Finally – marriage equality is law in Australia

It’s finally, finally, finally happened. Today, in the late afternoon, the Members of Parliament (House of Representatives) passed the bill that had come from the Senate last week. An amendment to the Marriage Act to remove “man and woman” and replace that with “two people”.

Here’s a link I saw on Facebook – the final minutes of procedure and voting – and a lovely celebration from the public gallery (and floor of the House).

I loved the celebration song before, but I really love it now. New Zealand’s song (and process) was better though…

This vote should’ve happened some years ago and it definitely shouldn’t have needed an expensive postal survey in order to happen – with nearly another month between that beautiful result and today. The grandstanding around this has been ridiculous from many sides (including what’s in the video).

It’s been a long time coming. (It still has to go through a final bit of procedure – the Governor-General has to sign off on it.)

Those who married overseas immediately have their marriages recognised. Weddings for others will start in mid-January because there is a requirement of at least a month’s notice. See all details about that and other procedural things at this link: https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/Getting-married.aspx

I can’t wait for all the lovely weddings to start. 😀

Today’s outcome is super important in a major way. For many people, the result is an affirmation of their love. Equality is equality – and equality before the law matters. Now all people have the choice to participate in marriage if they wish. It is also just nice to know that the law agrees that it doesn’t matter if they want to marry someone of the opposite or same sex. What matters is that both parties are happy and love each other.

As one of my friends on Facebook put it, “Think of all the children born today who will never know a life where marriage wasn’t legal for everyone, no matter their sexual orientation.”

Kids will grow up with that as the societal narrative now, reinforced by the law. Yes, there will probably still be the conservative nobs and fundies who say otherwise and people who just “don’t quite get it”. But the majority support the new narrative – people from a diverse background. Change has happened and will keep on happening.

After all, there’s still plenty to do to ensure all are truly equal. In the LGBTIQA+ sphere, there are broader discriminatory practices that need to be fought, for example. Also, beyond that, human rights/ social justice issues are all interconnected.

But for now, it’s time to celebrate.

 

 

Marriage Equality Essay

Last year (in 2016) I took a subject as an elective called Sex, Gender, Identity. It was an introductory subject that encouraged us to explore different aspects of those three things and how “the personal is political” (original quote author unknown). The final assignment for the subject was an essay which we could choose the topic from a list. I chose to examine marriage – the feminist critiques and marriage equality movement. The resulting essay gained me the highest mark I’ve ever received on an assignment. But more importantly, the research I did educated me about the topics and reaffirmed my stance on the issue. Below is an edited version of that essay. Please read.

I’ll note that I’m in a privileged position in writing this article. I’ve been raised in a heteronormative environment, I’m cisgender and in an opposite-sex relationship. These are my opinions backed by evidence collected from academic sources as well as personal ones.

---

Marriage: an institution which involves formal recognition of the union of two people, conferring legitimacy on an intimate relationship ⁽³⁾. This formal recognition usually grants a range of social, religious and legal benefits, rights and responsibilities ⁽³⁾ and has existed in some form for centuries ⁽¹⁴⁾. At the moment, the most easily-recognised and legitimised marriage is monogamous and opposite-sex – it’s still considered the norm. Challenging this norm, same-sex marriages have begun to be recognised in many countries after the hard work and activism of advocates. For many, this is a positive step for LGBTIQA+ people and society as the gains are seen to outweigh potential negatives. However, other activists are not as sure, as they take a more radical view that marriage should be either changed completely or left behind together. I investigated these two competing discourses and drew conclusions for this piece.

