The French and British parliaments SPEAK NOW

In January, conservative opponents of the French government plans to change the laws permitting same-sex marriage rallied an estimated 120,000 to the streets of Paris. While recent polls in the country had suggested that a majority of French voters support marriage equality and adoption rights, the mayors of over a thousand towns, as well as the Catholic Church strongly voiced their opposition.

Now in mid-February,  France’s lower house of Parliament, the Assemblée Nationale (National Assembly), has passed a bill allowing for same-sex couples to marry and to adopt children.

 The bill, supported by the Socialist administration of President Francois Hollande, was passed by a vote of 329-229 despite a further number of large rallies, drawing an estimated one million people, called by opponents of the reform in the lead-up to the vote. (Tens of thousands of others had also marched in colourful demonstrations over the past year calling for same-sex marriage rights.)

“We’ve waged a great and noble battle,” French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told reporters shortly before Tuesday’s vote.

A vote in the Senate will now take place on April 2, with it expected to be closer than in the lower house, with Hollande’s party not holding an outright majority.  It is expected, however, other left-leaning representatives in the upper house will support the passage of the bill.

If the bill passes the Senate in two months time, France will join Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden as countries allowing for same-sex marriage well as nine states and the District of Columbia in the US and a number of jurisdictions in Mexico and Brazil.

The success of the bill in the French Parliament comes only a week after a similar bill was passed by Britain’s House of Commons after Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron strongly advocated for the reform.

Here, some local advocates have suggested Australia is fast falling behind on its obligations of equality for all citizens when compared to other western nations. Australian Marriage Equality national director, Rodney Croome, said France's message to Australia and the world was that the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity apply equally to same-sex couples.

“The French vote, together with last week’s overwhelming vote in the UK parliament, highlights how quickly Australia is falling behind other western countries,” Croome said.

“Given the romance associated with Paris I expect many Australian same-sex couples will marry under the new French law, only to return to Australia to find their solemn vows count for nothing.”

Other advocates like Andre Banks, founder of LGBT online activist group AllOut, agreed it was a historic moment for France:

“French couples who just want to have the freedom to choose marriage as a way to show their love and their commitment to each other, have waited long enough,” Banks said. “French polls overwhelmingly demonstrate French people are in favour of marriage for gays and lesbians. I hope the French Senate passes the bill swiftly.”

-Thanks to Serkan Ozturk and GayNewsNetwork, as well as the Star Observer.

Former PM Bob Hawke SPEAKS NOW

Former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke has stated that he is 'very much in favour' of the law being changed to permit same-sex couples to marry.

Bob Hawke in his younger years

On Wed. 21st November, ABC News chief political crrespondent Simon Cullen posted a story about an appearance by Hawke and another former PM, John Howard, at a charity event in support of Lifeline.

Prompted by the host of the event, former TV presenter Ray Martin, John Howard refused to change his position on same-sex marriage but Hawke was quoted as saying:

'I feel very deeply on all issues of discrimination, and in this area of sexual discrimination it just needs to be said straightforwardly -- you can be born with curly hair, you can be born with this gene-disposition towards homosexuality. If a person is born that way and they want to have the rights of the institutions of our society, they should have them.'

In her coverage of the same event for GAYSTAR NEWS, Anna Leach cites Australian Marriage Equality national convenor Rodney Croome, who welcomes the support of the former PM and contrasts Hawke's position with that of current Labor PM, Julia Gillard, which he finds deeply disappointing. 

In June, Gillard told same-sex marriage campaigners that her own relationship proved that you don't need marriage to show commitment. (Gillard lives with her partner Tim Mathieson but they have not married.) Her example failed to convince campaigners who pointed out that she had the choice whether or not to marry, while same-sex couples don't have the same choice under law.

Anna Leach also raised the comments allegedly made by another former Labor PM, now back-bencher Kevin Rudd, in July, that Gillard's position on the issue stems from a deal with the Christian right of her party to guarantee their support of her leadership.  If that were true, Gillard would have felt quite safe in allowing a conscience vote on her side of the House when it came up in Parliament, knowing that enough conservative Labor members would vote against it and the proposed changes to the Marriage Act would fail.  Rudd later denied making the suggestion.

