My Life in the Slow Lane

The honourable Brendan Nelson, MP, federal leader of the opposition, has made public his thoughts on queer rights. He states that:

We believe … in relation to people, that families are the foundation of Australian society, I make no apology for saying that a man and a woman is a marriage and that forms a family. I don’t support gay marriage, I don’t support gay adoption and I don’t support gay IVF. But I sure as hell believe very strongly that no Australian should pay a dollar more in tax or receive a dollar less in social security by virtue of his or her sexuality and I will do everything I possibly can from opposition to see that those and other things are delivered.

Effectively he is saying:

“I believe that same-sex couples should be denied social recognition in the form of marriage, adoption of children or access to IVF; in these areas it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. This belies my belief that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships. On the other hand, I don’t believe that there should be discrimination on the basis of sexuality in the areas of taxation or social security. This belies my belief that although same-sex relationships are inferior, it is my hope that they will be placated by this concession. Furthermore, it shows I am not homophobic, nor is my party.”

I wonder what exactly he was trying to achieve in such an incongruous statement. Yes, it is a breath of fresh air to read this coming from the leader of the liberal party after eleven dark years of having John Howard at the helm, but does he really expect it to hold any water with anyone? Who exactly was he was trying to please with such a blatant compromise?

It can’t be the Christian Right, who will criticise it for giving same-sex couples any kind of recognition, even if it is only in the legal-financial arena and not social recognition—remember that this is a group who want to raise the age of consent for male-male sex and/or reintroduce sodomy laws. It can’t be gay and lesbian lobbies or voters, who will criticise it for denying full equality to same-sex couples in the social recognition arena and family arena.

Now if this is actually what he believes then I think he’s a tool because it makes no sense to discriminate only some of the time, but at least he stands up and says so. If, on the other hand, this was contrived to make both sides happy, then it still shows he’s a tool because it just won’t work.

For the first time in a long time I looked at my counter’s stats this morning. What interests me about the stats is the search terms that bring punters to my blog. Usually I have a quick giggle at the weirder ones (such as “shorts pissings”, “why gay.com slows computer”, “4 foot fibre optic virgin mary”) or I sign over the ones that make me sad (“my life seems empty”, “sick of this s[h]it life”), but on occasion I find one that gets me really mad. And l found one such search term this morning, about three quarters down the page that got me intrigued, and a little bit mad: “conversion therapy places”. [I warn you now, this is a heavy post so if you’re in a light mood I recommend reading this another day.]

I followed the link to the search engine page and found that the link led to an entry from many months ago where I was talking about using two cross-over network cables together (which effectively makes one straight-through cable and renders them useless). Liz made the comment that you shouldn’t try to make things straight (thankfully her grandmother, who was in our presence, didn’t get the joke) and I said in the post that this proves conversion therapy is a crock of shit. Boom-boom, end of story.

I’ve actually done quite a lot of reading on the concept of “reparative” and “conversion” therapy. I use the quotes around the words because I think they only apply very loosely to the reality of conversion therapy and the misery it brings with it. Before I came out to Sister I looked into it because I thought there was a very real possibility of her insisting I seek out this kind of “help” to “cure” my homosexuality. I was lucky and she has never preached to me on the issue. I think it’s partly because she knows I have read so much on these things that she’d have a hell of a fight on her hands, but even so I do respect her for leaving me to live my own life, when it clearly goes against many of her beliefs.

I wasn’t so much angry that someone had come to my site hoping to find information on conversion therapy—they surely would have taken one look around and then left quick smart—but after seeing some of the other links on that search page, I was more pissed off at the mere existence of these lunatics. Ironically, my discussing it will only ensure it happens more often.

