The only place to find freedom ...

... is in the dictionary, under F.

I read an article in November, Abbott wont end gay discrimination, in which some rather ill-thought out comments in relation to homosexual couples were quoted from the federal health minister, Tony Abbott. One line struck me as being particularly absurd:

"I'm just going to say I'm all in favour of human rights, I'm much less in favour of 'group rights'" (emphasis added).

The whole thing made me so mad that I sat down and wrote a letter to the honourable (and I do use the term loosely) Mr Abbott. This is what I wrote:

10th November, 2006

The Hon T Abbot, MP
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Re: Continued discrimination against homosexual Australians

Dear Mr Abbott,

I refer you to the attached article, 'Abbott won't end gay discrimination', published 3/11/06 in the news section of the website gay.com.

Since accepting my own homosexuality in mid 2005, something I had been denying and struggling with for some ten years, I have been keenly following the issue of discrimination against homosexual Australians. The comment you made that you "are all in favour of human rights" but "much less in favour of 'group rights'" left me dumbfounded and angry. Not only is it hypocritical but it defies logic.

I wish to point out that Australian law and society have many examples of 'group rights'; denying rights to one 'group' when they are freely given to another is illogical.

Section 5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwth) grants exclusive rights to a certain 'group' of Australians; it is only one of many Australian laws that grants the right to marry exclusively to heterosexual Australians. Not only does it grant this 'special right' to heterosexual Australians, but it explicitly denies it to homosexual Australians in section 88EA. Many other state and federal laws deny, either explicitly or implicitly, rights to homosexual Australians that are enjoyed by their heterosexual brothers and sisters. The areas of taxation, superannuation, inheritance, adoption, and family law still remain areas of inequity.

It could be argued that the above example is invalid because the group in question is comprised of the majority of Australians and is therefore the norm. If it is accepted that the group in the majority is the yardstick to which other (minority) groups are compared and measured, then it could be rightly argued that minorities should conform themselves to the norm's way of life and not enjoy 'special rights'. This argument too is illogical by virtue of the fact that Australian law and society are full of examples of 'group rights' which are applied to benefit minority groups:

• Australian churches receive many tax exemptions that are not available to other Australian businesses or citizens, for example under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cwth) (s.50-5), Fringe Benefit Tax Assessment Act 1986 (Cwth) (s.57), Land Tax Management Act 1956 No 26 (NSW) (s.10(1)(e)), Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (s.555(1)(e)), and A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cwth) (s.38-220). Other philanthropic and charitable organisations receive similar exemptions under these laws.
• The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cwth) (ss.30-47), the Disabilities Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwth) (ss.45-58), and the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cwth) (ss.33-47) allow certain employers to be exempt from the anti-discrimination proscriptions of the acts.
• The Australian Road Rules permit disabled Australians to park in special parking spaces (s.203) for an indefinite time (s.206).
• The Disabilities Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwth) (s.9) permits disabled Australians to take assistance dogs into areas that other Australians are not permitted to take their dogs such as shopping centres.
• Australian society provides countless initiatives aimed solely at various minority groups, such as multi-lingual government services and publications for immigrants and Australians of diverse ethnic backgrounds.
  

If we accept the argument that minorities should not expect 'special rights' (such as homosexual relationship recognition), then all 'special rights' that benefit minorities should be removed from Australian law and society: Australian churches, philanthropic organisations, and charities should not receive tax exemptions but should pay the same tax as other Australian businesses; there should be no EEO exemptions; disabled Australians should not receive special parking concessions but should walk the distance from their car nor should they be permitted to take their assistance dogs into shopping centres and areas where animals are restricted but should leave their assistance dogs outside; and Australians of diverse ethnic backgrounds should not receive multi-lingual services but should be expected to communicate in English, the official language of Australia.

Clearly, the above argument is flawed. I totally support the abovementioned 'special rights' that benefit various minority groups -- I myself am disabled -- however I am at a loss to understand why recognition of homosexual relationships is deemed a 'special right' when legal provisions that benefit other minority groups are not. It is totally illogical.

Perhaps the answer is that the religious convictions of the majority prohibit homosexuality. Religious convictions should be moot when it comes to public policy as Australia has no official religion; it is not a Christian country. If it were, we would have an established Australian church. I am Catholic, yet I do not intend to tell my fellow Australians what to believe or think, so I am offended that their religious convictions regarding homosexuality prevent me from receiving what is given to others. Furthermore, I resent that I am forced to lobby the government for a right given freely to others. Interestingly, the United Kingdom, a country that does have an established Christian church, allows civil unions for their homosexual citizens.

When examined outside of the rubrics of the cultural majority and religion, the argument for marriage and relationship equality becomes a logical one. It has been demonstrated that 'special rights' are given to various other Australian minority groups, so why not to homosexual Australians?

Having explained these facts, I would assert that if you are truly not in favour of 'group rights', then you are not in favour of marriage or relationship recognition of any kind in its present form: one that gives 'special rights' to one group and not another. I would further assert that by not supporting 'special rights' you in fact support total relationship equality for all Australians, regardless of their sexuality, for once 'special rights' are removed from the equation, a right is a right and should be available to every Australian.

I am interested to hear your thoughts on this issue of 'group rights' as it pertains to homosexual Australians' relationship rights, given the facts presented in this letter.

Thankyou for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,
Dan

CC: Mr Kerry Bartlett, MP, member for Macquarie; Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW).

I sent a copy to my local federal member, Mr Kerry Bartlett, with a cover letter inviting him to comment. This is the reply I received from Bartlett

15/11/06

Dear Dan,

Thankyou for your letter and copy of correspondence you forwarded to Mr Abbott.

The Australian Government condemns discrimination in all its forms, including discrimination on the basis of sexuality. It believes that each of us should have the opportunity to participate in the life of our community and to experience the benefits and accept the responsibilities that flow from such participation without fear of discrimination. The Government is committed to maintaining that Australian traditions of tolerance and respect for diversity, which are the foundations of one of the world's most successful and harmonious societies.

However, the Government is also strongly of the view that the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman for life should remain. This is not to say that same sex relationships are not as valuable to those involved but they are different. Having said that, the Government is looking to address measures regarding taxation, superannuation and pensions.

Thank you again for your letter and I have noted your personal views.

Yours sincerely,

Kerry Bartlett, MP
Federal member for Macquarie.

This reply only made me even more mad. I have always admired Bartlett (although this has a lot to do with the so-so calibre of the labour candidates). I wrote a reply and sent it off...

23rd November, 2006

Mr K Bartlett, MP
PO Box 376
Springwood NSW 2777

Re: Continued discrimination against homosexual Australians

Dear Mr Bartlett,

Thank you for your prompt reply (dated 15/11/06) to my letter (dated 10/11/06) regarding same-sex relationship equality. I would like to take this opportunity to rebut a few points.

I was disappointed that you cited the government's party line that "the Australian government condemns discrimination in all its forms", when in reality it actively discriminates against its citizens. I base this assessment on findings by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission's Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Inquiry, an inquiry to which John Howard instructed the federal government not to make submissions (see attached article Howard accused of failing gay community, 28/6/06 and media release, dated 28/9/06). The Commission has published a preliminary list of 68 federal Acts in which discrimination against homosexual Australians occurs.

I was similarly disappointed by your citing another party line regarding "Australia's traditions of tolerance and respect for diversity". While it is true that diversity has always existed in Australian society, tolerance and respect for that diversity have not. The government appears to have a very short memory. Until the mid 1970s the White Australia policy required immigrants to assimilate to Australian norms; this was neither tolerant nor respectful of diversity. The criminalisation of homosexual acts, a practice which continued until the mid 1970s in most states and until 1983 in Tasmania, was neither tolerant nor respectful of diversity. This intolerance and disrespect for diversity has continued into modern times; the Cronulla race riots are a very recent example. The "traditions of tolerance and respect for diversity" to which you allude are, paradoxically, both true and false at the same time. They are false in the sense that these traditions never existed, at least not in the sense that the current government would have its voters believe. They are true, however, because the actual traditions of intolerance and disrespect for diversity have always existed, and continue to exist, in Australian society.

I found your final paragraph condescending and insulting: "The government is also strongly of the view that the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman for life should remain. This is not to say that same sex relationships are not as valuable to those involved but they are different. Having said this, the government is looking to address measures regarding taxation, superannuation and pensions" (emphasis added). The fact that you used the words "to those involved" tells me that these relationships are not as valuable in the eyes of the government, nor yours. I would not dare rebuke you for your own personal opinions on the subject--they are your opinions and none of my business--however as an Australian citizen and voter I have the right to rebuke the government for its obviously discriminatory views.

The government's view of marriage as being exclusively "between a man and a woman for life" lacks substance by virtue of the very existence of divorce laws. Allowing divorces negates this "traditional definition" as it provides a way out of what is, by definition, a life-long contract.

