public ceremonies. There’s some history here – in 2006 and 2007 civil union laws were repeatedly vetoed by the Howard Government on the basis that allowing public ceremonies (rather than filling out a form and making a declaration in a registry office) would “mimic marriage”. The message was clear: gay couples should stay in the legislative closet, and keep out of sight (and out of mind) of decent straight folk.
The new law gives the finger to that idea, reinstating public ceremonies and establishing a seperate system of civil partnership notaries. Oddly, however, the ceremonies are limited solely to same-sex couples – ensuring same- and opposite-sex couples use different laws apparently being a cornerstone of Australian bigot politics. Even this may not be enough to avoid a federal veto – the Australian Labour Party voted just three months ago to uphold Howard’s ban on gay marriage, and Kevin Rudd personally opposes equality. its unclear yet whether there will be a veto – but given the hostility of the ALP to gay rights, I would not be surprised.
That’s interesting. After Howard was tossed out the ACT did try to introduce same sex civil union laws again but before they were passed they were warned by the Rudd government that they would be vetoed so they backed down. I wonder if this separation of laws between same sex unions and opposite sex unions was the compromise?
I’d like to highlight that the only way the ACT could present this again (leaving aside the politics of having the Greens present the bill) was to only have a ceremony for same-sex couples:
This should be considered a real issue, and I hope it’s not passed over. I understand why they’ve felt they’ve had to do this, as it’s been predicated on the assumption that the ALP federally would block the ACT proposing a ceremony that any couple could use. It’s unfortunate that that’s what it seems to take to start to remove the discrimination in marriage as it currently stands.
Separate but equal marriage laws? This seems to be setting a very poor precedent. Just wait, in a few years we’ll be drinking from different water coolers because we have “different needs”
I was going to write, “That’s the worst piece of hyperbole I’ve ever read anywhere,” but snark like that ignores the fact that there is genuine distortion behind the above sentiment.
I don’t oppose gay marriage, I think it’s inevitable, I’d hate to see any of our major parties actively oppose gay marriage for electoral purposes (what we have now is really just passive obstruction.)
But please, some perspective.
Oh, and there’s a little thing called ‘the history of the Australian Labor Party and Gay Rights’, my Trans-Tasman friend.
Zedar: Seperate but equal never is. And that said, civil unions are better than nothing. The trick is to ensure they are just a step to real equality, rather than a permanent second-class marriage.
NickWS: I regard same-sex marriage as a litmus issue. The ALP opposes it, voted to oppose it (for electoral reasons no less – can’t upset the bigots), their PM personally opposes it. That puts them in the “hostile” camp as far as I’m concerned. If they believe in equality, then they should come out and say so.
Nickws, I’m a little surprised that you’d take offence to the statement, “Given the hostility of the ALP to gay rights, I would not be surprised.” Labor supported the Howard government’s amendments to the Marriage Act to preclude same-sex relationships. So, when you say that “I’d hate to see any of our major parties actively oppose gay marriage for electoral purposes”, what do you consider the ALP supporting the Howard government’s amendments was other than active opposition to marriage equality for political purposes? And this was by both major political parties. I’m not just picking on the ALP here, although I tend to expect better of them.
Sarah Hanson-Young is proposing equality in marriage rights; there’s currently a Senate Inquiry, which will report later this month. So, when you say that you’d “hate to see any of our major parties actively oppose gay marriage for electoral purposes”, that means you’d be expecting to see the ALP support a bill eliminating discrimination in marriage (as happened in the ACT). If this does not happen, how is that “passive obstruction”?
Well yeah, I’d say it’s a bit of overkill too. History is a bit more convoluted than that. Not just in the ALP either. Shout out to John Gorton, RIP.
And using gay marriage as a litmus test is really insulting. I mean I find the ALP’s refusal to countenence the idea also insulting, but credit where it is due. At least Penny made a speech, unlike other Senators.
A same-sex registry is hardly progress though imho.
From the story -
“KEVIN Rudd has not ruled out a veto of new laws to legalise civil ceremonies between same-sex couples in Canberra.”
Jesus, Kevin, you’d actually consider vetoing even this second-class status step?
The sooner we get some actual human beings in Canberra, the better.
If they oppose it in law, they’re hostile. End of story. Any Member or Senator in Labor who opposes it at a vote is also hostile.
Stop being apologists for those actively supporting discrimination, Nickws and RumRebellious.
“the hostility of the ALP to gay rights” is pure short-term politics. In 2007 they made some little-noticed (and disgraceful) election promises on this to the fundies in exchange for some preference deals and aren’t game to renege on them while a fundy has the balance of power in the Senate. I predict the overrriding legislation will be drawn up but will unaccountably fail to get onto a crowded parliamentary schedule before the next election. Still, its going to be interesting just how far Wong, Garrett and company allow themselves to be pushed ….
I always wonder how you can outlaw a ceremony. Not recognising it is one thing, but are you actually going to have the coppers burst into gatherings and haul people off to jail? “You are charged that you did feloniously possess a wedding ring with intent to commit matrimony contrary to Section …”. That would be asking for a civil disobedience campaign on an issue where the majority of Australians (not to mention ALP members) will quickly sympathise with the disobeyers.
I’m surprised that the federal government can constitutionally prevent a state or territory government officer from using any form of words at all.
On the other hand, I’m not sure what “legally binding” means in the context of a formalised relationship that includes sexual congress if that relationship is not governed by the Family Law Act (1975).
The FLA is a commonwealth act. It appears that no major party wants to bring same sex relationships under its purview.
Interestingly, the FLA recognises annulment of foreign marriages as a valid divorce under the Act. Annulment usually means that the marriage is declared void because of non-consummation.
On the other hand, the FLA remains silent about the possibility of non-consummation as a grounds for dissolution for a marriage contracted in Australia.
It could be argued that a same-sex relationship can never be regarded as a consummated sexual relationship because sexual congress (narrowly defined) can never take place.
However, because the FLA has removed non-consummation as a cause for dissolution of a marriage, then the precise nature of any sexual congress that may have taken place is irrelevant.
But on the other hand, let us presume that in the future same-sex marriages come under the purview of the FLA, then a same-sex couple who had a legal marriage in some other jurisdiction and then took up residence in Australia might apply to the court for an annulment of their (foreign) marriage on the grounds of non-consummation.
Weird, huh?
I wonder if Rudd will be lobbied when he’s keynote speaker at this conference next week lol
http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=28324
The Christian lobbyists wiggles their little fingers and Rudd jumps to please.
Pfft, bugger off.
I’m not apologising for nobody. Realpolitick and history and both more complex than that and the Greens don’t have the numbers. Change is more complex on that.
And credit where it is due. Correct me if I’m wrong but afaik it was the ALP who removed the sodomy laws from the criminal code in every state of Australia(shout out to Liberal MP who crossed the floor to help get change in WA). You know that serious discrimination that involved criminal charges for sex? That if you got caught getting beaten by the police was preferable to being charged? Because of the public humiliation and possible consequences for your job, family whatever? That deserves no respect?
Alright how about the following story from my home state of Qld. Afaik, the reason why we don’t have these stupid time-wasting debates here (private/public cerermonies, seperate registries whatever) is because Beattie did a deal with the peak gay groups for their support to achieve reform in many areas by bringing them under the de facto legislation and removing discrimination in a wide range of areas. The price was the gay groups were to be silent about adoption law reform. I don’t agree with it but realpolitick yeah? With real consequences for defacto homosexual couples.
And until gay marriage activists apply the same fervour to drug law reform – you know that other form of bigotry that results in numerous negative consequences for those that are charged (mostly who are either poor or black by the way); well don’t talk to me about discrimination.
Incidentally, to me it still sounds like shitty legislation. Veto it, I couldn’t give a fuck.
What’s wrong with calling uncompromising hostility for what it is? Kevin Rudd and a very organised minority of the ALP are, it’s true, implacably hostile to gay marriage. It’s a well-earned description.
The problem is conflating the policy of the Federal Parliamentary ALP with the sentiment and opinion of the large majority of ALP members and supporters. Not the same.
rumrebellious@#13 Nov 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The liberalisation anti-sodomy laws was a mixed blessing for some of the more avante-garde members of the gay community. Thousands of whom paid with their lives for the reformist zeal of their more outraged comrades.