Five pages caught my eye, four (long) articles and a blog entry. The articles (for anyone who is interested) are: Mission Impossible: why reparative therapy and ex-gay ministries fail from the Human Rights Campaign, Conversion Therapy Revisited: parameters and rationale for ethical care by NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, who set up their organisation under the guise of a reputable charity with the express purpose of promoting conversion and reparative therapy…a bunch of crap-merchants if I ever I saw one), Deconstructing Reparative Therapy: an examination of the processes involved when attempting to change sexual orientation from the Clinical Social Work Journal, and “Reparative” Therapy: whether parental attempts to change a child’s sexual orientation can legally constitute child abuse from the American University Law Review.

The blog entry was about a sixteen year old kid who had been sent to an ex-gay group called Love in Action against his will (another bunch of crap-merchants, you can tell straight away by the name; google them if you want a fun look at whacky fundamentalism), who published the rules of the organisation on his blog. The links to his blog are now dead, since this all happened in 2005, but I was able to track down a copy from elsewhere on the net, and I also found this really interesting blog post about Love In Action and how love and hate play out when it comes to these things. I also found a wholly annoying article outlining LIA’s stance on what homosexuality is and how it needs to be cured.

The last article boils being gay down to ineffectual upbringing and/or some kind of failure on the part of the father or mother. I didn’t read the entire article; I ended up skim-reading it because it made me so mad. The thing is though that the ineffectual upbringing outlined in painful detail in this article doesn’t fit in with my experience of growing up. My father wasn’t distant and was always there as a “male role model” in my life. My mother didn’t smother me or overdo it with her “feminine influence”. I don’t fit the mould of the religious-right’s definition of what makes a homosexual. That gives me hope. It gives me hope because it means there must be other exceptions to their “rules”, and after a point they will no longer be rules anymore.

So that’s all I’m going to say on it. I realise I haven actually said anything substantive, that I’ve merely given a list of files and articles to read, but I figure there isn’t much I can say on the subject that hasn’t been said in those articles I read this morning. If you’re in a hurry and don’t have time to read them, or if you don’t want to read them (which I totally understand cos they’re big and long and depressing), here’s the short version:

Being gay is not a choice, it is innate. As such conversion therapy is a false therapy peddled by the neo-con religious right which seeks to change a person (whom they believe is not innately gay, but an individual who suffers from same-sex attraction, which is seen as unnatural and due to an inadequate upbringing in some way) from being a homosexual to a heterosexual through dubious psychoanalysis, sheer will power and prayer. It is denounced by all major psychological bodies around the western world as being an inappropriate therapy in any circumstances.

Yesterday I had lunch with a friend that I haven’t seen or contacted since the messy ending of high school. I’ve known her the longest of my friends, except Lala, since second grade in 1991.

It was interesting. Considering the length of silent time that had passed between us, and the circumstances of our last contact, I was a little nervous. Although the great watershed of 2001 didn’t involve her at all, I withdrew so totally from the world in 2002 that I didn’t contact her at all until facebook brought us back together. But then she didn’t contact me either, so I guess it’s a wash.

We met and hugged when we saw each other for the first time—and it was a real hug—and soon the conversation turned to my coming out. She didn’t make a big deal about it, saying only “Oh yes, I ran into Calla ages ago and she mentioned it” and asking how it went with my parents and Sister.

I explained how it happened and how “It” hasn’t been spoken about between Sister and I since then despite speaking of it loudly and often before I came out. “What kind of things did she say?” she asked. “Oh you know, always saying things like ‘the homosexuals want to get married, the homosexuals want to adopt, isn’t it awful’. Stuff like that.” She nodded in comprehension as I spoke. “I mean I don’t know what you believe about all this,” I added, thinking suddenly that I hate it when people talk to me about politics or religion and assume that I agree with them. The conversation progressed and I found myself asking her, “So what do you think about all this then?”

She paused before answering, choosing her words carefully. “Well,” she began, faltering. “Look,” I said, “tell me what you really think. Don’t worry about upsetting or offending me. Whatever you say you’re not going to change my mind, I’m not going to change yours, and we’re both old enough to agree to disagree.” She smiled and told me that, like Sister, she doesn’t believe same sex attraction to be sinful, but she does see same sex contact as sinful. I was expecting this so I rolled with the punches and asked her to continue. She admits she cannot fathom how difficult it must be, for which I thanked her, but that God knows what is best for us so just because humans can come up with logical conclusions and justifications, doesn’t mean it’s actually good for us. This, too, I was expecting. I had previously made the point that I don’t believe Christianity to hold the patent on marriage, since it existed before the time of Christ. To this she she responded that just because marriage existed before Christ doesn’t mean that it wasn’t created by God and revealed or explained through him. I had to agree but of course it could very well be that this is not the case, rather (as I feel) that it was created by God for loving couples, not genders or sexes.

The conversation progressed and mentioned that she had two friends who “had struggled with same sex attractions”. One, she said “doesn’t do anything with guys…for now” (she added the “for now” in as an afterthought, as if she didn’t think it would last for long), the other has overcome these desires and is now in a relationship with a girl. I fumed, but I said nothing. Since then I’ve thought of a million responses but I was totally lost for words upon this revelation.

On the way home I mulled over what had been said. I felt such sorrow for the poor boy who has deluded himself into thinking that being gay is something to be ashamed of or something to be corrected. As many of you know, acknowledging that one is gay is hard, accepting it harder still; I felt for the poor boys and girls, men and women out there who go from acknowledgement straight into correction and suppression mode. I felt for the men and women they get involved with in their quest for heterosexuality. I felt for the children that are born into these doomed relationships. I don’t deny it can be done, to a point, if one discounts the psychological damage done—self-denial with enough vehemence must surely work in some cases—but I absolutely reject the entire “ex-gay movement” ethos nonetheless.

I find it repugnant that so many powers-that-be in Christian churches advocate this kind of inhumane quasi-therapy from their exalted pulpits. I find it repugnant that many adherents to Christianity believe homosexuality to be a pathological problem, something that needs to be cured. They base their homophobia on the Bible, on science of anatomy, on reason, on anything they can find; and all so that they can hate and discriminate against queer folk with a clear conscience. Basic relationship recognition is dismissed as “special treatment” when they fail to recognise that the present system is the selective one, not the proposed amendments in which any two people marry.

So that’s it. There’s no need to write about it any further, I think I’ve made my stance clear. It just makes me so sad that such insidious homophobia exists, all without the person even knowing it.

“Did you hear about what Brendan Nelson said this morning?” Amy asked me this morning.
“No? Am I going to be disgusted?” I replied.
“Well he said he wants to bring in same sex entitlements, but not marriage.”

Well this is wonderful news. The leader of the Liberal Party has come out on record supporting the removal of most of the 58 discriminatory laws. All, that is, except the Marriage Act (2004) and laws governing access to IVF for same-sex couples and adoption by same-sex couples (source).

To my mind, while I’m overjoyed at having “practical discriminations” in the areas of taxation, superannuation and social security, it’s a bit of a slap in the face that same-sex couples continue to be treated like second-class citizens. That said, I enough of a pragmatist to graciously accept the changes they are willing to make before fighting for the removal of remaining discriminatory laws.

Bring on the revolution!

… and now the new beginning.

Last night I felt like singing, dancing, and running around the lounge room with my shirt pulled over my head. I restrained myself, content to say to Dad “guess who won?” It was smug, I admit, but I was so overjoyed at the unceremonious ousting of ol’ Johnny. Dad didn’t ask who, he just waited silently for an answer. “Rudd”, I said triumphantly, adding “and it looks like Howard will loose his seat. And Bartlett [our local MP] lost his too”. I grinned. He replied “Well that’s it, we’re fucked now”.

I have to admit, while I am overjoyed at Howard’s defeat, I am totally underwhelmed by Rudd in general. My parents both voted for the coalition because of its economic policies; I voted against them because of their social policies. Rudd got my vote only because he was the lesser of the two evils available to me on election day.

It will be really interesting to see what happens now in terms of Rudd’s election promises and their coming to fruition. What he neglected to remind voters, during his election campaign, is that to pass new laws (or amend current ones) the legislation must be passed by the senate. The Howard government enjoyed having a coalition controlled senate from 1 July 2005. It was having control of both houses that allowed the coalition to push Workchoices legislation through both houses with little public consultation. The current senate will continue to sit until 30 June 2008, at which time the new senate will take over, so I think it’s unlikely he will be able to do anything too dramatic before that time.

As well as promising to roll back workchoices, Rudd has vowed to remove legalised discrimination against same-sex couples. Well, sort of. I was listening to an interview with Julia Gillard on Triple J’s current affairs show, Hack. The woman is, without doubt, a savvy politician, yet for me she is one of the most tedious people in politics, if only because of her total inability to actually answer a simple question. Instead she opted to recite party lines, confuse issues, annoy the reporter, and avoid answering the question in any way, shape or form. She was asked at one point about removing legalised discrimination against same-sex couples. She stated, in a roundabout way, that the Labor party is committed to removing all discrimination against homosexual couples, and as such it will amend the federal laws listed in the HREOC report, “Same-sex: same entitlements”.

However, it is well known that the Labor party doesn’t support gay marriage, civil unions, or formal partnership recognition of any kind, despite sanctimoniously trumpeting its abhorrence of discrimination on the basis of sexuality and avowing to remove all legal discriminations. I’m sure I’m not alone in seeing the contradiction. Kate O’Toole, the reporter, pushed the issue, asking Ms Gillard to comment on the fact that the party is essentially saying “all discrimination is unacceptable, except for this one act [the Marriage Act] where it’s ok to discriminate on the basis of sexuality”. Ms Gillard was asked if that was not the case. She couldn’t answer yes or no, rather sticking to the old “we see marriage as a union between a man and a woman” shtick. It was, in short, one of the most tedious interviews I’ve heard in a long time with one of the most tedious people in politics.

So ultimately, the point I’m trying to make here is that with a coalition controlled senate, at least for the present term (ending 30 June 2008), Rudd is going to have to work very hard to get changes to industrial relations laws passed, as well has amending the 58 laws that discriminate against same-sex couples (oops, I mean 57, since the Marriage Act will remain untouched as things presently stand).

One last thing. In Australia, as many of my American readers may have realised by now, we follow the British spelling system. This means, among other things, that many words that end in “or” in the US (such as harbor, neighbor and color) are spelt “our” in Australia. The word “labour” fits this category, yet the Australian Labor Party insists on misspelling its own name.

I hope that they make better governors than proof-readers.

UPDATE (in response to Drew’s comment):
Oh I totally agree… baby steps, especially after the last 11.5 “dark years” lol.

I’m just saying, don’t think that the Labor party is going to be our salvation. Because it just isn’t.

Fifty-seven out of 58 is a great start… once we have them signed, sealed and delivered, will be the time to push on and start lobbying for that last one.

As for holding Rudd accountable, I agree, but it will be interesting to see if the senate co-operates, and how Rudd spins it… the new senate appears to be more balanced, but there is still a coalition majority at this stage but the counting takes weeks to finish, and besides which, it won’t take effect until 1 July 2008.

State civil unions are all very well, but they will never count in federally legislated areas (tax, super, work, etc) so while they’re great for finally being allowed a recognised ceremony, they don’t do much in the legal arena.

The past week I’ve been making an admittedly feeble attempt at studying, amidst a sea of distractions—this blog included. In an effort to avoid any actual study, I bring you the weeks’ news highlights that I’ve heard on the radio while in a state of semiconsciousness as I slept through my morning alarms.

Candidates ‘should declare sexual preference’
1 November, 2007

The Family First candidate in the far north Queensland seat of Leichhardt says voters have a right to know the sexual preference of all candidates contesting the federal election.

