Same sex marriage controversy rocks onRodney Croome replies to Nicola Roxon
Nicola Roxon's response First, let's look at her claim that Labor is committed to equal recognition of de facto same sex and opposite sex relationships, and that this is more important than marriage equality. Everyone agrees that Labor's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) law reform policies are better than they have ever been and much better than the Government's. But this isn't the point any more. The point now is that Labor can't be trusted to deliver on its existing commitments. It's not just me who is saying this, it's people who are (and were until recently) in the Labor Party. For example here's Emma Bridge, quoted in the Mercury. Emma was one of the founders and former co-convener of Rainbow Labor Tasmania. "I can find no way in my heart to explain to my friends in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community how I can reconcile my support for the community with my membership of the ALP under the current circumstances. "This (marriage) legislation was unnecessary and serves only to pander to those in our community who support hatred and discrimination. "The promises that the federal ALP has made to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community about progressing a raft of practical reforms if they win government now will not be believed by many in the community." The reason for this mistrust is Roxon's broken promise on the Senate same sex marriage ban inquiry. Labor promised not to vote on the same sex marriage ban until the Senate committee inquiring into the ban's social, legal and constitutional impacts had reported on October 7th. Here's Labor MP Tanya Plibersek making this promise as plain as day in the Sydney Star Observer, "The proposed changes do not take existing rights away, so we will not oppose it in the House of Representatives but we will send the legislation to a Senate inquiry for thorough examination before voting in the Senate." Roxon broke this promise at the recent National Marriage Forum at Parliament House by agreeing that Labor would support the Government's same sex marriage ban forthwith, well before the Senate inquiry was complete. I guess it's naïve of me to expect Roxon to acknowledge this broken promise or the mistrust it has created. But if she won't then others must. As for whether same sex couples need de facto status or the right to be married: no-one has ever suggested that marriage equality is a substitute for de facto reform. Both are important in their own way. De facto reform is important because it delivers practical benefits to all same sex couples, including those who do not wish to marry. Marriage reform is important because it delivers symbolic benefits to all same sex couples, including, but not only, those who do wish to marry. Why does Roxon believe one should be prioritised over the other? Simple - she doesn't take same sex marriage seriously. In her eyes it is not a serious issue because, "the vast majority of Australians recognise marriage as a heterosexual institution, there has been no significant social movement for this to change and only those seeking to marry would benefit". Moreover to endorse same sex marriage would be "a copy cat of other countries to match some current trend". As for the Marriage Amendment Act, "we supported this (legislation) because it simply restates the existing law". Some quick responses... According to the most comprehensive polling so far, 44% of Australians oppose same sex marriage. Not exactly a "vast majority". Australia has marriage campaign organisations, it has seen large rallies calling for reform and it has same sex couples willing to take cases to the Family Court to have their foreign marriages recognised. I'd say that is a significant social movement. Most LGBT people I've spoken to over the last few months agree that having the right to marry is an important part of improving their social status, even if they themselves don't actually marry. Clearly more people will benefit than just those who marry. As for "current trends", this sounds much like the left-leaning establishment's response to those Australians who first called for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the late 60s and early 70s. "Why should we copy America or Britain?" they asked. "Australia's homosexuals don't care about law reform. They'd much rather be left in peace without that kind of attention being drawn to them". Is Nicola Roxon seriously suggesting that Australia's marriage campaigners have been stirred up by the "raging debate" on marriage in the US, rather than the rage in their own hearts to be treated equally? Conversely, is she suggesting that Australia remain aloof from an international movement that is as strong in Europe (where they also have de facto laws) as it is in North America, and which is so mainstream it has the support of the Economist and the King of Cambodia? A "yes" to either shows that Roxon is more out of touch than we thought. Then there's Roxon's claim that Howard's same sex marriage ban is simply "restating existing law". This is technically correct. Howard's same sex marriage legislation imports existing common law definitions of marriage as the union of a man and a woman into the Marriage Act, including those provisions of the Act which are about recognising marriages solemnised overseas. This may not seem very radical, but in fact the effect will be devastating. It scuttles those cases currently before the Family Court from same sex couples married in Canada who want their unions recognised here. It means that never again will married Australian same sex couples be able to appeal to an Australian court to have their unions recognised in this country. In effect married same sex couples will be stripped of their matrimonial rights as soon as they walk through Australian customs. So far, this only affects a handful of couples. But as more foreign countries recognise same sex marriage, so more Australian gay couples will be married overseas and more married foreign gays will immigrate here. By building a wall around marriage in Australia Howard's new law will disenfranchise hundreds, possibly thousands of couples. The effect on un-married same sex couples will be just as profound. By carving his definition of marriage into legislative stone, John Howard has entrenched the second class status of same sex relationships. The message - that same sex relationships are less worthy, loving and committed than their straight counterparts - will hurt not only same sex couples but their children. So much for major party rhetoric about "family values." In short, for the first time since federation the national parliament has voted to deprive LGBT people of their rights and to stigmatise them. Next to Roxon's claims about the National Marriage Forum. I have never labelled Roxon a homophobe for attending the Forum, nor have I vilified "certain religious movements" represented there. But I stand by my claim that the National Marriage Forum was a hateful, anti-gay rally and that she should not have attended. At that Forum LGBT people were described as "shameful", "vile", "psychologically unstable", and "moral terrorists". Same sex relationships were labelled "unnatural", "inherently unstable", "harmful to children" and "highly promiscuous". If those things had been said about Jews, Aborigines or women Labor representatives would have gone nowhere near the Forum for fear of community censure and disendorsement. Roxon however described the forum as "fantastic". For sixteen years I have advocated persistently for the LGBT community to engage with the general public, to create opportunities to speak at "public functions for rotary clubs, teachers, footballers, pensioners", "a wide range of Christian denominations" and groups whose views "do not accord with (our) own". But I draw the line at hate rallies. Protest, not endorsement, is the only legitimate response to these rallies from anyone who wants the trust and support of the LGBT community. Roxon's claims that she was not pandering to these people. In her defence she reminds us that "parts of my speech were booed by the audience". What she doesn't say is that it was precisely because she was trying (ineffectively) to pander to her audience that she was booed. In the course of trying to demonstrate Labor's commitment to religious communities Roxon stated that Labor intends to enact laws preventing religious and racial vilification. Why was she then booed? Perhaps it was because many far right wing Christians despise laws which might stop them denouncing other faiths, or perhaps it was because the audience associated the word "vilification" with "homosexual" and had a knee-jerk reaction to it. Either way the negative response to Roxon's remark shouldn't be allowed to hide the fact that she was trying to impress her audience. Part of impressing them was that she conspicuously didn't mention Labor's commitment to prohibiting sexuality vilification, even though she was at a forum all about a major LGBT issue (and which was, as I've already mentioned, peppered with sexuality vilification). But even if I'm wrong and Roxon was not playing up to her audience, there's still the point that she shouldn't have been there in the first place. The fact that she's still trying to justify her mistake by effectively equating the Australian Family Association to a Rotary Club shows how naïve and shallow her understanding of sexual politics remains. Finally and most importantly, we need to consider the underlying reason for all of the strange and frustrating behaviour Roxon and Labor are exhibiting on same sex marriage. Labor strategists believe they must placate fundamentalist Christian if they have any hope of winning the election. They argue that many key marginal seats in regional and outer urban areas have large fundamentalist congregations. While church leaders are not Labor voters, the expansion of fundamentalist congregations, schools and welfare programs means these leaders have increasing influence on potential Labor voters, including young families. Labor's not about to risk stirring these people up. When Nicola Roxon saw that the gay marriage ban Senate inquiry had received an unprecedented 12,000 submissions, overwhelmingly from fundamentalists against same sex marriage, she pragmatically decided to take their side. Roxon accuses me of second-guessing her on this. But there is no guess work needed. I know what Labor's motives are for placating hate groups because I have discussed these motives with Labor strategists. I have heard them talk about which seats have fundamentalist communities and have seen their projections for how quickly these communities are growing and what electoral influence they will have in five years' time. An insight into Labor's thinking also comes from the far right itself. According to Bill Meuhlenberg, President of the Australian Family Association, "...a comment made by Nicola Roxon is of importance. Jim Wallace (from the Australian Christian Lobby) met with her two days before the forum, and after discussing the submissions to the committee and other matters, she made this observation: 'I now see that the Christian lobby is much more numerous and significant than the homosexual lobby'." The quote from Roxon is second-hand, and terms like "homosexual lobby" and "numerous and significant" are typically Meuhlenberg's not Roxon's. But so far Roxon hasn't denied she said something to this effect. Of course, what Labor's electoral analysis ignores is the reach of LGBT issues beyond high concentration gay seats like Sydney and Melbourne Ports. LGBT people aren't born in Oxford St. We have families across the country whose votes will be affected by Labor's complicity on the same sex marriage ban. But our families and friends aren't as organised and don't speak as loudly as fervent fundamentalists. If Labor loses the election the new links between the ALP and Pentecostal pulpits will probably be broken. The danger is if Labor wins. The fundamentalist vote will be entrenched, if not as a core constituency, then at least as one to manage carefully. If this happens you can forget the ALP's Catholic brotherhood as a brake on Labor's social policy. New and much stricter limits on progressive Labor law reform will be set by those afraid of the censure of Pentecostal theocrats. The impact across family, censorship, education and human rights policies will be profound. The pulpit will loom over ever social policy decision a Labor Government makes. Some of my colleagues believe I'm trying to provoke Nicola Roxon and should lay off her for a while. Others think I've done irreparable damage to my ability to lobby a Latham Government. This isn't personal. It's about highlighting the inequities and injustices inherent in the same sex marriage ban, and exposing the unhealthy electoral embrace between Labor and fundamentalist churches. It's also about protesting how close Labor and the Coalition have grown and demanding more differentiation. When Roxon talks about "restating the existing law" she is taking words out of the mouth of marriage ban proponent Senator Guy Barnett. When she talks about "vilifying religious movements" by calling them hateful of LGBT people, she is stealing lines from Queensland National Party Senator, Ron Boswell. As for lobbying - I'm a gay activist before I'm a gay lobbyist, and a gay man before both. Even if it means doors are slammed in my face, I can't stand by while Labor representatives declare as "fantastic" a forum at which my queer brothers and sisters are demeaned and degraded. I can't watch and do nothing as our future is sold out for a handful of votes. We are proud people who have contributed more than our fair share to the society in which we live. In return we deserve a government that will protect us from all discrimination and respect all our aspirations for justice and equality. I'm happy to work with governments and potential governments which are willing to move towards that goal, even if they fall short. I'm willing to climb a mountain of ignorance and prejudice if there's a summit of acceptance in sight. I've been doing both for years in Tasmania to great effect. But life's too short to worry about major parties which can't even win the trust of LGBT people, let alone give us hope. If the mountain's too steep, or treacherous, better to turn back and try another path to justice altogether.
Go to
RAPID RESPONSE EMAIL: What do you think? Monday, August 23, 2004 |