Most major Australian states repealed anti-sodomy laws in the early- to mid-eighties. The incidence of HIV infections peaked in those years, according to official statistics.
I’m not saying homosexuality should have remained criminalised. Merely that the headlong rush into liberalisation unfortunately coincided with some of the more extravagant debauches of the late-seventies through early-eighties.
The lesson is, as always, conservative precautionary principle. Lets not rush headlong into the New Jerusalem before fulling exploring all the things that could go wrong.
Liam has said what I want to say.
There are PLENTY of rank and file members of the ALP who are in favour of gay marriage; I would confidently guess a clear majority. The problem is the inordinate power wielded by certain right-wing INDIVIDUALS in the ALP and as a result this skews the party’s perceived position on certain “moral” issues because motions about them get voted down at right-wing stacked conventions.
It annoys me no end that these people – who should not even be in the Labor Party as far as I am concerned – continue to ride roughshod over the more left-wing views of the majority in the party.
Part of the problem is that the organised left-wing is too piss-weak to take them on, but that is a discussion for another day.
I’m not sure that’s it, chinda63. The problem is that—and I am happy to be quoted on this—when you rile them up the SDA and their allies behave like screaming shitting spitting monkeys. I am not even exaggerating. Taking them on’s not about being pissweak, it’s more that it’s really tiring and unpleasant and if you’re going to lose because the PM kinda feels odd about gay marriage, then you’re going to get covered in monkeyshit for nothing.
With you there, brother.
Also, Neil Blewett moving quickly & decisively on the AIDS crisis during the eighties is a good sign that Labor has some cred when it comes to working with this section of Australia that they are supposedly ‘hostile’ towards.
I’m not sure that it’s just the usual suspects close to the church who oppose moving away from inaction.
The social conservatives have some quiet support across both the ALP and the genuine Left, IMHO.
I’ve really been wondering about these broader societal issues ever since Mark B. linked approvingly to G.Rundle’s piece arguing that the Greens should realign their party enough to elect pro-life senators. (Yes, yes, yes, there needn’t be any linkage between support for gay marriage and support for reproductive rights. But still. It makes you think—do the ‘allies’ of the Joe DeBruyns have to be outwardly militant, or conservative, about anything in order to be his ‘allies’?)
Correct me if I’m wrong but afaik it was the ALP who removed the sodomy laws from the criminal code in every state of Australia
Incorrect, in Tasmania it was a Greens bill in 1997, supported by the Liberal minority government that gave Tas the most progressive (ie least discriminatory) in the country.
I’d also point out that despite years in power, the ALP in Qld still has a sodomy law on the books.
follow the links from this wiki and you will find that the ALP has hardly covered itself in glory on the issue. In fact I’d argue that for a party which claims to care about social justice and human rights the ALP has except in a few instances not so much pushed gay law reform as as much stalled and blocked it until dragged kicking to the table.
“Also, Neil Blewett moving quickly & decisively on the AIDS crisis during the eighties is a good sign that Labor has some cred…”
Not to denigrate Blewett’s achievements on this, but I wonder how different it might have been if Blewett wasn’t gay?
Neal Blewett – also a top bloke, and we need to be positive and supportive of the members of both major parties who do give a shit about our community. To get the eventual change that all of us want. What is so hard about that to understand?
Jack Strocchi, nice work. I haven’t seen anyone blame AIDS on the gays in a long time. Have a think about what you said because I can’t be bothered to point out the ways you are wrong and offensive right now.
Yup Myriad, forgot about Tassie. So we can have hope for the Liberals. I did wonder though if the fact that Bob Brown being an openly gay politician active in that state was the reason why Tasmania was so late in bringing reform. And credit to Bob too. Doing his door to door knocking informing his neighbours he was gay back in the 70’s because it might be used publicly against him was an incredibly brave and politically important step – possibly even threatening. My hat goes off.
A pun right?
Yep, both major parties crapped on gays and lesbians for a long time and yes I do have greater respect for the Greens and Democrats who have been consistentally vocal on these issues, and the alternative left in many places was the push the ALP needed to do reform.
If you want me to be critical of the ALP here it goes. If you want gay marriage, keep campaigning like youse have done to ensure it is mainstream so it doesn’t frighten the ALP’s electoral horses (who want 50.1%) for the next election. And make damn sure that Malcolm Turnbull is still leader of the Liberals.
Wake up and smell the pink tantric sex. A wedge like that won’t be ignored.
Sheesh, I don’t even vote Labor.
LOL, sorry rumrebellious, and thanks for the image of a giant pink wedgie. :p
I just find the ALP so damn frustrating on the issue. Agree with your last para – it would also be a fab way to help wean Labor off their decidedly unhealthy relationship with certain conservative religious elements.
rumrebellious@#21 Nov 13th, 2009 at 9:25 am
You can be bothered to respond to other peoples comments chapter and verse. Yet you “can’t be bothered to point out the ways [I am] are wrong and offensive”. Stop bluffing and show us your cards.
Also, learn to read and deal with what I actually said. I didn’t, and don’t, “blame AIDS on the gays”. I suggested that AUS’s hasty liberalisation of anti-sodomy laws in the early 1980’s, and the associated ribald debaucheries in the gay sub-culture, were associated with the contemporary spike in reported HIV infections.
Of course this harmed, rather than helped, gays in general. Whose side are you really on, the gay beat fringe or ordinary gay people?
I also argued that this illustrates the validity of the conservative pre-cautionary principle: to be wary of the un-intended consequences of novel, far-reaching and rapid institutional reforms. This applies to the proposal to allow gay marriage.
Although FWIW I am more sympathetic to gay marriage because it will probably have an integrating, rather than differentiating, effect on social cohesion.
Jack Strocchi,
1. The table you link to at #15 aggregate the figures for all years up to and including 1987, then provide individual year figures from 1988 onwards. This makes single-year comparisons between the years prior to 1987 inclusive, and subsequent years, problematic.
2. More substantially, cases of HIV/AIDS were not detected in Western countries (including Australia) until the early 1980s, and tests for HIV antibodies did not become widespread until the mid-1980s, so it is not surprising that a statistical “spike” in detcted HI and AIDS cases would have occurred in this period – for reasons quite apart from the legal status of homosexuality at the time. Further, Australia’s public policy response to HIV/AIDS only really got going in a serious way from the mid-1980s onwards, so again one would expect the situation to improve after this opint. This policy response, it should be noted, was very much driven from the bottom-up by the queer community and other vulnerable groups, and has been remarkably successful by world standards.
Bill Bowtell’s paper on Australia’s HIV/AIDS response is worth a read.
Shorter
Queen VictoriaGino: I don’t really care what the people do as long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses.How else is one supposed to read that?
I think you are ignoring the extraordinary amount of evidence of a global epidemic of a sexually transmitted disease. I’m not a scientist but I can’t think of a sexually transmitted disease that has ever been successfully eliminated. You don’t need to make assumptions about the gays sexual habits vis a vis heterosexuals.
Besides, the only major states to decriminalise in the early to mid 80’s was NSW and Victoria. Both of which had presumably had infections before then. And your ignoring that our successfull strategies of outreach to the gay community didn’t involve criminalisation but education and condoms. Ditto with the brothels. And the intravenous drug users, though they wanted clean needles. And that was very successfull – there is study on the costs of that somewhere with respect to HIV if you got some google time. I don’t.
Wtf? Honestly, how do you think poofters hooked up in the olden days? It was illegal and social persecution was alot more common than today. Read about the businesses that were closed down by the police because their clientele were ‘artistes’ or the illegal pubs that bribed the cops and sometimes were run by dodgy people. And even those meeting places only existed in major cities. Of course they fucked in parks at night. Whose friggin side are you on?
Paul Norton@#24 Nov 13th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Agreed that the annual data are non-commensurable with pre-1987 data for that graph. But all other evidence points to an AUS AIDS pandemic during the disco/bath house/beat era (~1977-85) of promiscuous unprotected sodomy. One report indicates that HIV infections in AUS “peaked in 1984″.