Apparently being gay makes you a lesser politician, according to FF candidate Ben Jacobsen at least. Actually that’s not quite accurate, being gay doesn’t (necessarily) make you less of a politician in Jacobsen’s eyes, it merely makes you a less of a representative: “Look I think this is a public office, this is a person that’s going to represent Leichhardt in our House of Representatives… I think the public have a right to know the values that you’re going to pursue in Parliament.” Of course, this is in no way related to his questioning the sexuality of opposing liberal candidate for his seat (oh the irony). Dickhead.

Pell backs discrimination against gays
30 October, 2007

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, has argued in favour of maintaining discrimination against gay couples, saying it is wrong to equate the position with any sort of racial discrimination.

Pell not only wants discrimination against homosexual (or indeed any non-heterosexual) Australians to continue, but he wants it condoned. Not only does Pell display a massive lack of Christian kindness and compassion, but he misses the point rather spectacularly in saying “I think what we’re talking about here is making sure that while we remove unfair discrimination, that we do not allow a very small part of the population to force their model for relationships to be adopted as the community norm, when it isn’t.” Gay marriage (or even just the simple removal of practical legal discriminations in the 58 federal pieces of legislation which discriminate against non-heterosexual Australians) is not about foisting “our model for relationships” as a community norm. It will never be a norm. A norm is, by definition, of the majority. But being the norm does not mean being ‘normal’, and not being the norm does not mean being inferior at all. Only people in same sex relationships can get same sex relationship recognition…everyone else can carry on as they have thus far been privileged enough to do. Fuckwit.

I was reading blogs yesterday when a link on Best Gay Blogs caught my eye. It read “ten arguments against gay marriage”. Intrigued, I followed the link to a post which outlined ten reasons why gay marriage is something to be feared and rejected. It occurred to me that anti gay marriage groups are fuelled not only by vicious right-wing rhetoric, malicious homophobia, and a penchant for complex and confusing sentences, but also by a serious case of irrational logic.

The post was a summary of an article on another site, No Gay Marriage (if you want a link, go to the post on Teresa Centric’s site; NGM aren’t getting a link from me). Teresa posted the summary to shoot them down, some were actually a little funny and most if not all were totally unrealistic anyway. It would have been amusing if it weren’t so appalling. I can’t say I was surprised—I’m way too jaded for that—but I was appalled nonetheless. Reading the article got me thinking about how faith and reason seem to be mutually exclusive on this issue and how semantics play a big part in its interpretation.

At this point, I should point out that I am Catholic. Increasingly, the term “gay Catholic”—and “gay Christian” or any “gay any-other-religion” for that matter—is becoming oxymoronic, from both sides of the fence; each thinks that you can’t be one if you are the other. But I disagree, strongly.

Obviously my conception of what it means to be a Catholic differs sharply from that of the anti-marriage lobby. Christian fundamentalism is constitutionally rule-governed; tradition and biblical “evidence” (I use the term lightly) always win out in their arguments. For me, religion is more spiritual: a connection between your deepest self and your Creator in which rules have little place or authority. Even on the question of morality, rules are fairly moot to my mind; if I followed the rules simply for the sake of avoiding punishment rather than for doing the right thing, am I really a good person? Or just a coward who doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing for its own sake?

God is love. The bible says this in plain black and white. So how could God possibly hate people who are, among a long list of other things, gay? If hate is the absence of love, then surely it must be impossible for God to hate. I’m not for a second saying that God is not angered at times, nor do I suggest that he blithely condones everything like some bearded grandfather figure sitting on a cloud while his angels play the hard, but I certainly don’t see how love between two people who happen to be of the same gender can be wrong. Love is amoral. It is neither good nor bad, morally speaking. It just is.