New Zealand SPEAKS NOW

After the spineless performance by Federal MPs in Australia, who voted down changes to the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry (despite the surge of public opinion in favour), New Zealand is preparing to show the Aussies the way.

Here are some links to the same sex-marriage debate in New Zealand.

The first link is to a member’s bill on the New Zealand Parliament website. From the right hand menu on this page you can read the debate notes for the first reading and the evidence presented to the select committee.

The Marriage (definition  of Marriage) Amendment Bill is in the name of Labour MP Louisa Wall.

The MP submitted the bill to a ballot of member bills and it was drawn on 26/7/2012. The first reading was held on 29/8/2012 and was passed 80-30 (conscience vote) to be referred to Government Administration Committee – a cross-party select committee of MPs which will examine the bill, listen to submissions (submissions were due 26/10/2012), and report back to the House by 28/3/2013. The committee may recommend amendments which are voted on during the second reading. If it passes the second reading the bill then goes to the committee of the whole House (all MPs) when MPs can put forward further amendments in the form of Supplementary Order Papers. The 3^rd and final reading is then held and, if passed, the bill is then given royal assent.

Incidentally, Prime Minister John Key has said he will support the vote through all stages.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/2/c/4/00DBHOH_BILL11528_1-Marriage-Definition-of-Marriage-Amendment-Bill.htm

Evidence to select committee:

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/Documents/Evidence/1/5/f/50SCGA_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL11528_1_A306632-Louisa-Wall.htm

Louisa Wall email and Wiki link: Louisa.wall@parliament.govt.nz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisa_Wall

Wiki on  same-sex marriage in NZ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand

Other links:

http://www.3news.co.nz/Gay-marriage-debate-good/tabid/1607/articleID/277179/Default.aspx

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21566626-trend-toward-giving-homosexuals-full-marriage-rights-gaining-momentum-have-and

Federal pollies SPEAK NOW

On Monday June 25^th, representative of the Australian Federal Parliament’s lower house began to debate proposed amendments to the Marriage Act.  We know already that members of the Government party, the ALP, will not be held to voting along Party lines and are permitted to vote ‘according to their conscience’.  The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott has refused members of the coalition parties similar freedom.

This is not good news for activists who have been lobbying long and hard for the changes, as several of the ALP reps actually support the status quo.  So – even if the independents were to vote in favour of the amendments (which is highly unlikely) – the government’s slim majority would not be enough for the amendments to be passed, unless an equal number of Liberal/National party coalition members were in favour, which is also highly unlikely as speeches made to the House from that side of politics make abundantly clear. 

The Hon Deborah O’Neill, who holds the seat of Robertson for the ALP, spoke against the proposed changes, citing Terri Kelleher from the Australian Family Association that “it is uncontroversial to insist that the ideal family environment is that in which children are raised by their own mother and father.” 

In reifying the ‘ideal’, the AFA and Ms O’Neill ignore the reality that the ideal is simply not sustained by the facts of diverse family structures that already exist on the ground.  Ms O’Neill should consult with case workers from the various Departments of Community Services to ascertain a more accurate reading of the facts.  It is simply not true that a couple of straight kids who conceive a child are going to make the best parents. Many same-sex couples are conscientiously raising the cast-off children of heterosexuals.

The Hon Bob Baldwin, who holds the seat of Patterson for the Liberal Party also spoke against the proposed amendments and – like several of the naysayers – expressed hurt that he had been labeled as homophobic for his views.  Barry Haase (he holds Durack for the Liberal Party), rose to “fiercely defend the status quo”, calling the debate “a waste of time in this place because there are so many other vitally important issues to be debated.” 

Alby Schultz (Hume, for the Liberal Party) defended the “sanctity of marriage” averring that “the Bill is about future muzzling of churches, requiring primary and secondary schools and even kindergartens to indoctrinate children that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual lifestyles, as well as having two mothers and two fathers is no different from having a mother and father.”

