Friday, August 06, 2004

Roxon's justification for betrayal

-----Original Message-----

From: Hall, Katie (N. Roxon, MP) [mailto:Katie.Hall@aph.gov.au]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 5:20 PM
Subject: Thank you for your inquiry

Thank you for your inquiry with regard to same-sex marriage and recent debates in the Parliament.

As you are aware, the Howard Government continues to try to make gay marriage a central issue in its re-election strategy. Debate has gone back and forth and there are now two Bills before the Parliament that deal with gay marriage.

On the 4th August the Prime Minister announced that he intends to bring back into the Senate the Government's second Marriage Bill (the one that deals only with the definition of marriage and a prohibition on foreign same-sex marriages, but not adoption) sometime in this current sitting fortnight.

Labor has said from the beginning of this debate that we wonÂ’t support gay marriage so, although we did not see the need for the Government to bring this matter before the Parliament, if and when it does, we will be voting in line with our stated position. This will effectively confirm the current common law definition of marriage in Australia as being between a man and a woman.

You might be aware that the original Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill (which includes references to inter-country same-sex adoption) was referred to a Senate Committee. We understand that there were many thousands of submissions received by the closing date of 30 July. Thank you if you took the time to make a submission.

From those submissions forwarded to our office it appears they were overwhelmingly in favour of the legislation. The submissions will still be scrutinised by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee over the next few months, with a reporting date of 7 October.

Labor expects that recommendations from the Senate Committee will report on a range of issues affecting the gay and lesbian community and will be useful as part of our reform plans if we are in Government after the next election.

Labor understands that some people in the gay and lesbian community would like to see marriage laws changed to allow them to marry. However, there is still a lot of opposition in the broader community and many others simply do not want to see gay marriage prioritised over other legislative reforms.

Labor has a strong commitment to the introduction of anti-discrimination legislation based on sexuality and laws to protect from harassment and vilification. We have developed a policy and made a commitment to remove discriminatory provisions from Commonwealth legislation (except the Marriage Act) on the basis of sexuality and thereby deliver the equivalent recognition for same sex couples as for heterosexual de factos. This will occur through a full audit of all Commonwealth legislation to identify where such provisions exist, and a subsequent process of amending all relevant legislation. This may involve hundreds of amendments in areas such as superannuation, taxation and social security payments and so on.

By focussing only on the Howard Government's agenda of gay marriage, it appears that the only debate in the community is on this issue, and Labor's commitment to many other same-sex reforms is overlooked.

I am sure you are aware that the extensive reforms committed to by the Labor Party can only be implemented if a Labor Government is elected, and it is all too clear there will be no same-sex reforms at all if the Howard Government is returned to office.

I hope this clarifies Labor'’s position for you.

Yours sincerely



Nicola Roxon MP
Labor's Shadow Attorney-General
And on behalf of Federal Labor Leader Mark Latham MP

AND MY RESPONSE

This is the hairdressers answer - you're just splitting hairs.

In the first place there is nothing to be lost by allowing the courts to decide the matter, as it is their function to protect minorities like us from the tyranny of the majority you represent, and they should be free to exercise it. It is tyranny to remove from legal purview any law, especially those pertaining to civil and human rights.

In the second place you could easily move in the same way as you have over the free trade agreement, e.g., bring forward your own amendment which could, for example, create civil unions identical to marriage but missing only the name - if you had the will and leadership capacity.

As far as the submissions to the enquiry are concerned, sheer quantity is no substitute for quality. Many of the arguments contained in those documents may well be irrelevant, specious, erroneous or otherwise invalid, as indeed are most of yours below. Only the committee can decide the relative weight of the evidence, and they should be left to do so.

The fact that there are two marriage amendment bills, one with and one without adoption, is merely a political ploy on the part of the Prime Minister and you are complicit in it. The two marriage bills are identical.

Labor has said repeatedly that it is favor of gay and lesbian equality: equality means EXACTLY equal treatment in all laws, regulations etc. in every walk of life. Justice is blindfolded, she cannot see the age, wealth, gender or sexuality of these pleading for her intervention. There can be no law applying to gays and lesbians that does not apply equally to heterosexuals, and vice versa. That is equality and it is to that you made your commitment.

This amendment will enshrine gay and lesbian INEQUALITY - you are therefore morally obliged to vote it down, or resign your position and make way for someone capable of courage, leadership and integrity.


What I should also have said is this: the quickest, easiest, fairest and most honest way to enshrine equal righs for lesbians and gays at a stroke is to legalise gay marriage - why else do the Christian Taliban oppose it?

No comments: