Fifty-eight years ago, as a conscript in the Australian Navy, I was on parade with ship’s company on the wharf at Williamstown, I believe it was.

Since this 1978 rally, which was a pre-curser to the Mardi Gras, we have come a long way

A police identity check was taking place. Two rather hefty men, wearing dark fedoras, so favoured by celebrated criminals and successful detectives of the day, and bearing police standard issue suspicious scowls, moved between our ranks.

A third, slighter and very nervous, man was in tow. The offence being investigated was the bashing and robbery by sailors of a homosexual man in a park, the third person with the two detectives.

The exercise was abortive. It always was I was told. In such cases homosexuals really had no rights in practice, regardless of what the law might have said more generally.

Defence counsel would unmercifully shred their character in the witness box and with that would demolish any crushed remnant of self-respect to which the witness might attempt to cling.

The witness’s credibility as a complainant would be zilch by this time. Police, courts and the general public had little sympathy for homosexuals. No, it was an oppressive period which, by its prevailing bullying intolerance of non-conforming minorities about whom it was uneasy, made bashing and rolling gays for their wallets a reasonably safe and lucrative pastime.

Only the brave and foolhardy among victims would complain in such conditions. Nothing came of this incident I relate.

Later, as a young plain clothes officer attached to Brisbane City C.I.B., I heard of the unedifying visit of a Detective Sergeant and his mate, uninvited and certainly unannounced, to a party at Spring Hill organised by members of the local homosexual community.

The police officers were in high spirits following pre-shift lubrication at a popular rubbidy. The door rocketed open with their entry, one fired a few shots in the air to heighten the partying atmospherics and, not surprisingly, the party-goers were off in all directions at what was announced as a police raid, some of them dressed in rather exotic gear for males.

As the story was told, it was quite a fun thing, but in fairness to the general run of detectives, they severely frowned upon this excessive display of machismo behaviour 1950’s style.

These rather gloomy memories, and others like them, so long forgotten, resurfaced after I read a newspaper report recently of how Alan Turing, a British citizen and a brilliant mathematician,  famous for his work on breaking the ‘unbreakable’ German Enigma codes during World War II, was being rehabilitated as a convicted homosexual.

His sentence, shortly after the war, had been the choice of gaol or chemical castration. He chose the latter and within two years suicided. A lofty reward from a grateful community for a man whom P.M. Brown of Britain said, “ … without his outstanding contribution, the history of World War Two could well have been very different.”

Where the issue of homosexuality has been concerned, so much outstanding human talent, even genius, has been wantonly sacrificed over so much time on the grotty altar of personal prejudice and community ignorance and petulance.

We have now had more than a couple of decades’ experience of living with legally sanctioned homosexual practices. The sky has not splintered apart, and our community has not degenerated into a Sodom and Gomorrah, as had been gloomily predicted earlier by fervid opponents of homosexual rights.

In fact, we have generally found gays to be good neighbours and friends, helpful and respected workmates, people whose presence is most frequently welcome as desirable fellow citizens.
Life heaps enough unavoidable suffering and pain on humans without our social bettors having added to, as in the past, or our political masters, as now, adding to that burden of heartache by imposing cruel and unjustifiable punishments on members of a stigmatized minority; think of poor Alan Turing!
Some will say, well, thank goodness we live in more enlightened, tolerant times now where gays are concerned; right? Well, partly true but gays do not stand on all fours, equal with the rest of us.

The times are nowhere near as tolerant of and respectful towards those people as would be the case if the community accepted them as fully equal with us, the dominating majority, the heteros. We allow them a sort of provisional, limited citizenship; freedom on a short leash, as it were.

Yes, homosexual love is now tolerated by the law, but not marriage. There is a ‘relationship certificate’ available for them in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT, the short end of the leash, Civil Partnerships.

These offer some protections but do not pass muster as real equality for gays which requires the provision of marriage rights.  If an Australian same sex couple go, say, to Canada they can get a marriage certificate which is universally recognised and understood as symbolising the solemn commitment between two people.

The Labor Party had the chance to do something meaningful on this at its last national conference but squibbed it. Has it lost the belly fire for the big challenges of major progressive reform and the enshrinement of basic liberties for which I have so long admired it?

It is not as if Labor is uncaring. In 2008 it did remove discrimination against same sex couples in some 85 laws, so I am advised. But it is the big one, full recognition of gay people’s marriage rights, which will really establish the depth of its commitment to the principal of people’s entitlement to be different, but still fully valued law-abiding members of our society.

Federal anti-discrimination laws need to be covered by an overriding provision prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  This area can be a tricky course to negotiate as things now stand.

An example from when I was Foreign Minister in the 1980s. A prominent citizen contacted me. A family member had undertaken surgical conversion from male to female according to established, responsible procedures.

A departmental officer had ruled, according to set guidelines, that the person’s passport would record that person’s sex as male and the officer was obdurate about that. The person concerned and family were distraught.

I changed that departmental practice immediately in spite of the officer’s sulky disapproval of my instructions. I instructed my advice was to be the new practice. Apparently the new guidance did not last long. But that has since been remedied, I am informed, and thank goodness.

I met the young woman concerned a few years ago. She and her husband were happily married. But the moral of this case is these sorts of decisions cannot be left to the whims of wooden ministers or narrow bureaucrats. Without protection from discrimination in Federal law, gay people currently have limited avenues available to challenge such discriminatory decisions when receiving the services of Commonwealth departments.

There are some hopeful signs of change in important places. That very conservative institution, the Roman Catholic Church, recently ruled that the much excoriated gay, Oscar Wilde, was a “lucid analyst of the modern world”. But do not hope for too much too soon. The wheels of progress grind exceedingly slow indeed in that institution.

On the other hand gay hate crimes, bashings and murders, still occur, reportedly as recently as last weekend, in Centennial Park.