Firstly, the positives. 🙂 It has been suggested that access to marriage is tied, metaphorically and/or physically, to full citizenship rights in society ⁽⁹⁾. Also, as the phrase, “equal before the law” suggests, in democracies, the law is a place where all citizens should be equal ⁽⁸⁾. Hence, marriage is seen as a pathway to acceptance and legitimacy, a way of demonstrating that what people feel for each other is real and valuable. A chance to throw a big party and show how much they love each other. The exclusion of LGBTIQA+ people could be and has been argued to be an intolerable discriminatory practice. It has been suggested that in order for LGBTIQA+ rights to advance, all formal barriers to full equality must be overcome ⁽²⁾⁽⁴⁾ before or while other steps are taken – like fixing anti-discrimination laws ⁽¹⁰⁾. Due to the prominence of marriage in society, it can be seen as symbolic of other rights and some have argued that governments which do not afford equal respect of and protections for both LGBTIQA+ and heterosexual intimate relationships enable and participate in systemic homophobia and heterosexism ⁽⁴⁾. It has also been argued that this inequality harms LGBTIQA+ people in substantial, material ways – from subtle exclusion to violence ^(1)(2)(4). I agree with this – I’ve read very compelling personal accounts from people over the last few weeks and before that (not to mention hearing the lived experiences of my friends) which demonstrate the truth of it (6) (11). I also agree with the contention that one way of combatting the harms is to work towards full equality, including in marriage, for all regardless of sexuality. Research shows that there are particular social, legal and psychological benefits to this.

Marriage can reinforce partnership bonds, facilitate parenting and generate levels of social support for those who participate ⁽⁷⁾. LGBTIQA+ participation in marriage widens the scope of marriage norms, as non-traditional roles and practices are expressed, intentionally or otherwise ⁽¹⁾⁽⁷⁾, providing additional choices and freedoms. For example, with children. It could be said that the very presence of LGBTIQA+ people and families in so-called public spheres changes and destabilises the unconsciously accepted heteronormative view ⁽¹⁾ of society. Hmm, maybe that’s why the conservatives get so grumpy about it. Well, they can suck it up, because change is a thing that happens. Changes to societal views of family and so on include what is seen as normal by children – everything from the gender of their parents and/or extended family members, to how gendered or egalitarian their household is. Research shows that in observing and learning about these practices and by educating each other, children become directors of change ⁽¹⁾. After all, we’re products of where we come from, influenced by the personal world(s) we inhabit. And if those worlds are more equitable, so much the better. The presence of children also highlights discriminatory practices which occur within the current system which privileges marriage, particularly heterosexual marriage, over other relationships ⁽⁴⁾. To many LGBTIQA+ people, the idea of only being allowed something separate-and-different to marriage does not work if it’s not seen as legally and emotionally equal to it. Even if/when marriage alternatives were given equal rights, benefits, protections and obligations as marriage, it can be argued that LGBTIQA+ people are still discriminated against simply because they’re still unable to choose between marriage, a civil partnership, or something else ⁽¹⁴⁾.

But what about the feminist/queer case against marriage? Feminists have criticised marriage as being oppressive to women due to patriarchal structures of power for many years ⁽¹⁴⁾. These power structures are those which reinforce a socially conservative breadwinner model ⁽⁵⁾ – an opposite-sex relationship of mandated monogamy, working husband and dependent wife bearing the brunt of housework and child-rearing ⁽⁹⁾. If you think about it, this model has been – and still is – at the core of public policy for some time ^(5)(15). Non-traditional families – such as single parents, mixed-race partnerships, and LGBTIQA+ families – challenge the model. You can tell this from the way conservatives react. However, I’ve read concerns about whether the model is really being challenged ⁽¹⁵⁾. There’s an argument that marriage equality campaigns are being turned into binary debates of for and against. These leave little room for valid critiques of the social and economic institutions of marriage, and how the societal privileging of marriage marginalises other intimate relationships ^(9)(13). The argument continues that while the potential benefits of marriage should be recognised, the next or concurrent step should be to push for those rights to be expanded to all intimate consensual relationships. There’s a risk, activists argue, that not doing this would go against hard-fought-for feminist freedoms ⁽¹²⁾ and create a new tiered system within the LGBTIQA+ community of the socially acceptable marrieds held above the rest of the queers. This could lead to a reinforcing of conservative heteronormative marriage ideas, merely expanded slightly.