Member of NSW State Parliament SPEAKS NOW

Member of the Legislative Council, the The Hon. Walter Secord, gave the following speech to the New South Wales Parliament's upper house, in support of the motion which will go to the vote tomorrow (May 31).  His comments about his parents' situation, in Canada, is valuable personal testimony. 
(It should be noted, in regard to his final comments, that neither of the Bills before Federal Parliament would require churches to conduct same sex weddings, were they to make it into law...)

The Hon. WALT SECORD [May 24 - 12.12 p.m.]: 

I take this opportunity to speak to the motion on marriage equality.

While laws relating to marriage in Australia are Commonwealth responsibility, the question of gay and lesbian marriage is now debated widely in our community and around the world. About 10 countries recognise same-sex marriage, including South Africa, Canada, the Netherlands and Argentina. In the United States, Maryland is set to become the eighth jurisdiction to grant same-sex couples the right to marry.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia all recognise same-sex marriages. The Maryland law is scheduled to take effect in January 2013.

However, earlier this month North Carolina joined about 30 other States by banning same-sex marriage, while President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden indicated their support for gay marriage.

That said, in recent years Australia and New South Wales have undergone considerable gay law reform. In Australia the Federal Labor Government introduced more than 80 amendments to give same-sex couples equal rights before the law regarding issues such as superannuation and taxation. In 1999 the New South Wales Carr Labor Government introduced reforms to State relationships laws in relation to property interests if a relationship broke down. This included amending the definition of "de facto spouse" to include same-sex cohabiting couples.

In 2008 the New South Wales Labor Government introduced further same-sex relationship reforms, including providing for a consistent definition of "de facto partner" that incorporated same-sex partners, across most of this State's laws. As a result, de facto couples have the same access to a wide range of legal rights and entitlements. In New South Wales on 1 July 2010 the Keneally Government commenced the operation of the New South Wales Relationship Register to make it easier for unmarried couples, homosexual or heterosexual, to prove they were in a committed or de facto relationship and have access to legal entitlements.

Last year in New South Wales 420 same-sex relationships were officially registered with the New South Wales Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

Australian people have strong views about gay marriage with more than 60 per cent supporting the concept. However, younger Australians overwhelmingly support the right of same sex couples to marry.

This suggests that an element of social norms is influencing our views on a legal rights issue. As those norms shift over time, the legal position will be less coloured. Therefore, I believe marriage equality is inevitable in Australia. I have grappled with this issue for a long time.

Members of this Chamber will be aware of my views on a range of subjects. I support Aboriginal reconciliation, I am an advocate for the elderly and other minorities, and I believe in education against genocide, prejudice and racism. This leads me to my position on marriage equality.

Over the years, one factor that informs my view is my personal racial background. I am the product of an interracial marriage: my father is a Mohawk-Ojibway Indigenous person and my mother is an Anglican Anglo-Canadian of European descent. As a child growing up in rural Canada, I saw firsthand the prejudice towards my parents' relationship. At that time, when I was a very young child, no doubt some people felt that Indigenous people and Europeans should not marry—particularly, an Indigenous male and a European woman.

If Canadian law had purely reflected some of the views of the community and that generation, my parents' marriage would have been illegal. For the record, while interracial marriages were not banned, they were highly unusual and it is safe to say that they were frowned upon.

Indeed, not so long ago in this country—in fact, up until the 1930s—State officials were allowed to determine who Aborigines could or could not marry.

In Queensland, these restrictions were to limit black and white unions, and in Western Australia it was to prevent so-called "half-castes" from marrying other Aboriginal people.

It was not until 1967 that the Supreme Court in the United States ruled that a ban on inter­racial marriages was unconstitutional and removed that stain from American society. The reality of today is twofold.

Firstly, my parents remain happily married and have been exceptional role models to their family and our community. Secondly, we all agree that withholding the right to marry on racial grounds is repugnant. In my view, the parallels on the prohibition on inter-­racial marriage and same-sex marriage are clear. We can no more deny someone's right to enter a civil union based on their gender or sexual orientation than we can on their skin colour. Therefore, the right to marry restricts a person's full citizenship.