Many of these issues have been discussed during the recent national Human Rights Consultation.  My hope is that this soon to be released report recognises there is a lot more work to be done before we can feel confident that gay people are treated decently and with equality as our respected peers.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

65 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • watty says:

      07:27am | 06/10/09

      Preferred Bill when he in his “Drover’s Dog” days.Possibly a more accurate asessment then this latest sojourn..

    • Josh says:

      07:42am | 06/10/09

      Thanks for writing this Bill. Beautifully worded. How far we’ve come but still miles to go before we rest.

    • bec says:

      08:32am | 06/10/09

      I do find it interesting that gay and lesbian Australians - who pay significant amount of taxes as a result of being a highly educated, professional and law-abiding demographic - are discriminated from participating in the very same institutions that benefit highly from their taxpayer dollars - namely, marriages and certain schools. Pretty un-democratic, I think.

      I think that if gays and lesbians aren’t given the same rights by law, they don’t have to pay the same amount of taxes. Not allowed to adopt or receive IVF? Why should they pay so much towards education, then?

      If they’re considered ‘real’ couples only to cut their centrelink benefits, then they deserve to be considered ‘real’ enough to be extended the same privileges as the rest of the community.

    • Eric says:

      08:38am | 06/10/09

      Perhaps I’d worry more about marriage rights for gays, if straight men weren’t so discriminated against.

      The prejudice against men in faily law and the Family Court is far more oppressive than anything gays face under the law today.

    • Matt B says:

      08:49am | 06/10/09

      Well said mate.

      It’s painfully slow progress. I wont hold my breath for Marriage Equality, but I appreciate this open and visible discussion about the issue. It’s one that gets little attention in this country.

      Well played.

    • Liz says:

      09:06am | 06/10/09

      Time we had equality for all and childrens’ rights were taken seriously too.Nicely put Bill from a good perspective of experience, tolerance and generosity.Shame we don’t see more of this kind of article on The Punch!

    • Andrew says:

      09:18am | 06/10/09

      Kevin Rudd likes to stand up in front of the world and say what a great and prosperous nation we are and how he has done so much. But I wonder if he has considered, that his continued discrimination against people in his own country actually gives reason for countries in the Middle East and Africa and other parts of the world to allow for Homosexuality to be illegal. Countries where young men are forced to have a sex change (which the government pays for) as this is more acceptable than them being in love with another man. Countries where young men are still physically castrated, jailed, stoned and killed for something they have no choice in.

      Marriage may seem like a small thing, but it is one of the last things left that still keeps the gay and lesbian community at arm’s length in this country,to remain a spectacle in March when we “parade” up oxford st. That friend, colleague or family member who is whispered about behind their back but “welcomed” in the appropriate situations, although their partner may not be! Marriage will bring the Queer community in line with the rest of society, and will eventually end all of the indiscriminate discrimination that occurs daily. Then I believe Kevin Rudd can stand in front of the UN and his smarmy smile be justified. Of course the plight of the Indigenous people of Australia, Refugees and the right of the child should be solved first. But if Kevin Rudd is going to represent our country he should represent ALL of us!

    • acker says:

      09:31am | 06/10/09

      Sorry to poo poo the group hug

      But I find it disgusting that the choice inspired descision to be homosexual is positioning itself in a forefront tolerance position alongside non choice just plain nasty problems in society such as racism, poverty, peadophilia, hunger, slavery, cruelty, sexism, etc…

      If I want to loose weight I know eating lots lf chocolate will probably not help your cause.

      If you want to engage in marriage which originated from religious hetrosexuals, being homosexual will probably not help your cause.

      Petty homosexuality issues are too often sucking oxygen and distracting the media and it’s public mob of sheep away from too many more important issues such as indigenous rights and other non choice problems.

      Gays have choice….get over being pinky precious and overly self centered.

    • Me says:

      09:41am | 06/10/09

      No no no Bill you don’t understand! Homosexuality is wrong because the bible said it is wrong and the bible is always right because the bible says it is always right. Why can’t you people get this simple idea through your thick skulls?

    • barb says:

      10:12am | 06/10/09

      Most Christians don’t mind gay people, but it’ll be a disaster if, in 10-20 years, our Christian children are told by society that it’s normal for men to marry other men, adopt children and have a family. And at the same time in church they’re told it’s a sin. This will have a major negative effect on our Christian kids mental health. So the only solution to this problem is for us Christians to continue to separate ourselves from the rest of society. We will have our own schools, businesses and eventually, towns and cities. This is not and ideal situation, but this seems to be the inevitable outcome of liberalism and “progressivism”.

    • watty says:

      10:13am | 06/10/09

      Sorry “Me says” .It was not the Bible but Henry Gray’s 1918 book on anatomy which mislead me but obviously he was wrong as well.

    • Steve Smith says:

      10:28am | 06/10/09

      Gays have come along way… but then each year around March, there is this stereotypical parade which sets them back another 10 years.

    • Old Clive says:

      10:30am | 06/10/09

      If I was sexually disoriented, I woul;d be praying that Australia always remains a “Christian Country”. I believe the muslims aren’t to impressed with homosexuals and female nudity doesn’t sit toowell with them either. Well informed Christians know that practicing homosexuals will never enter Heaven.
      So the answer is some kind people tolerate the sexual disorientated while the majority of the world do not.

    • Me says:

      10:31am | 06/10/09

      I’m pretty suret here is already a movement like that barb, it’s called the “Exclusive Bretheren”.

      And of course watty you make a decent point. That is why oral sex is inherently wrong and immoral and should be outlawed in all its forms, as should any sexual activity that does not lead to procreation, such as sex toys, contraception etc.

    • Josh says:

      10:41am | 06/10/09

      Old Clive, you say it as though there’s only a choice in life between being part of a Christian or a Muslim society.

      Most of us would be rather happy to live in a society where people aren’t required to have imaginary friends telling us what to do.

    • eddie says:

      10:51am | 06/10/09

      @me says, It is people with minds as closed as yours that supported and empowered things like the Spanish Inquisition.
      If you have an imaginary freind who tells you what to do - that is fine but leave those of us who are not certifiably delusional to attend to our own affairs.

    • Doug says:

      10:51am | 06/10/09

      Rudd is still stuck in ‘tolerance’ mode when it comes to gays and lesbians. Tolerance is only ever a way-station, a pause where we stop and take time out to get to know one another, and work out the next steps.
      The next stage - which most Australians have now reached - is acceptance.
      We are about ready for the final stage represented by marriage: respect, embrace and celebrate.
      There is a sad rearguard action being fought by some people who ought to know better, from some of the darker recesses of the ‘Christian’ movement (some of whom have been commenting here) who see difference as a cause for hatred rather than celebration.
      I feel truly sorry for you and your inability to understand that we live in a secular, multi-faith, mutlicultural world, and variety is normal, healthy and natural.

    • Old Clive says:

      10:54am | 06/10/09

      No imagination is a real problem

    • papachango says:

      10:56am | 06/10/09

      I agree that gays should have exactly the same rights as heteros, and really it’s none of the government’s business what two consenting adults get up to in the bedroom. But I think you’re being a bit precious about marriage - why do you so desperately need a government certificate to prove your union? As long as you have the same de facto couple rights, who cares?

      Look at hetero marriages - it’s not as if that bit of paper guarantees you’ll stay together for life. The funniest comment came from some lesbian radical feminist type who said that marriage was basically state sanctioned slavery of women, but in the same breath demanded that lesbians be allowed to be enslaved too.

      I’m not fussed if gay marraiges are legalised, but I just don’t think it’s that big a deal. Some religious types get upset about it, but why should you care what the Catholic Church thinks - if they think being gay is a sin, that’s their problem, perhaps they should start with some of their priests.

      Overall gays have it pretty good in Western countries - think Iran or Saudi Arabia.

    • Gibbot says:

      11:04am | 06/10/09

      Of course we should deprive tax paying Australian citizens of equal rights if it goes against the wishes of religious cults. After all their institutions pay far more tax, right?

      Oh.. Hang on..

    • papachango says:

      11:48am | 06/10/09

      @eddie 10:51 am - @me is clearly taking the piss - what happened to your irony radar?

    • Rod says:

      12:02pm | 06/10/09

      Good point, papachango:

      Why do you need a silly piece of paper?  What a great argument!  I would love to see a heterosexual couple try and survive for just one year without having their precious marriage certificates to prove *conclusively* that their relationship exists.

      For example, let’s say your now un-spouse dies… oh, and you forgot to write wills naming each other as beneficiaries?  Oh, and your mother-out-of-law and the rest of your un-spouse’s family hates ya.  Oh well, it’s off to court for you and them to argue over those assets.

      Made a will?  Oh, well, that doesn’t preclude you having the argy-bargy over the deceased estate—after all, they can still challenge that ol’ will.  If you had a marriage certificate, the family of your un-spouse will be pushing **it up hill to win.

      Then if you’re now un-spouse has a bit of an accident and winds up in hospital, how are you going to prove your relationship?  And if you don’t believe this doesn’t happen, my ‘other half’ is in hospital right now and, yes, being in a same-sex relationship, I was asked all sorts of weird and wonderful questions to try and prove that I am the primary next of kin.

      Want to get a home loan together and not have the bank raise their eyebrows or subject you to the third degree about the ‘stability’ of the relationship?

      Hmmm.

      If marriage is so *not* important, and marriage certificates are so *not* necessary, why do those silly heterosexuals see the need for marriage at all?  Don’t they have de facto relationship rights under law?  Surely they should be happy with their certificate-less life of living out of wedlock?  And having kids out of wedlock?

      If de facto is so good, marriage should not be necessary!

      Indeed, papachango, you’ve just given us the argument as to why marriage should be abolished as a pointless, meaningless copy of the wonderful de facto relationship system.

      Or are you suggesting there’s deficiencies in being de facto?

      Not being recognised by business?
      Not being recognised by government?
      Having to drag around ‘evidence’ by the tonne of your relationship?  Countless bank statements and statutory declarations?
      Not having one conclusive document?

      Oh, but wait, you’ll now proclaim: “Well, what’s wrong with civil unions, with a certificate to demonstrate a civil union?”

      Well, that’d solve part of the problem, but not all of the problem.

      You see, there’s one intangible thing that marriage can give, and that’s freedom.
      Freedom of choice.
      Freedom of religion.

      My religious belief system allows same-sex marriage.  When I am denied it by the state, I am denied freedom of religious belief.

      Why is marriage important to me?  Well, for all the reason you and your un-spouse might find it valuable, papachango.  For *personal* reasons.  Not *selfish* reasons, but personal reasons.

      It’s called inclusion.

      100 years ago we used to tell Aborigines who they could, or could not, marry.  We did it because we thought, as a nation, it was a great idea to try and keep them interbred, or to breed out Aboriginality.  There was no good public policy reason as to why we did it, we just thought it’d be a heck of a good idea to use the social institution of marriage to impose racism, and to strip people of their human rights, their dignity, their self-determination, and emblazon on their lives a situation where they were last-class citizens.

      A century on, we’ve learned nothing.  Denying same-sex couples the right to self-determination and—yes—happiness, has no good public policy purpose.  Unless you’re suggesting the public policy purpose is to disenfranchise them and make them last-class citizens.

      Even my pet dog has more ‘recognition’ under law than my partner.  See, I register my dog.  I can’t even register my relationship in any official sense.

      It’s a joke.
      It’s un-Australian.
      It’s wrong.

    • Secular Australia says:

      12:32pm | 06/10/09

      Australia is not any kind of religious (Christian or otherwise) society. Our law allows us to have freedom of religion and belief here. You CANNOT demand your own freedoms while denying the same rights to other people, regardles of what you think of them. That makes you one of the very worst kinds of hypocrites!

      Modern Australia is SECULAR society. If you can’t keep your religious hatreds to yourself and behind closed doors or in your place of worship, then perhaps you should do us all a favour and go live in Rome/Jerusalem/Tehran or whatever heartland for whatever religious mythology you chose to follow and allow the rest of us in Australia to get on with loving our lives, and each other, in peace.

    • papachango says:

      12:45pm | 06/10/09

      Rod -

      You make some valid points, and I agree about the medical stuff in particular. As I said, I don’t have a problem with gays being married, but I just don’t think that will fix all that much. And you’re kidding yourself if you think marriage brings freedom wink

      If you want real freedom, how about not being dependent on the government at all?  Why do you want to be ‘registered’ like a dog? Are you seriously saying you can’t be happy with a partner you love unless the government officially certifies you, and ‘permits’ you to be happy? To be honest I find that attitude a bit sad.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      01:38pm | 06/10/09

      And here at Punch we have yet another lengthy missive in the series: “Why Gays Should be Married”.

      How many times and in how many iterations is this story going to be told?

      Why do gays want to “be married”?

      Marriage is a religious ceremony.  Accept this immutable fact.

      There are no ‘additional’ legal privileges afforded gay couples just because they are “married” (and “gay”).

      But what’s increasingly hilarious are those here (again) bemoaning the alleged impingement of their ‘religious’ “freedom”, being openly hostile toward those in society whose religion does not recognise homosexuality at all.

      Do they not have a right (freedom?) to identify with their religion and its principles and beliefs?

      Homosexual couples have EXACTLY THE SAME legal rights in Australia as heterosexual couples, as they should.

      To even attempt to suggest otherwise betrays an appalling lack of understanding of the law.

      The rest of this ‘argument’ is largely semantic…and frankly getting a little boring.

    • Doug says:

      02:19pm | 06/10/09

      Yes, we all have freedom of religion. That means the right to practice your religion - not the right to impose it or any values stemming from it on anyone else, not to cite it as the basis for discriminatory law, not to demand special treatment for your schools, employment agencies, adoption agencies and cereal manufactories. Just the right to practice your religion - no more, no less.
      Marriage is a STATE institution - the Christian church, in its early days, refused to solemnise marriages, but eventually caved in and reluctantly admitted it was ‘better to marry than burn’ - but only just.
      And monogamous, one-man one-woman marriages are a relatively modern invention. Marriage as described in the bible, for example, is mostly polygamous and often incestuous.
      Civil unions, registrations and other semi- or quasi- marriage compromises are discriminatory and segregationist, and they do NOT provide the same rights as marriage, as they are only recognised within state boundaries, not federally. They’re not even accepted as proof of relationship by the ADF!!

    • anna la says:

      02:20pm | 06/10/09

      speaking of tolerance, i don’t have any for people who keep bleating that marriage is a religious institution. it has become societal. and if you had an consistency in your arguments you would try to outlaw heteros who aren’t religious from marrying, which is currently a widespread practice. this argument is bollocks. go back to your caves and let the rest of us get on with it.

    • David says:

      02:23pm | 06/10/09

      Thankyou to Bill Hayden for his enlightened view of the world and his nay-saying of opponents of gay law refim over the years—and his broadside at the ALP for squibbing ultimate reform that would lead to equality for gays and lesbians.  You can call this argument boring or unchristian or range of other things but if we call ourselves a society that aspires to equality and a “fair go”, how is opposition to to same sex marriage any of these things?

    • Ben W says:

      02:25pm | 06/10/09

      People who choose to eschew the sexual complementary male-female nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman have no business imposing their new low standard of ‘marriage’ on the rest of us. They chose to engage in a lifestyle outside the bounds of marriage. They should live with the consequences. How ironic that the people who reject the sexual norms of heterosexuality seek so vocally the social institution that facilitates and celebrates that union – marriage.
      I don’t go to the local rugby field and demand everybody plays hockey to include me. Unjust discrimination exists only in the minds of those who choose to play by a different set of rules. The State has no business facilitating the lifestyle choices of adults.
      Homosexual Australians already have the same legal rights as all other Australians, including marriage. Every adult Australian already has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. As there is nobody stopping this from occurring, there is no unjust discrimination.

    • Rod says:

      02:31pm | 06/10/09

      Papa: I was just illustrating that dogs have more evidence than de factos.  I don’t want to be registered like a dog.  I want to be registered as (not like) a married couple.

      Margaret: Same sex couples do not have the same legal rights as heterosexuals, because we are denied access to a number of legal rights, including access equally to the Marriage Act 1961.  We could also discuss how, for example, GLBTI people have no access to Federal anti-discrimination laws.

      And, Marg, marriage is a civil contract.  A ‘wedding’ is a religious ceremony.  The religious rite is being ‘wed’.

      My religion allows me to ‘wed’ but the State denies me the civil right of the recognition and legal rights associated with the civil marriage contract under law.

      Access to civilian law about marriage is not and will never be related to
      religions having the freedom to solemnise and wed whomever they wish.

      Fact is that the Church used to be the ones who ran the bitrths and deaths system in centuries past, when births and deaths were recorded in parish registries.  The State has, however, seen the good sense to record those centrally, and issue birth or death certificates through a civilian register.  It has left the religious choice of a ‘christening’ or a ‘baptism’ or
      ‘funeral rite’ up to the religious (or even celebrant) choices of the individual.

      It is time that marriage had it’s similar ‘divorce’.  Civil marriage should be open to all and all relationships between two consenting people should be afforded civil marriage registration and certification.  Weddings should be ceremonial and handed back to whatever religion (or areligion) they so choose.  Such a
      model would protect human rights and religious freedom.

      I’m still yet to hear the intellectually bankrupt push the line that such a system of separation will ‘destroy’ marriage.  If it is such a threat to heterosexuals, then maybe it is not the fault of the gays, but the parlous state of their own dysfunctional marriages to blame for them being so perilous.

    • Kelly says:

      02:31pm | 06/10/09

      Margaret, marriage is a CIVIL ceremony.  Those who choose to have a religious ceremony can but it’s not the legally binding part of a marriage.