I was living in St Kilda that year and made my annual pilgrimage to the Cross. I am not particularly straight-laced but I remember being shocked at the reckless abandon. A Julian Gold authored report on the demographic incidence of AIDS states:
Of course there is a selection effect working on jurisdictions here. The population of those engaging in at-risk behaviour is obviously not randomly distributed. Still, XXX marks the spot.
Paul Norton says:
Of course. But this proves my point, which is that the initial burst of sub-cultural liberation ultimately had to be tempered by a restoration of authoritative public regulation and intervention.
Prior to AIDS-awareness the gay bathhouse scene in particular, and gay beat in general, carried on as if there was no tomorrow. Which in many cases, sadly, proved to be the case.
From the mid-eighties onwards the authorities, and sensible members of the gay community, came to appreciate the public health risks of unhealthy forms of patronage and practice. So the establishment, attendance and, reportedly, the more sensational “practices” at gay bathhouses tapered off dramatically.
The simultaneous legalisation of homosexuality and eruption of gay and straight recreational establishments was a case of unfortunate timing. In the bad old (post-War/pre-Stonewall) days gays could carry on their lifestyle in private mostly unmolested. However cops did occasionally bust gay venues which did tend to cramp gay style. But it probably curtailed the spread of STDs.
In the Brave New World of gay liberation during the seventies-eighties we had an ideological revolution accompanying an anthropological one. Ditto for indigenes with similarly tragic results.
It would have been better to legalise homosexuality but still let the cops shut down these gay beat scenes on grounds of public health, drug use, noise nuisance etc. It pains me to admit it but had Joh Bjelke Petersen been admiministering the regulation of recreational establishments throughout the Western world during the eighties it is likely that up to 100,000 more gay men would still be alive today.
Unfortunately it appears that many have still not learned the public health lessons so hard won during the latter part of the eighties. AIDS infections are now rising, including a significant rise amongst immigrant communities. Perhaps we need to be more careful about monitoring the behaviour of those we let into the country.
In AUS it is still the case that AIDS is predominantly a disease afflicting reckless sodomites, drug using needle-parties and foreign whore-mongers. Which at least indicates that there was some wisdom about traditional warnings regarding the unregulated practice of these “vices”.
So maybe the next time someone proposes a leap into liberation and equality could we please show a little more respect for the skeptics?
Jack, this is one of your most stupid screeds yet.
Even if everything you say here is true, I have no idea what it has to do with proving why allowing gay men to marry and be faithful is a bad idea.
Yeah, and apparently gay law reform had nothing to do with lesbians and bisexuals!
I’m sure Jack will now obediently trot out some completely unfactual bigoted screed against the wimmin now just to oblige.
Shit, I was taking you seriously until you mentioned Joh B-P, Jack. Funny as.
Just in case Jack’s not taking the piss
A Documentary that got some interesting interviews about the development and political consequences of Australia’s HIV strategy from the people who were active at the time.
And a Link to some real data.
What he says is not true Anna, or at least blatant misunderstanding or manipulating of the facts. 1984 was when some back-testing on blood samples was done. Of course the early years of the known epidemic have a spike as people were encouraged to come forward for testing – HIV has a long latency period.
Um. Dude. Your making my point but not in the way you think. Education and engagement with the at risk communities such as in the Australian model (where the bath-houses were not closed) unlike the American model where the bath-houses were was much more successful. We have a much lower incidence of HIV than the US. That’s not just because of our of safe sex campaigns but more importantly in limiting the spread of HIV, our needle exchange programs.
Dude, your even creeping me out and I love gay sex. I repeat – sexually transmitted diseases are almost impossible to eradicate in both homosexual and heterosexual communities once they reach epidemic proportions. There is no need to continue your fascination with 1980’s gay beat sex.
Use condoms. If you don’t have one, be safe and aware of other options. I’d embed that pic if I knew how.
Myriad,
Oh the ALP disappoints me too. We expected so much more from Anna – at the very least action like you said on the discriminatory ages of consent we have in QLD, or abortion law reform.
But I have more faith in the ALP to give a damn, because up here despite the LNP’s sucking up to the gay community with a gay candidate in a safe ALP inner-city seat here, and a Springborg interview there, they commit to no change on the same issues that the ALP stubbornly refuses to move against. And they use us as political footballs.
Oh and a Link for the conservatives