On human rights grounds, all Australians must be treated fairly and equally, regardless of their sexual orientation. All people are equal before the law and should be entitled to the same fundamental rights.

Therefore, I believe allowing same-sex couples the right to marry removes a legal and social discrimination; it supports full and equal citizenship.

If we prohibit one section of the community from marrying another, it is a violation of their human rights.

Therefore, I support the motion before the Chamber that the Federal Government should amend the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 to provide for marriage equality. This motion is similar to the one passed successfully by the Tasmanian House of Assembly in September 2011. However, I stress that just as I am cautious about the role of personal beliefs in determining laws, I am equally cautious about any attempt for the law to impinge on personal religious beliefs.

I acknowledge the strongly held views against same-sex marriage on both sides of this Chamber and on the crossbenches. I also agree that sanctioning gay marriage will not remove homophobia and discrimination in our society.

Many people, particularly those of strong faith, believe that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I therefore strongly agree that religious institutions should not and must not be forced to officiate marriages that they do not wish to.

I conclude my comments with a brief personal note. On 18 August 2006 I attended a same-sex civil union celebration in Sydney between two male friends, Mr Justin Di Lollo and Mr Marek Craker. It was conducted under United Kingdom law at the British Consulate-General with the assistance of the British consul-general, as Mr Craker is a British citizen. In total, the couple has been together for more than 16 years. They are still together in a loving and committed relationship.

I ask: On what grounds could I possibly deny their right to enjoy the same public recognition of their commitment as I, a heterosexual, have access to?

The issue of marriage equality for same-sex couples is about the granting of full citizenship. We all deserve the same and equal recognition under Australian law.

In conclusion, I acknowledge my colleagues, the Hon. Helen Westwood and the Hon. Penny Sharpe for their hard work and commitment to this policy area.

I commend the motion to the House.

Does Bill Shorten SPEAK NOW, from both sides of his mouth?

Mr Shorten,

we admire you, both on your record and on your recent performance in the Ministry.  But our household groaned in unison when you were content to speak from both sides of your mouth on the issue of same-sex marriage on ABC TV's Insiders program, Sunday May 20.

It might be good enough for Tony Abbott, with that carefully placed article in the Weekend Australian magazine a few weeks back, revealing he had a gay sister (who apparently won't mind if he stabs her in the back!)  We expected better of you, frankly.

Let me make this clear: when you pick up on the toxic teaching of some churchmen, you are IGNORING the fact that neither of the proposed Bills that will be debated in the House would require churches to conduct same-sex weddings, if a change to the law were enacted.

Less than half of 'straight' weddings are conducted in churches these days, in any case (don't you know that?)

So, let them continue with their exclusivist hypocrisy, marriage IS a civil union; the religious choices couples may make are a separate issue.

You adroitly straddled the fence and managed to sound like a 'typical politican' and we are disappointed (especially as you are shaping up, in the public imagination, as a reasonable proposition for Leader... Rudd is finished.)

We will be watching how you vote.  Meanwhile, we will vote Greens.

Victor Marsh, PhD
Editor, "Speak Now: Australian perspectives on same-sex marriage"
(Melbourne: Clouds of Magellan, 2011)

(this publication carries a Foreword by the Hon. Michael Kirby, whom you like to cite, by the way!)

You can speak now!

On Friday May 11, the New South Wales Upper House will consider a motion moved in support of same-sex marriage.

Similar motions have already been passed by parliaments in Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory.

Australian Marriage Equality is providing a website through which you can urge NSW upper house members to support the motion, here:

http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/contact-nsw-upper-house/

Interestingly, the Liberal/National coalition has released its members to vote on the matter as an issue of conscience, rather than holding them to a pre-determined Party line, which increases the possibility of it passing.

How will conservative MPs vote? And what will be the ramifications at the Federal level, when this issue comes up for a vote in Canberra?