      “Gays” want to be married for all the same reasons as everyone else.

      Marriage isn’t all about “rights” - it’s about being permitted to fully partake in society and not being allowed to marry sits us fairly outside of society.

      And Margaret, you’re, quite frankly, a little bit boring yourself.

    • Me says:

      02:41pm | 06/10/09

      So why the hell is Margaret Gray here reading and commenting on the issue if it is so boring to her?

    • RT says:

      02:49pm | 06/10/09

      Margaret Gray - that was the strangest of many strange contributions you have made to The Punch. Marriage in our society is a legal/civil institution, not a religiousceremony. Weddings also increasingly have no religious element, and religious mores need have no place in marriages. What religions say about gays is irrelevant to the question of whether same-sex marriages ought to be recognised under the law.  I have no strong views on this issue but cannot understand the objections. Surely they are based   on nothing but prejudice against gays.

    • Rod says:

      03:01pm | 06/10/09

      Ben:

      You’re right.  Gays should just go marry a woman.  Vice versa for lesbians.  If that is your argument—that we could choos to marry the right *gender* of person—then you are clearly not an afficionado of history nor understanding of human rights and freedoms.

      Your argument, Ben, is exposed as a joke if you wind the clock back 50 years.  Interracial marriage once was illegal.  In direct parallel to your argument against gays being equal in marriage, would you argue that race restrictions in marriage is not denying human rights?  After all, those pesky ‘coloureds’ aren’t denies their marriage rights—surely they can marry within the rules and within their own race?

      In South Africa, that was called apartheid.
      In the US, that principle was called segregation.

      In both, it was clearly a fundamentally wrong and racist policy.
      And just because you may marry the *correct* gender, or correct *race*, doesn’t mean that the system or the rules aren’t racist or sexist.

      In the US, Mildred Loving took her love for a man of a different race to the US Supreme Court because she thought love and freedom
      of choice was more important than conforming.  You should look up why she directly compared this struggle by non-heteros as identical to her struggle to marry outside her race.

      Ah, how quickly do we forget that marriage is founded in love.  We often forget that.

      But, Ben, if you have a nice young lass—a daughter—can I marry her?  Remember, it won’t cheapen marriage, because it will be conforming to what you want.

      Too bad about her feelings, eh?  Conformity is obviously more important than freedom or love, right?

      I mean, just go an ask someone who has been married to a glbti person who was closeted as they tried to conform to what society wanted and expected.

    • Joe says:

      03:30pm | 06/10/09

      Same sex couples do not have personal recognition under federal law,and access to financial government benefits or security of assets as do hetrosexual couple. Should either or both be Centrelink clients, they have either had their payments reduced or withdrawn, also any concessions.
      Same sex couples are treated as second class Australian citizens.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      03:47pm | 06/10/09

      “...Margaret: Same sex couples do not have the same legal rights as heterosexuals, because we are denied access to a number of legal rights, including access equally to the Marriage Act 1961…”

      Again, you know NOTHING about the law.

      Point to me ANYWHERE in the current Australian Marriage Act that makes ANY reference to either “gay”, “homosexual” or “same sex”.

      “...religious mores need have no place in marriages…”

      Riiiight.

      13 million Jews, 1.5 billion Muslims and a couple of billion Christians would beg to differ.

      I’m sure the world’s Hindu’s and Buddhists would also have something to say about it.

      But who cares about their religious freedom.

      Why not go global with your plaint.

      Petition HREOC at the UN for same-sex marriage recognition across the world.

      I’d love to see the response.

    • Ben W says:

      04:08pm | 06/10/09

      Rod –equating racial inequality with homosexuality is a logical fallacy. You are comparing apples with oranges. Discriminating against somebody because of an inherent characteristic over which they have no control, such as race, is unjust discrimination. But that is not the same as differential treatment on the basis of a characteristic that is chosen, such as homosexuality. Yes, despite the propaganda of the homosexual lobby, homosexuality is a chosen, not inherent, characteristic.
      The central issue is CHOICE, and the State has no role in legitimising or legalising that choice. The State has no business facilitating the lifestyle choices of adults, and this is especially the case where that choice is unhealthy and destructive. Homosexuals have no business claiming discrimination when they themselves have chosen a path that will render them ineligible for marriage.

    • RT says:

      04:18pm | 06/10/09

      Margaret Gray, if I understand this point of yours correctly ‘Riiiight. 13 million Jews, 1.5 billion Muslims and a couple of billion Christians would beg to differ.’ , you seem to be saying that the views of religious adherents about marriage should be paramount. Many of us beg to differ. What has this to do with ‘their religious freedom’, explain that? How is this debate impingeing on anyone with religious beliefs to live their own lives according to those beliefs?  Isn’t the real issue is that you don’t want the non-religious to enjoy the same thing?

    • Rod says:

      04:21pm | 06/10/09

      Marg:

      The Marriage Act was amended in 2004 to specifically exclude couples of the same sex, so you clearly do not know or understand the law.  A provision was also inserted into federal law to not recognise overseas same-sex marriages under Australian law—not even as civil unions in the ACT.

      Indeed, the ACT wanted to recognise so-called section 88EA invalidated same-sex marriages as evidence of a civil union, but the Howard Govt invalidated those laws.

      Again, I draw the parallel of race.  You are saying the current laws do not discriminate on the basis of sex.  Bigots of old claimed that racial restrictions were not racist, but they clearly were.

      Fact is, you are denied marrying another woman, Margaret.  Just because you don’t want to is irrelevant.  The law is sexist however, and there is no good public policy reason for it.

    • Adam says:

      04:26pm | 06/10/09

      A good article Bill smile

    • papachango says:

      04:30pm | 06/10/09

      Fair enough Rod - I don’t really disagree with you on much, it’s just as a libertarian I don’t see this need for government involvement in your personal circumstances. But if we heteros choose to subject ourselves to the Marriage Act, then gays should be allowed to as well.