They argue that gay marriage will result in the end of the family—the building block of society—and as such must be stopped at any cost. But what is a family? Personally, I feel that family is a state of mind. I consider my close friends to be part of my family; I feel that a family composed of two dads or two mums with children to be of equal value to one with a mum, dad and children. Why should a family that does not conform to their notion of family be any less family-like? If each group is a family, then gay marriage will in fact help entrench the family unit into society more concretely because in each model the parents of the children will be bound together in matrimony. Even if one does not accept my assertion that same-sex couples with children constitute the hallowed family, why should their marriage affect any other family unit? Unless, of course, they want it to. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry someone of your own sex and shut up.

You would think that any reasonable person could see these arguments for what they are, but in my experience reason has little to do with the arguments of the anti-marriage lobby. They are veiled in the rhetoric of biblical prohibition and moral superiority and few within the fundamentalist camp are willing to question such dire predictions when they are framed in the rhetoric of “traditional marriage”. They ignore, of course, the fact that until recently, historically speaking, the emphasis of the marriage contract has shifted from one of ownership (one in which the wife became property of the husband) to one of mutuality and commitment.

It seems to me that it often boils down to a different interpretation of “family” and of the nature of God. There isn’t much I can do about it—despite what I think, say or believe, the anti-gay-marriage lobby will continue spreading its message of hate. I just don’t see how they can justify such hatred and exclusion by invoking a God of love and inclusion.

You may also want to visit www.pleaselabordontpreferencefamilyfirst.com, a petition to the Federal Labour Party, asking them not to give senate preferences to the socially conservative Family First Party in the upcoming federal election. In 2004, Labour preferences helped elect a Victorian Family First senator.

The Family First party believes that “Family grows out of heterosexual relationships between men and women” (source). While their policy documents aren’t overtly homophobic, they are conspicuously silent on gay and lesbian families (at best) and covertly homophobic in their constant touting of the “loving mother and father” as the creators of a safe and happy home, ideal for raising children (source) at worst. I haven’t read all of their policy documents, only the two listed here, but they appear to be a fairly right-wing bunch of … well let’s leave it there shall we?

I received the following email, forwarded by the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, the other week and have been meaning to post about it.

Dear friends,

We’ve done the research and it’s a landslide. A GetUp-commissioned Galaxy poll last weekend reveals a whopping 71 per cent of Australians, including 63 per cent of Coalition voters, believe same sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples in de facto relationships.

These results should make all Australians proud. Yet on Friday, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission released its year-long inquiry into same sex discrimination which reveals that discrimination remains ingrained in 58 pieces of federal legislation. From superannuation and workers’ compensation to Medicare, tax and pensions, Australians are treated like second-class citizens purely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Right now our politicians are deciding how to respond to these damning findings. This is our urgent opportunity to tell them it’s time to wipe this discrimination off the books forever by giving legal equality to same sex couples.

www.getup.org.au/campaign/EqualBeforetheLaw

Australians want their friends, family and colleagues in same sex relationships to have the same rights as other citizens. One piece of legislation, redefining de facto legal status, can start us firmly on the path towards greater equality.

Sometimes change can only happen when the people lead. And we will. GetUp’s poll found majority support for equal rights extends across every demographic, across every region, across every political party in the nation. Tell the politicians it’s time they caught up to the people that voted them in.

Put your name to the petition calling for equality now – and please share this campaign with all your friends. You can be sure that at least 70 per cent of them will thank you for it! You can also support this campaign by donating here.

www.getup.org.au/campaign/EqualBeforetheLaw

Thanks for being part of this,

The GetUp team

I think it speaks for itself.

I’m watching the news, the shorts haven’t even finished yet and I’m already pissed off.

Peter Costello has been praised for his new budget. Wayne Swan just said “the treasurer is rolling in money; it has been raining gold bars”.

Yet attorney general, Philip Ruddock, explained that it was budgetary restraints that prevented war-widow pension scope being widened to include same-sex partnerships. “Issues that can be readily addressed that don’t involve significant budgetary outlays which do bring different considerations to bear will be examined by the government”, he added (presumably to make the government look a little less homophobic).

Human rights only if financially viable huh?

More info at here and here.