Saying that homosexual relationships are "different" is a gross oversimplification of a very complex phenomenon. I agree that homosexual relationships are different insofar as all relationships are different. Each relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual, married or de facto, is different. I strongly disagree with the implication that being "different" is negative or means being unworthy of equality. My grandparents' 64 year marriage relationship is different from my cousin's three year de facto relationship with her boyfriend, which in turn is different to that of Justice Michael Kirby and his partner, who have been living in a homosexual de facto relationship for 38 years. Each of these is different, yet all three are very similar as they are all loving, committed, voluntary and for life. Despite this, only two are legally protected. Even more absurd is the fact that a three-year heterosexual de facto relationship is legally protected while a 38-year homosexual de facto relationship (which is virtually the identical except for the fact that one consists of a man and a woman and the other two men) receives very little legal protection.

I read and watch the news daily and am a member of many gay and lesbian news lists; I have seen no evidence of the government "looking to address measures" of discrimination in any area of law. On the contrary, I have only seen opposition to progress and law reform. Phillip Ruddock's veto of the Civil Unions Act 2006 (ACT) belies Mr Howard's and Mr Ruddock's homophobia. The fact that debate over the Greens bill to close loopholes in the Anti-Discrimination Act has been gagged (see attached media release, dated 15/11/06) by both sides of government indicates a refusal to even discuss reform. It has been nearly two months since HREOC released its second discussion paper in connection with the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Inquiry.

Mr Bartlett, I would like to know how, precisely, the government is "looking to address measures regarding taxation, superannuation and pensions". What is being done? Which acts are being examined? What changes have been made? What changes are being proposed?

In conclusion, the government's arguments and opinions on this subject are contradictory and flawed. Either marriage is for life, without provision for divorce or any alternative such as recognition of de facto relationships, or it is not necessarily for life because divorce is available and de facto relationships are recognised; either the government is discriminatory in its treatment of Australian homosexual couples by refusing equal rights, or it is not discriminatory and grants the same rights for all couples. The government can not have it both ways.

Thankyou for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,
Dan

CC: Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW).
Enclosed:

• Article: Howard accused of failing gay community, 28/6/06
• Media release: HREOC Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Inquiry, 28/9/06
• Media release: Debate gagged on Greens' bill … 15/11/06

As of today, I haven't received a reply. Perhaps Bartlett doesn't want to engage in a debate with me? Perhaps he knows he won't win? Whatever the reason, I have written a follow-up letter:

10th February, 2007

Mr K Bartlett, MP
PO Box 376
Springwood NSW 2777

Re: Continued discrimination against homosexual Australians

Dear Mr Bartlett,

Thank you for your prompt reply (dated 15/11/06) to my letter (dated 10/11/06) regarding same-sex relationship equality. I have sent you a reply (dated 23/11/06) however I have not received a reply nor a receipt from your office. I have included that letter in case the original one was mislaid at your office or lost in the mail.

If you did receive it, and have chosen not to engage in a debate with me, I do understand and respect your decision. However, I would appreciate it if you would expand on your assertion that the government is "looking to address measures regarding taxation, superannuation and pensions". What is being done? Which acts are being examined? What changes have been made? What changes are being proposed?

The truth is, Mr Bartlett, that I see no evidence of these measures; on the contrary I only see the government's homophobia in the news. I have enclosed four articles for your information that belie the government's attitude. The first demonstrates the homophobic move to deny foreign adoptions to same sex couples; the second, third and fourth demonstrate the flimsy excuses used to reject the ACT's second attempt at same sex union legislation.

Election time is upon us, Mr Bartlett, both state and federal. I suspect that the queer community and their heterosexual allies are much larger than the incumbent government thinks. This issue, among many other legal disparities between gay and straight Australians is likely to be an issue at the front of many gay voters' minds.

Thankyou for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,
Dan
CC: Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW); Community Action Against Homophobia (Sydney); Community Action Against Homophobia (Blue Mountains)
Enclosed:

• Article: No recognition of gay couples' foreign adoptions, 2/2/07, The Age.
• Article: ACT gay marriage plan rejected again, 6/2/07, The Age.
• Article: Concern for minors in ACT gay union plan, 7/2/07, The Age.
• Article: Ruddock blocks gay union plan, 7/02/07, The Age.

We'll see what happens now. If Bartlett is smart he'll write me a killer letter, detailing these steps that are being taken. He should have a list of legislation somewhere that he can use. If do hope, for his sake, that he didn't make that assertion just to shut me up.

He should know that I'm not going anywhere by now.