      Oh and Margaret, I could be wrong here, but I belive that the marriage act defines marraige as a union between a man and a woman, thefore while gays aren’t explicitly mentioned, they are explicitly excluded from the terms therein. Again I could be wrong but I think de facto rules still apply to them.

      Maybe it’s time to have a new word for purely religious weddings, and those of us, gay or straight, who choose a secular wedding can call our unions something else. The Marriage and Civil Unions act could then apply to everyone. If anything it’ll keep the religious Margaret Gray types happy. It’s just a word after all, changing the definition either way is not going to ‘destroy the fabric of society’.

      The important thing is freedom of religion - those that wish to practice it can, and those of us that chose not to don’t have it forced down our throats.

      BTW there are plenty of gay libertarians - the whole ‘it’s nobodys business what consenting adults do’ philosophy suits them well.

      Ben W - Gays will argue that sexual orientation is not chosen, they’re born with it. I think they’re probably right but the issue is completely irrelevant. Why do you care if someone chooses to be gay anyway? How is it affecting you personally or detracting from your individual liberty?

      Hate to break it to ya, but it’s already legal, and the State should have no role in preventing that choice.

      Why exactly is it ‘unhealthy and destructive’? Why should you care even if it was - no one’s forcing you to be gay after all.

    • Jen says:

      04:32pm | 06/10/09

      Margaret, this is what the UN has to say in general:

      All persons are equal before the law and
      are entitled without any discrimination
      to the equal protection of the law. In
      this respect, the law shall prohibit any
      discrimination and guarantee to all persons
      equal and effective protection against
      discrimination on any ground…

      Article 26, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

      Gay rights are indeed of great interest to the UN, although at the moment they’re more focused on making sure 16-year-old boys stop being hanged for not being straight.

      More over, if the marriage two men (or women) who you DON’T EVEN KNOW AND WILL NEVER MEET interferes with your religious freedom, you’ve got serious problems.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      05:06pm | 06/10/09

      @Rod,

      “...The Marriage Act was amended in 2004 to specifically exclude couples of the same sex, so you clearly do not know or understand the law…”

      Then you’d be happy to point us to the relevant passage of the Act where it states exactly that. Omission is not evidence of assumed inclusion.

      “...but the Howard Govt invalidated those laws…”

      As has Rudd, despite having a number of very-high profile gay members in Party.

      Your subsequent race argument is a strawman and irrelevant to this discussion.

      @RT,

      Let me refresh you on what you posted earlier…

      “...religious mores need have no place in marriages…”

      Do you understand what you were saying in that statement?

      “...you seem to be saying that the views of religious adherents about marriage should be paramount…”

      Obviously not.

      Many religions impose their own marriage restrictions and ‘desireabilities’ upon their followers as is their wont.

      Pursuing religious freedom means it’s not up to you to question these ‘rules’, as many are deeply sacred beliefs or ‘mores’ as you put it.

      “...Isn’t the real issue is that you don’t want the non-religious to enjoy the same thing?...”

      Ummm, no.  Religion doesn’t interest me in the slightest (which must come as a HUGE disappointment to others here today).

      The real issue is the law.

      There is no legal discrimination against same-sex couples in Australia.

      They are recognised equally under the law with heterosexual couples at all levels.

      Your ‘status’ does alter your rights or obligations as a couple under these laws.

      Your access to the law is also not restricted by your couple ‘status’.

      Bill Hayden has failed to address this crucial key point as have others.

    • Tim says:

      05:18pm | 06/10/09

      why are the gays not arguing for polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages or underage marriages as well? The law is just as discriminatory against these types of relationships as well. Any takers?
      The government should abolish the marriage act and only have civil unions to which anyone can gain access.

    • acker says:

      05:41pm | 06/10/09

      The issue of homosexual marriage is a bit like my support and membership of the AFL team the Footscray/Western Bulldog’s.

      Yes we may both love AFL and footy

      But if you don’t support Footscray/Western Bulldog’s…...what’s the point in you buying a membership to my club..

      Marriage is a religous inspired event, Homosexual marriage is not approved by most of the main stream religions ..

      Civil Unions are recognised by our society.

      Why not stop forcing homosexual marriage on community groups that do not want it. Which would be a lot like demanding to buy Western Bulldog memberships and forcing us to change our jumpers to look like Carltons..

      Homosexuality has pushed it’s marriage cause, but homosexuals should be prepared to accept the answer NO.. or otherwise look like just another self interest group that is over-reaching and over-yelling over a lot of other just causes.

    • Doug says:

      05:49pm | 06/10/09

      @ Margaret: the change to the marriage act was brought in by John Howard explicity to prevent a same-sex couple who had married in Canada from getting their marriage recognised by the Australian courts, because until that time the act did not specify that it had to be the union of a man and a woman only. This was explicitly stated in the press and parliament at the time. The couple in question then withdrew their case, as the avenue to recognition had been blocked. FACT.
      I have no interest in discriminating against religion. People are free to practice their religion. They are even free to try to brainwash others with their fairy stories. But freedom to practice a religion does not confer a right to impose its diktats on non-adherents. Religion has no role in lawmaking - separation of powers.
      Therefore what any religious person thinks about marriage is irrelevant to same-sex marriage as a civil right. Do what you like within your churches, mosques, synagogues and temples, just don’t do it in public where you might corrupt children and the impressionable grin.
      And as had been pointed out to you numerous times, though you seem not to have noticed, we do NOT have equal rights with heterosexual couples, de facto status does not confer the same rights a married heterosexual couples. Equality in NOT divisible - we are either equal and therefore able to marry one another, or not.
      FINALLY to all you people who do not understand the science - same-sex relationships, long-term, even lifelong same-sex partnerships are common and normal throughout nature. For example, male dolphins have sexual relations with one another all year round, except in breeding season, when they pop off to do their duty to the race, inseminate a couple of females, and then get back to having sex with one another.
      Any gay man will know large numbers of ostensibly ‘straight’ married men like this!!
      Virtually the only species on the planet that discriminates against same-sex relations, is ours. Nature understands it’s perfectly normal part of the continuum of sexuality. It is NOT a choice - it is part of the normal genetic variability of all species.
      I should add that studies repeatedly show that what is odd, though not abnormal, is for individual people to be 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual.