Despite this, there’s no question that many LGBTIQA+ people do want to get married ⁽⁴⁾, even as they recognise its pitfalls. Marriage as an institution isn’t necessarily seen as a good thing – but the equality before the law is ⁽²⁾. Marriage is a complex institution and we should resist the urge to press it into one box or another ⁽⁵⁾. If and when marriage equality becomes reality, then the contradiction of being separate-but-equal ⁽¹³⁾ is removed. It then becomes a choice for all, heterosexual and LGBTIQA+ alike, as to whether we’ll participate in marriage and how we could or would change the institution for the better. As it currently stands, some of the population have only a restricted choice and how is that choice then free or fair? Alongside this, we can then work for the expansion of legal and economic protections, currently enshrined in marriage, to all relationships so that all intimate consensual relationships are valued ⁽⁵⁾. We could even go further and ensure that welfare rights are fair for all regardless of relationship, employment and monetary status ⁽⁵⁾. This then challenges the conservative understanding that defending the rights of women, LGBTIQA+ and other marginalised groups undermines committed caring relationships. At the same time, it dismantles the patriarchal heteronormative one-size-fits-all approach and works towards a more caring society, away from the outdated universal breadwinner model to a universal caregiver one. In this latter model, LGBTIQA+ people would be just as accepted for caregivers and caregiving as heterosexuals ⁽⁵⁾. This opens up possibilities for greater awareness on and attention to other intersectional issues. After all, attending to one issue does not prevent us from working on others and “those of us who are interested in fighting for justice and the flourishing of sentient beings in any of these contexts should be interested in fighting for justice in all of these contexts” ^{(4, p. 77)}.

 

In other words, I’m in favour of marriage equality, as I’ve previously discussed. Btw, for me, my religious beliefs influence that view positively, as I’ve mentioned before as well. I’ll be unpacking that side of the argument soon too. If the postal survey goes ahead I’ll be participating in it and voting yes. I hope if you’re an Australian reading this that you will too.

If the postal survey goes ahead I’ll be participating in it and voting yes. I hope if you’re an Australian reading this that you will too.

 

References (these got a little muddled when rewriting this into a post, but I’d really encourage you to check them out):

1. Bernstein, M. (2015). Same-Sex Marriage and the Future of the LGBT Movement. Gender & Society, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 321–337, DOI: 10.1177/0891243215575287
2. Bevacqua, M. (2004). Feminist Theory and the Question of Lesbian and Gay Marriage. Feminism & Psychology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 36–40, DOI: 10.1177/0959-353504040300
3. Budgeon, S. (2009). Marriage, in Encyclopaedia of Gender and Society, O’Brien J, (ed.), vol. 2, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 505-508.
4. Callahan, J, 2009, ‘Same-Sex Marriage: Why It Matters—At Least for Now’, Hypatia, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 70-81.
5. Ferguson, A, 2007, ‘Gay Marriage: An American and Feminist Dilemma’, Hypatia, vol. 27, no. 1, pp.39-57.
6. Gadsby, H. (2017, August 17). “Probably a good time to repost my anti-plebiscite piece…” Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fhannahgadsbycomedy%2Fposts%2F10155675309518000
7. Green, AI, 2010, ‘Same-Sex Marriage: Lesbian and Gay Spouses Marrying Tradition and Innovation’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, vol.35 no. 3, pp.399-436. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/stable/canajsocicahican.35.3.399
8. Harrison, JB, 2015, ‘At Long Last Marriage’, Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, vol. 24, no. 1, pp.1-60.
9. Josephson, J, 2005, ‘Citizenship, Same-Sex Marriage, and Feminist Critiques of Marriage’, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 269-284.
10. Lawrie, A. (2017, July 29). A quick guide to Australian LGBTI anti-discrimination laws [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://alastairlawrie.net/2017/07/29/a-quick-guide-to-australian-lgbti-anti-discrimination-laws/
11. Lawrie, A. (2017, August 9). 2,756 Days. Frustration and love [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://alastairlawrie.net/2017/08/09/2756-days-frustration-and-love/
12. Marso LJ, 2010, ‘Marriage and Bourgeois Respectability’, Politics & Gender, vol. 6, no. 1, pp.145-53, DOI: 10.1017/S1743923X09990572
13. Merin, Y, 2002a, ‘Chapter 2: The Changing Institution of Marriage and the Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples’, in Equality for Same-Sex Couples, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 6-60.
14. Merin, Y, 2002b, ‘Chapter 10: Alternatives to Marriage and the Doctrine of “Separate but Equal” ’, in Equality for Same-Sex Couples, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 278-307.
15. Wilson AR, 2010, ‘Feminism and Same-Sex Marriage: Who Cares?’, Politics & Gender, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 134-145, DOI: 10.1017/S1743923X09990560
16. Young, C & Boyd, S, 2006, ‘Losing the Feminist Voice? Debates on the Legal Recognition of Same Sex Partnerships in Canada’, Feminist Legal Studies, vol. 14, pp. 213–240, DOI 10.1007/s10691-006-9028-8.

 

Life Update!

It’s raining/wet! Yay!

Not something I thought I’d say much….but I’ve been reflecting lately. This winter has been too dry (multiple sources have confirmed it) and it’s nice to have rain. Including proper heavy rain-on-roof pattering, not just grey drizzle (looking at you, hometown, and your three plus weeks of nothing but that in the past). What’s the weather been like in other places?

Also, last week I finished placement.

I had a routine while on placement for the start and end of the day. Upon arrival at the community health centre I worked in for placement, I’d sign myself in, receive my student/visitor pass and stick that in my pocket, looping the lanyard through my belt-loops or similar (hate wearing those things ’round my neck). I’d then put my name-badge on. The afternoon ritual was the reverse. Sign out, return pass and take name-badge off as I put on my coat, scarf and beanie. Then I’d walk to the bus stop and head off on my way home.

Rituals and routines are interesting things. They make us as humans – we’re creatures of habit and without them, we feel uncomfortable, some more than others. I bookended the start and end of my day with the ritual of pass + badge on and off because I’d learnt in the mental health subject just prior to placement that those sort of rituals are useful to separate “work” and “life”. It really helped, too, in that first week when everything was a little overwhelming and intense. It was an “I don’t have to think about that anymore today!” trick.

But that meant it left me with a funny feeling when I signed myself out that last time (at least, that I know of….). I worked with a great bunch of people and I learnt heaps. I’m already applying it in my next subject. 🙂

My weekend was a mix of busy, relaxing and fun. In different intervals. Organising something is good – even better when people respond to it with enthusiasm. Hanging out with people and letting other people do the organising (while being very appreciative of them) is also good.

I had fun with friends and made a few new ones, as well as enjoying plenty of good food. I reflected after the second event that when it comes to me and social events, I tend to measure how good of an event it was for me by the quality of the conversations I had with people at that event. If I talked deeply with someone or shared stories with them about mutual interests or an interesting topic that I hadn’t heard about before or something. Bonus points if in one of those conversations, I made a new connection or two or learnt something new about a friend. Light and fluffy conversations are cool too.

Oh yeah, and on Saturday I made myself brunch of sourdough toast (last slices before it went bad 😦 ), beetroot and chickpea dip, “boiled” egg, bocconcini balls and lettuce – leftovers from an event the night before. Verdict: delicious.

Today’s breakfast was a smoothie with wholegrain toast slathered with margarine. Yum!

Smoothie ingredients: 2x overripe bananas, 8x soft strawberries, 1x 250mL orange juice bottle – all of which needed using up. Plus 2-3 tablespoons Greek-style yoghurt and Weetabix Bites crumbs (i.e. wheat flakes with the occasional berry piece). Blend all together until smooth, then enjoy. As you can see, I’ll be having this tomorrow as well… I made nearly a litre of the stuff – the cup below was my second and that jar is 500mL! :O 😀

 

 

Finally…. I haven’t written a political post in a while, because these days I don’t really have much headspace for it. But today, let’s just say that the note on my About page saying that I “reserve the right to disown the govt we’ve got, because they don’t speak for me” really applies on several fronts – namely, regarding refugees and marriage equality. It’d be nice if we had people in govt who had spines and a sense of decency… Some things have gone on for too bloody long. -_-

 

 

 

REBLOGGED: A Flag for the Future

What do you think? (Especially Aussies.) I like #5, #7, maybe #8, #12, #18 or #19 (though for the last two I’d colour the stars white, not green and/or yellow)….
Maybe if #19, right at the bottom, had the features (wattle and white stars) in ‘dot-painting’ style? Or maybe #19 with the background an imprint of an Indigenous dot painting…
I’m open to ideas. To those who might think it’s ‘not the time’ to focus on this…if not now, when? At least let’s start a conversation… The comments over at The AIMN are illuminating.

A flag for the future

• October 11, 2015
• Written by: Kaye Lee
• 73 Replies

• Category: News and Politics
• permalink
• Tagged under:Australia, Australian flag
• Kaye Lee

In November this year, Kiwis will be asked to take part in a postal referendum in which they will rank five flag alternatives from most to least preferred.  In March there will be another referendum in which they will be asked to choose between the current New Zealand Flag and the preferred alternative design selected in the first referendum. The results of both referendums are binding.

It struck me, as I watched the people protesting against a mosque being built in Bendigo, that I now associate our flag with racism and colonialism. It has become a symbol of intolerance, a cloak or brand meant to be worn by real Aussies – the sort who took part in the Cronulla riots, the sort who want to stop immigration, the sort who want to relax gun laws, the sort who attend Reclaim Australia rallies and campaign to ban halal certification for food.

It’s time we reconsidered our ‘patriotism’ and our allegiance to a flag that no longer represents our country. Our flag should symbolise more accurately the nation to which we all belong rather than the notion of White Supremacy.

Here are a few suggestions.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Do any of these inspire you?

Note:  The original artists and the meaning of their flags and some more alternatives can be found here and here.

[The ones below come from  the comments on the AIMN article.]

  

Don’t Look Away

We are so lucky, living in Australia. Most of us, anyway.

My heart is bleeding and I feel so sad. Thousands of refugees are making their way by whatever means possible to Europe and other places. They are desperate. Desperate people who feel that the risks of the water are safer than those on the land they left. A large number of those refugees are Syrians, fleeing the crisis. According to a spokesperson from the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) last night (interview link here), part of the reason we’re “suddenly” seeing such an influx is that the countries closest to warzones like Syria and Iraq have, over the past few years, themselves become overwhelmed by the sheer number of people fleeing across the borders.

If you like numbers, here’s some from The Age:

• In the first six months of this year, 137,000 refugees and migrants crossed the central Mediterranean Sea route from Libya to Italy, travelling in appalling conditions in unseaworthy wooden boats and rubber dinghies. That number has now topped 150,000.
   
• Syrians are the largest single group of refugees trying to get to Europe. More than 4 million Syrians have been forced to flee a war that is now in its fifth year. Of those refugees, at least 1.6 million are children.
   
• Eritreans have accounted for 12 per cent of maritime arrivals, while Afghans have made up 11 per cent. Citizens of Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan and Iraq also made up a significant number of those trying to find a safe place to call home.

Tied to this (according to the UNHCR spokesperson mentioned earlier, Ariane Rummery) is the fact is that many of these Syrian refugees, for example, thought at first that the conflict wouldn’t last long. But’s been going on for five years now, with still no apparent end in sight really. All the refugees want to do is go home – but they can’t. It’s too dangerous. So they gather their families and scrape together money, then leave with only as much as they can carry in their pockets or on their backs. They begin the dangerous journey not knowing if they’ll make it but knowing that it’s better to take the risk than to remain behind.

It’s truly a situation of being caught between a rock and a hard place.

So what do we in our comfortable ivory towers do? Do our governments – across the world – recognise this rock/hard place dilemma?
On the most part, they don’t. Or so it seems. (Bravo Germany, for being better than most about this!)

This crisis shows that the refugee situation needs a global response. A truly global one, not just one that pretends to be. (I refuse to call it a ‘problem’ or ‘issue’ – people are not the problem, but the situation is.) I do mean global, not just regional. The situation belongs to everyone, not just those closest. Its solution does too.
That is the thing that people do not seem to get.

Although, having said that, quite a few “ordinary” people do seem to “get it”. I’ve seen quite a few posts over the past few days showing this. The harrowing pictures – especially of that little boy called Aylan Kurdi – have swept across our screens leaving us shocked, sad and angry. We cannot look away from these images, even if – when – they are so distressing.

We must convert this anger to action. As UNICEF have said: “…The plight of these children is neither by their choice nor within their control. They need protection. They have a right to protection. 

Migrant and refugee kids must be given health care, food, shelter and support from trained child welfare experts. Search and rescue operations need to continue on both sea and land, and there must be adequate protections against abuse and exploitation. The best interests of these children have to come first in all decisions that affect them.

As the debates on policies proceed, we should never lose sight of the deeply human nature of this crisis. And we should never forget what lies behind so many of the stories of families seeking sanctuary in Europe: terrible conflicts such as that in Syria, which already has forced some 2 million children to flee their country. Only an end to these conflicts can bring an end to the misery of so many.”

In Australia (Victoria), The Age has published a list of ways to help:
It includes links to groups seeking donations like International Red Cross, Red Cross Australia, UNHCR, International Rescue Committee, Save the Children, Oxfam and Médecins Sans Frontières.
It also gives links of grassroots groups (local to Australia & Victoria/ Melbourne particularly) if you want to donate time as well as money: Save the Children’s early learning support programs, Amnesty International’s local action groups and Welcome Dinners, the West Welcome Wagon, Montmorency Asylum Seeker Support Group (linked with the ASRC, below) and the Brigidene Asylum Seeker Support Program.
If you want to give items, then look up the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre.
If you’re affected by today’s train strike in Melbourne? Instead of grizzling, you can even donate your myki fare to helping refugees: see the article here and direct link here. It’s already raised almost $20,000. It may only run for 24 hours though, I’m not 100% certain.

Finally, here’s a link to a petition run by GetUp. It’s an open letter asking the European countries to have decency rather than following our horrendous model.

A Facebook page set up in the wake of Aylan Kurdi’s death has a suggestion. What do you think?

“Hey world community, here’s an idea:

1. All turn up to the UN for a special sitting an agree on a refugee intake formula. Based on population, natural resources, GDP etc. 
2. Actually agree on that formula.
3. Complete a one-off intake as per formula of however many thousands of suffering people.
4. When they get here, make them feel very very welcome.
5. Watch those people turn into some of your most grateful, patriotic and dedicated citizens who will take a vehement stand against radicalism in the generations to come.
6. Each time fundamentalism in any form rears its head, repeat steps 1-5.
7. Watch fundamentalism decline.

Please share this message if you agree. If enough people share, you never know what may happen.” (Emphasis added.)

How about it, everyone? Can we spread the above message and make it loud enough that the people who need to know will hear?

I’d like to end with this poem, created by Somali poet Warsan Shire. It’s called, “Home.”

no one leaves home unless
home is the mouth of a shark
you only run for the border
when you see the whole city running as well

your neighbours running faster than you
breath bloody in their throats
the boy you went to school with
who kissed you dizzy behind the old tin factory
is holding a gun bigger than his body
you only leave home
when home won’t let you stay.

no one leaves home unless home chases you
fire under feet
hot blood in your belly
it’s not something you ever thought of doing
until the blade burnt threats into
your neck
and even then you carried the anthem under
your breath
only tearing up your passport in an airport toilets
sobbing as each mouthful of paper
made it clear that you wouldn’t be going back.

