Gay Rights

I have a challenge for Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott – when my Marriage Equality Bill comes before Parliament today, I dare you to resist the urge to control … sorry, kill debate by insisting Senators toe the party line.

Show some leadership instead, and let the members of your parties have the courage of their convictions by giving them a conscience vote.

Until the Australian people can see their representatives talk freely and vote honestly on the issue, they have no idea how far away they are from living in a nation where equality is truly valued.

Continue reading "Man up, Kev and Tony, have a free vote on equal marriage" »

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.

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.

Continue reading "We’ve come so far on gay rights but it’s not enough" »

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, although drafted by Lord Macaulay, speaks with the coyness of Queen Victoria.

It states: “Unnatural Offences – Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life …”

A law directed against homosexual acts dared not use words like “buggery” or “sodomy”.

The euphemism of “carnal intercourse against the law of nature” was necessary and the Courts were required to fill in the missing spaces.

Over the years, the Courts of India confirmed that any form of sexual penetration other than vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman was “against the order of nature”.

On the second of this month, two judges of the High Court of Delhi declared that s.377 was unconstitutional.

The Chief Justice, Ajit Prakesh Shah, and Justice Muralidhar held that the law would now only apply to non-consensual acts and acts where a party to the act was younger than 18 years of age.

Continue reading "Only now is it legal to be gay in India" »