    • Elizabeth says:

      05:50pm | 06/10/09

      Margaret- I don’t think changing the legislation to say ‘marriage is to be between a man and a woman’ as opposed to ‘two people’ is an omission. I think it’s quite a positive statement of the law.

      Please don’t break your neck falling off that high horse of yours.

    • Gibbot says:

      05:51pm | 06/10/09

      “Pursuing religious freedom means it’s not up to you to question these ‘rules’, as many are deeply sacred beliefs or ‘mores’ as you put it.”

      Patently and absurdly wrong. As soon as any individual or institution attempts to impose their ‘deeply sacred beliefs’ upon others then they have surrendered any right to that belief being respected.

      Should the church of ‘Our Lady of the Crusty Sandal’ deign that same sex marriage is against their rules then they are free to not perform said marriages. They are NOT free to prevent others from doing so. It is none of their damned business. The Labor party knows the right thing to do (which, coincidentally is what the majority of the electorate want them to do). Unfortunately they’re too spineless to ignore the religious lobby groups.

      Churches need to start being made to realise the scope of their influence stops with their customer base.

      @Tim - we played past that weeks ago. Do keep up.

    • Michael says:

      06:06pm | 06/10/09

      I love this protection of the “Sanctity of Marriage” and that lifting the exclusion from “man and woman to the exclusion of all others” will diminish this union. So I guess Britney Spears’ 17 hour ‘just-for-fun’ marriage a few years back is the perfect example of how sanctimonius this union is.

    • Jugger says:

      06:15pm | 06/10/09

      Wow Margaret, you’re so clever you’ve seen the truth where millions of your fellow Australians have not.

      Gays everywhere can rejoyce, the super-intelligent Margaret has decreed you are not discriminated against!  Therefore you are not!

      Magaret, you are in a world of your own, a world fillled with hatred and bitterness.

    • Andrew M. Potts says:

      06:24pm | 06/10/09

      For all the Bible thumpers here- once and for all.

      Marriage is a civil institution, MATRIMONY is a religious institution.

    • Tim says:

      07:09pm | 06/10/09

      no Gibbot,
      You ignored it just like now.
      You can keep dismissing arguments that dont fit in with your viewpoint but it does not make sense to single out one form of discrimination.

    • Daphon says:

      07:48pm | 06/10/09

      Steve Smith said at 10:28, “Gays have come along way… but then each year around March, there is this stereotypical parade which sets them back another 10 years.”

      Many people probably feel the same way about football grand finals, Steve, and the idiocy and idolatry that comes with it.

    • Dr K says:

      07:57pm | 06/10/09

      I am a medical practitioner and NOBODY in the medical profession believes sexual orientation to be a choice. It is simply part of the natural expression of adult humans. So Ben W, move on from the discredited and abandoned ‘choice’ argument. Sexual identity, including gender and sexual attraction, is part of who you are.
      As a doctor, I have seen directly the terrible effects of hatred and discrimination on my non-heterosexual patients - depression, anxiety and suicide. People who perpetuate hatred (and I mean you Margaret Gray) should be ashamed of themselves. Your privileged status as part of the majority carries with it great responsibility. You have failed your fellow human. Go away and learn about love.

    • Jason says:

      08:35pm | 06/10/09

      Bill its abit rich to come out and back gay rights now, because when you were Govenor General anal sex (IE homosexuality) was illegal in Tasmania and Queensland and you failed to provide any support to bringing down the laws then. Bill you had your chance to support us gays and you didn’t.

    • NatalieT says:

      08:56pm | 06/10/09

      Ben W @ 04:08pm: “...a characteristic that is chosen, such as homosexuality. Yes, despite the propaganda of the homosexual lobby, homosexuality is a chosen, not inherent, characteristic.”

      Evidence for this statement please???? A credible source…if you can find one.

    • Jason says:

      09:00pm | 06/10/09

      acker - The only reason you think being gay is a choice is because it gives you justification in being prejudiced towards gays. Im gay and I was born gay, I have allways felt and allways will feel sexually and emotionally attracted towards the same-sex.

      Margaret - If there is no discrimination then how come if my partner dies in an accident I dont recieve any compensation from the QLD state government ? Explain.

    • Jono says:

      09:12pm | 06/10/09

      Possibly one of the best articles ive read on the Punch for quite sometime.  Well done Bill.
      The best suggestion to protect religious ideology and protect equal rights is to remove marriage as a legally binding institution and have it purely as a religious statement.  Have Civil Unions or Civil Partnerships registered as the legally binding lawful contract that is recognised by government.  That way the clearly discrimatory religious vestige of marriage wont be tainted by homosexuality and Australian law will recognise equal rights for all couples.
      To Tim, likening gay marriage to incest, polygamy and underage relationships would be taken by many as being a little bit offensive.  To Ben W. on choosing to be homosexual, probably best to keep that little bit of nonsense to yourself to avoid looking foolish.  And to Margaret Gray who finds the whole subject tiresome, congratulations on your new found enthusiasm!
      The sooner we fix this legal hypocrisy and grow up as a country the sooner we can stop talking about it and get on with fixing the big issues.
      And for the record, i am gay and i dont believe in marriage.

    • AJ says:

      10:03pm | 06/10/09

      This seems like way too much arguing to come to the conclusion of ‘legalise gay marriage’, and then the people who don’t believe in gay marriage don’t have to have one.

      It’s just a frankly bizarre argument to suggest that changing the law to permit same-sex marriage ‘forces’ it on people.  I mean, when sodomy laws were finally abolished, nobody was FORCED to engage in sodomy, they could just do so if they chose, and lo and behold, the sky didn’t fall.