you have to understand,
that no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land
no one burns their palms
under trains
beneath carriages
no one spends days and nights in the stomach of a truck
feeding on newspaper unless the miles travelled
means something more than journey.
no one crawls under fences
no one wants to be beaten
pitied

no one chooses refugee camps
or strip searches where your
body is left aching
or prison,
because prison is safer
than a city of fire
and one prison guard
in the night
is better than a truckload
of men who look like your father
no one could take it
no one could stomach it
no one skin would be tough enough

the
go home blacks
refugees
dirty immigrants
asylum seekers
sucking our country dry
niggers with their hands out
they smell strange
savage
messed up their country and now they want
to mess ours up
how do the words
the dirty looks
roll off your backs
maybe because the blow is softer
than a limb torn off

or the words are more tender
than fourteen men between
your legs
or the insults are easier
to swallow
than rubble
than bone
than your child’s body
in pieces.
I want to go home,
but home is the mouth of a shark
home is the barrel of the gun
and no one would leave home
unless home chased you to the shore
unless home told you
to quicken your legs
leave your clothes behind
crawl through the desert
wade through the oceans
drown
save
be hunger
beg
forget pride
your survival is more important

no one leaves home until home is a sweaty voice in your ear
saying-
leave,
run away from me now
I don’t know what I’ve become
but I know that anywhere
is safer than here.

___________________________________________________________________

The important thing is to remember the humanity. Refugees are people, just like us, with hopes like ours. Remember that – and spread the word.

It is PAST Time: Equality now, Please

So, it’s happened – marriage equality is legal across the US.
This has of course sparked the revival of the Marriage Equality “debate” in Australia, already moving after Ireland’s historic yes vote. As you’re probably aware by now, a couple of Bills on this topic have been proposed, including by Labor leader Bill Shorten and other by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. Certain others are still dragging their feet.

Newsflash: 68% or more of Australians (polled in The Age Monday 15/6) support Marriage Equality.

I say, it’s about time. I personally think it’s ridiculous that the debate has gone on for so long. I simply don’t understand why people insist on making it so complicated.
Well. It’s because we’re all people. Messy, complicated humans who insist on making things that on the surface should be straightforward more complex.

I’ve got mixed up and grumpy over this, as it’s even split me from others’ whose interpretations about things I’d gladly follow in other circumstances. I just see this as an equality issue. Religion doesn’t – shouldn’t – come into it (more on that in a minute). Besides, it’s about love, right? And all that “love” means.

I’ll put it more bluntly: I’m a straight, white, Catholic woman and I’m for marriage equality – and equality generally, regardless of colour, sexual orientation, religion, gender, etc. I will not budge. Why should I need to justify that? (*)

By continuing to keep to the ‘status quo’ currently defined by the Marriage Act, parliament is actively discriminating against non-heteronormative people.

It’s as simple as changing five words in the Act: Parliament simply needs to remove “a man and a woman” and replace it with “two persons”. They also need to strike the bit that forbids overseas same-sex marriages being recognised legally here. There – done!

Shorten’s Bill (snort) is the 14th such attempt. Must we keep repeating the same debate over and over? Just get on with it already – we need a conscience vote now, thank you. We’re already social pariahs on the world stage because of several issues. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could at least move one such ‘issue’ into step with 22 other countries?

As things stand now, it is currently absurd. To be prejudiced – hold a bigoted view – is one thing. To discriminate – i.e. act on that view – is quite another. To be frank, I’m sick of it. It needs to be fixed.

So, pollies, hurry up. Please?

P.S. * = I do feel the need to justify it, but as this is broader than just marriage equality, I’ve put my thoughts into a second post.

References:

http://unveiledthought.com/2015/05/24/marriage-equality-in-ireland-my-chance-to-come-out/

http://theaimn.com/marriage-equality-as-simple-as-changing-five-words/

http://theaimn.com/its-time-marriage-equality-and-why-i-support-it-updated/

http://theaimn.com/thats-one-for-bill/

http://theaimn.com/it-is-never-a-bad-time-for-equality/

https://polyfeministix.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/the-biggest-consequence-of-marriage-equality/

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/06/29/science-clear-children-raised-same-sex-parents-are-no-disadvantage-0

https://kkherheadache.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/socs-roygbiv/

http://theaimn.com/gay-marriage-and-why-australia-is-the-developed-country-left-behind/

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2004/05/17/a-quick-note-to-about-to-be-married-gays-and-lesbians/