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.

 

 

[reblog] It’s Not Over Yet

Bah humbug, of course Turnbull did.

Tosser.

Give Alistair Lawrie’s blog post a read then head over to http://equalmeansequal-justequal.nationbuilder.com/ and make sure your MP does their job in voting for what we asked for – a Marriage Act that doesn’t discriminate. Religious celebrants are already allowed to refuse service if it goes against their religious beliefs or the laws of their religion. that’s why there is a difference between religious celebrants and civil ones! Grrrr.

Bloody politicians – please get it done next week with no stupid amendments! *grumbles*

via It’s Not Over Yet

Oh, and btw, please stay safe this weekend Victorians. It looks like we’re in for a wild ride (that’ll have already begun in some parts when this post goes live). Batten down the hatches if you can – or else (if you’re like me and have pre-arranged plans) be very, very careful.

#PostYourYes

Aussies, have you sent back your survey yet? 

Times are pretty tough for LGBTIQA+ people right now. There’ve been quite a few nasty attacks. This whole survey is in a way an attack because why should everyone have the right to decide on the validity of the relationships of a few? … If you were inconvenienced by a text message on the weekend, maybe have a think about that, ey? 

Anyway, here’s a brilliant (polite) video, directed at those who are considering voting no. If you are one of those, please watch and think before you do. 

Also, see this: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/logically-theres-only-one-good-reason-for-voting-no-20170922-gymr7n.html 

Just… think about it, please? 

I – and my funky-toe socks – am a yes. I posted my yes within 12 hours of collecting the survey (filled it out minutes after receiving). Go do that.  

Then watch this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3FkwaMGpnrg

So proud of all of those who made it!  Beautiful. ❤ 

Marriage Equality Survey Starts being Mailed Today

Key Dates for the Marriage Equality Postal Survey:

I’ll be voting yes. I hope you will too.

I’m voting yes for my friends and family and those who want to get married but can’t. I’m voting yes because as a progressive Catholic agnostic woman, I think that love is love, fairness is fairness, and those who rush to judge should take a look in their own eye for the plank of wood before hunting out a supposed speck in someone else’s.

I’m also voting yes because I feel that the arguments of the no side – the most strident, loudest arguments particularly – don’t hold water. They’re obfuscations and distractions. Often they’re downright homophobic and transphobic too. Read my marriage equality essay if you haven’t already – I pull things apart a bit more clearly there.

Tbh, I would have much preferred a free vote in Parliament. Human rights shouldn’t have to be decided by popular vote. But since it’s going to happen…. may love win.I welcome discussion, provided it’s not based on bigotry, on the blog.

Return your form on the day you receive it. This matters. At the end of the day, it’s about celebrating love and commitment.

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.

 

#Lest We Forget

Today is a day of reflection and commemoration (not celebration) for many Australians. We do this in different ways. The marches and speeches and so on are one way. I saw another way via Facebook last night, when the floodlights of the MCG were off and thousands of people stood in silence for a minute – you could only see the light of their phones, across the ground.

The link I’ve embedded below is another. We should remember those who fought and died as well as those who returned home wounded in body and spirit.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Funcannyannieblog%2Fposts%2F1339439599436336&width=500

It’s also worth reflecting that the first ANZAC Day – the landing at Gallipoli – was 102 years ago and was part of a war they’d called “the war to end all wars”. Yet so many more have followed…

As said by Costa A here:

“ANZAC Day is about remembering how awful war is, how many Aussies died because of it, how many Aussies were brave enough to put themselves in harm’s way to protect us, and how – out of respect for all of this – we have to work as hard as we can to avoid the need for future wars. This means combating climate change, not taking the bait of dickhead Islamic extremists, and learning from our (Iraq, Vietnam) mistakes. Having a big strong tough-as-fuck army is important too. But it’s a Plan B we wanna have to use as little as possible. #lestweforget “

 

Power of Music (reblog)

To round out the week, because it’s been heavy, here’s a link to an article interviewing Archie Roach about his latest album. This also happens to be my 301st post, too….

“In the last couple of years in particular, I think there’s a need for love in the world. For understanding of love and what it means. It’s many things, love. Respect is a type of love, consideration, many things like that including being inclusive of everybody. I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately. We can all appreciate the things that make us who we are and what makes us different from each other. We should admire and appreciate those things that unite us and that are common to us all.” ~ Archie Roach

http://doublej.net.au/news/features/archie-roach-knows-the-power-of-music

REBLOG: The Intoxicating Draw of Love

For a long time, my main motto has been (and is) “Love Conquers All”. Lizzi’s words speak to me. They resonate. Lizzi can also be found at https://summat2thinkon.wordpress.com/

THE INTOXICATING DRAW OF LOVE

7:15 AM

This last year has been hard. What we all need is to relearn the meaning of love wins. We can begin right now by using the love wins hashtag liberally.

On VProud there is a stunning video and conversation called, “Love has no race. Love has no disability. Love has no gender. Love has no age. Does your love defy labels?” It is easy to fall in love with this beautiful video, and we did so immediately. Then along came writer Lizzi Rogers who reflected on the topic of love winning so beautifully and thoughtfully, that we fell in love with the concept all over again. In the age of social media where ugliness rears its head in the unlikeliest of places, it feels good to fall in love with love, to define and redefine love wins meaning everyone wins, and yes, to even use the love wins hashtag with wild abandon. We can’t say enough how much this video and this essay both win. Take a look and see for yourself, and feel free to hashtag your approval.

—The VProud Team

Why It Matters That #LoveWins

By Lizzi Rogers for VProud

Nothing seems to work these days across social media if it’s not trendy. Even anti-trendy (for there seem to be as many stalwart jumpers onto dissenting bandwagons against the bandwagons which were already jumped upon for whichever fad has most recently gone viral) can prove almost as effective at starting discussions.

For every #PumpkinSpiceEverything or #RedCups, there is an equally earnest and opposing force trying to make their point above the clamor.

The marketing is intensely clever, and I should think that for commercial purposes, any exposure is good exposure and a trending tag is equivalent to money in the bank.

But in the end, it’s all just noise. Isn’t it?

Thing is, there’s a reason hashtags go viral. Someone, somewhere along the way, creates a tag which sums up a concept which is deeply and fervently held by a large group of people. This large group, though disparate in their geography, are nonetheless united by their deep-held conviction. The hashtag allows them to begin operating as a collective – to belong to a group – to pin their colors to the mast and effectively ‘march’ with those of a similar outlook.

We’ve seen #JeSuisCharlie, #BlackLivesMatter, and lately #TerrorismHasNoReligion.

Each tag which has suddenly spiked in popularity and trended across the world has been attached to some cataclysmic social event, snowballing as people click through updates to see what’s going on, and add their voice to the crowd.

There’s a darker side though, and while I hope we can all agree #BlackLives[doVERYMUCH]Matter, there are currents of unrest in the depths, due to a seemingly supportive alternative #AllLivesMatter (they do) which fails to take into account (because how could it?) the struggle of being black in a world still governed by white privilege.

People (when fervent) quickly become divided, reactionary, and argumentative; becoming lost in the semantics and implied context of a particular hashtag rather than uniting in the places which are shared, and remaining committed to the cause.

Such arguments typically cause such furor online that the collective is splintered into factions and the message becomes lost amongst infighting (the very incidence of which, alienates others from joining the cause, and results in worldwide nose-raising and an acute onset of ‘Judgysaurus Rex’).

The to-and-fro was no less when the #LoveWins hashtag went viral in June 2015, after gay marriage was legalized across the States. Previous to that (and ongoingly so) it was used by people who want to share stories of love – all love – and give voice and a ‘hook’ to the overriding concept that on the whole, in spite of how it may appear on the face of it (or in the news), love really DOES win.

It’s a beautiful thing, and the stories flagged up by this hashtag – puppies rescued from sewers; charitable efforts by children to contribute to worthy causes; triumphs of the heart and soul, and every instance that people behave in a manner which is FOR each other – develop connection and build community. Each one of them is a small but important occasion for celebrating that strongest of human emotions.

And we love love, don’t we? Every finer part of our human world is pervaded by love: songs, literature, art…and we are reminded that everywhere there is a human, there is the capacity for love to occur in some form.

We are all so much more alike than different, and in joining together to celebrate this, by pinning our heart-spangled colours to the mast and sharing stories of heart and positivity, we remind each other that ideally, we would prefer good to prevail.

Whichever other causes we follow, or however we choose to live, I hope that everyone will find ways to engage with those wonderful aspects of the human spirit which provide opportunities to bond.

The truth is we’re always stronger together, and in the face of times of increasing upheaval, we need to reconnect with our fellow humans and remember the flicker of kinship within us all.

We need to know that #LoveWins.

About the author: Lizzi Rogers is a Deep Thinker, a Truth-Teller, and a seeker of Good Things. She’s also silly, irreverent, and tries to write as beautifully as possible.  She sends glitterbombs and gathers people around her — building community wherever she can. A founder member of Sisterwives and #1000Speak, she hosts the Ten Things of Thankful bloghop each weekend and tries to #BeReal as often as possible. Find Lizzi on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and Pinterest and join Lizzi’s honest conversations on VProud.

Join This Honest Conversation

Love has no race. Love has no disability. Love has no gender. Love has no age. Does your love defy labels?