      And I say this as a well-adjusted Christian straight male.

    • Brendan says:

      11:17pm | 06/10/09

      The literal belief in a fictional sky-god on the deluded part of Margaret Gray and her ilk has no legitimate bearing whatsoever on what secular marriage law in this country could and should be; nor on the ineradicable good reasons for enabling same-gender couples to have their mutual commitment to a shared life recognised in equal measure to opposite-gender couples.

      The incapacity of the likes of Margaret Gray and the “homosexual choice” dogmatists to comprehend these facts (not to mention current law, variability in the biological world, and the diverse lived experience of human existence) is a problem primarily for the likes of Margaret Gray and said dogmatists. Apart from noting this, few further electrons need be wasted rebutting such clear paucity of argument.

    • thatcherschild says:

      11:58pm | 06/10/09

      Just wondering what Margaret Gray and her ilk think about gay people who have been or who are still involved in a so-called traditional marriage.
      My partner, who grew up in a small country town, knew she was different but didnt know how - hardly surprising given the lack of info about gay people in the 50s and 60s.
      She went through the motions of her marriage in the 60s, she genuinely loved her husband as a friend, and they had a happy marriage until the penny dropped.
      Thankfully my partner recognised that she was gay after about 5 years but then had to go through a painful divorce.
      Since meeting my partner I have met met several gay people (4 in Ballarat alone!) aged 50+, all of whom have these so called traditional marriages in their past.
      All of them waited until their children had grown up before launching themselves out of the closet and going on to lead fulfilled and happy lives, and yes, they all have amazing relationships with their children….one friend,aged 65, frequently takes his 30 year old straight son out to gay bars - it goes beyond tolerance, its called acceptance.
      It just seems very strange to me that you try to defend marriage and exclude gay people from it when thousands of gay people have already been married, albeit to straight spouses!
      I also have a number of friends that have married, in the church, gay man marries lesbian etc for a number of reasons, finanical benefits through tax breaks etc or to hide their homosexuality from their devout religious families, so maybe silence and hypocrisy is the order of the day for those who wish to deny marriage equality.
      And for the record, I was raised in a christian household, when I finally came out and introduced my partner we were welcomed with open arms and sent their blessings when we had our commitment ceremony.
      It was nothing less than I would expect from a loving christian family.

    • Brendan says:

      11:58pm | 06/10/09

      To the suggestion that marriage be excised from secular law as a purely religious institution… PIFFLE!

      Why on earth, for example, should secular married heterosexuals be forced to have their existing relationships recast by the state as a civil partnership?

      To pander to the voluntarily lifestyles of delusional theists and hardline heterosupremacists? Stuff them. The public interest—in this case, to recognise equivalent relationships equally in law—is more important.

    • Nigel Britt says:

      02:26pm | 07/10/09

      The fact is that legitimising the smallest inequality we allow and encourage inttolerence and discriminations cultivation.  Wheather is be the Church or a Government, as soon as you actively rule against or denote a group of people too ‘less than’ it immediately promotes an enviroment of Discrimination within a general population. 

      I more or less have notes/questions for points others have made.

      BEW W:  PLEASE find me one Scietist, Doctor, Medical professional or any other credible source who will agree with your Chosen sexuality Claim.  Also ask yourself this why would some1 choose a lifestyle where they face redicule on a daily basis? Where the validity of our choices and rights are debated in a public forum?  Where organisations like churches and other faiths condem us AS SIN?  Then ask why the Suicude rate in Gay youths
      is astronomically highly than in their hetrosexual counter parts?  Ask yourself how many words you can find describing a gay man poof, fag, homo, fairy, queen , fagot, etc etc? Then find one for a Straight male that is discrimitory see if u can make me a list?  Then ask yourself the Question again is BEING GAY A CHOICE AND WHO WOULD A PERSON CHOOSE THIS LIFE.
      Margaret: be you blind an clearly close minded holding the words of a legislation more closely than its actual meaning or real life implications.
      The Marriage Act was changed too include only the union of man an women, Can you honestly not see it actively blocking Homosexual marriages and WHY the need too clarify its definition if not too block others from utilising it.  Leigislation is a fickle thing an I dread the day when something you believe in is legislated against. I suggest you read a poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller, called ‘first they came’.

      AKER: Gay marriage is not adversly effecting or being pushed upon you, this group u equated too a football team is called Humanity, how bout we kick every1 else out who doesn’t adhere too your view.

      It Apears the only safe haven for bigotry, intolerence, hatred and discrimination is too wrap it nicely in religion, family values or sanctity of marriage.

      What an appauling day for humanity.  I have faith in the future because at 22 I have too have Hope that this world can change.

      Tho in a side note thanks Bill for a good read.

    • Michele says:

      06:49pm | 07/10/09

      Margaret Gray maybe you should make friends with some gay/lesbian people and then you might be a nicer person. You might then see them as real human beings with thoughts & feelings, hopes & dreams that are shared by many of us. Just because they have a preference for same sex relationships does not mean they should be excluded from the things that are easily available to ‘straight’ people.

    • Sabina Nowak says:

      08:04pm | 07/10/09

      Thanks Bill for saying what needs to be said and The Punch for publishing it.  It is about time more public figures debunk the myths about the ‘homosexual menace’.  There is absolutely no rational need for the double standard.

 

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

Time to put this summer of cricket out of its misery, writes Anthony Sharwood. Hear hear! http://bit.ly/9OLM07

David Penberthy

@geoffb oh, diddums.

David Penberthy

@Adam_Sims hell yeah. the recent past of australian tennis is in doubt!

David Penberthy

Libs reckon the future of australian tennis is in doubt due to rudd's ETS. They're smoking the same stuff as screaming lord monckton #qt

Gentle jabs to the ribs

US Superbowl: now with ad breaks worth watching

US Superbowl: now with ad breaks worth watching

Usually, when it comes to watching your favourite sport or movie on television, ads are the last thing… Read more

8 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter