This blog will close shortly - I am now blogging at http://www.rainbowreporter.com/.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
One angle I didn't go into is the way the Australian census counts - or doesn't count - sexually non-mainstream individuals and relationships. That's a whole other issue.
But the basic point remains - unless we're adequately counted we won't be adequately provided for. And we won't be adequately counted until people are honest about heir sexuality when he census man comes calling.
And in answer to some critics, that's why backing people like Ken Campagnolo is important. As a community we have to be prepared to put our money where our mouth is and support people who pay the price for being open about their sexuality.
I headlined this piece with one cliche - let me end with another.
It's all connected.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
When I made my declaration he confessed himself bewildered. I don't understand you at all, he said, confessing to a slight sexual frisson when confronted with an especially handsome bodybuilder, and a one-night stand with a truckie who once gave him a lift, but otherwise no gay inclinations at all.
That's because when it comes to sex, I said, I'm a man from the waist down and a woman from the neck up.
The New Scientist now tells me I had it right.
"in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood,
anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the
opposite sex," they say.
Not that I've ever wanted to BE a woman, you understand - I've always enjoyed being male and can't imagine myself any other way.
Of course, there will now be another argument about nature versus nurture. One side will say our brains were born this way, the other side will point to the evidence that brains change according to what you teach them.
The bit of the brain concerned with mapping and directions is bigger than normal in London cabbies, for example. Nuns with Alzheimers seem to stay sane and don't lose their marbles - they just their mental functions into those parts of their brains that still work. It's called brain plasticity.
My first love would have agreed. He enthusiastically road-tested women who he then passed on to me, suitably primed as to their task, hoping they could reprogram my sexuality.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Well thank goodness for that - thanks to him, Laws and Price have finally been brought to book for their comments about Gav & Waz from The Block - five years later
Let's hope they learned their lesson. . . . . . . .
Apologies for the delay in getting this transcribed, but as Glen Milne quoted from it in The Australian today, I thought I'd better post it now!!
An interview with Shadow Attorney General George Brandis
The Rainbow Report, Thursday June 5, 2008 – 7-8pm, Joy 94.9
DP: Doug Pollard: Executive Producer/Presenter, The Rainbow Report
PD: Pete Dillon, Producer, John Faine, ABC Radio
RW: Richard Watts, Editor,
GB: Senator George Brandis, Shadow Attorney General
DP: Why has the coalition decided, after originally saying they’d give bipartisan support to this, why has the coalition suddenly decided to throw on the brakes for a while?
GB: We haven’t decided to do that at all, and I really find it very offensive that the suggestion is being made that that is what we’re doing. Let’s remember what the coalition’s position is. First of all, the coalition supports the bill in principle. Secondly, last night the coalition voted for the bill in the House of Representatives. Thirdly, when the bill comes to the senate, it will be referred to a senate enquiry.
That is absolutely routine, particularly with a complex piece of legislation as this is. You know, people are, in a way that frankly I think is dishonest, are misrepresenting the coalitions position by saying even though the coalition is supporting the bill, even though the coalition voted in favour of the bill in the house of representatives last night, because the bill is going to a senate committee, an utterly commonplace procedure, the coalition is somehow seeking to delay the bill.
DP: Well, is this likely to take the process of approving the bill beyond the end of the financial year, or is it likely to be cleared in time to meet the governments timetable?
GB: I think it likely, because the bill we’re speaking of now is going to be considered in conjunction with the larger omnibus bill which hasn’t been introduced yet, that it will go beyond the first of July, yes.
DP: Can we look at some at some of the specific things raised by some members of your party during the debate. There’s some confusion I think in people’s minds about exactly what interdependency means . . .
GB: Well, could I ask, before we go to those specifics, and I’m very happy to answer those specifics, can I make a more general point.
GB: There are many many people in the coalition, in both the Liberal party and the National party, who have been urging this course for years. For years and years and years. And I think if I may say so with respect, it’s a little unfair of you to play speeches like that from Mr Perrett which we heard with the very eloquent sentiments he expressed, but not play speeches by people like Petro Georgiou, extracts from speeches by people like Christopher Pyne, or indeed the speech of Dr Nelson himself, which were just as glowing and moving in their affirmation of the rights of gay people to equal treatment . . . .
PD: Senator, with all due respect, I want to take you up on that point. We’re very well aware, as second class citizens, from a government of eleven years, how we sit with people like Petro Georgiou, who have constantly displayed an understanding of social justice. When you’ve got somebody like Donna Vale, who is a member of your team, questioning the very idea that what this is going to do is create equality, I have to ask, clearly there’s not full support from your team for the fact that this is going to bring us a little closer to equality.
GB: Well so it should, I mean, for God’s sake, I’ve spent years of my political life advancing this very cause, and many many many people in the coalition have done the same and it’s a matter of regret to me that it wasn’t done years ago, in fact well before the time of the Howard government, why it wasn’t done at an earlier time, decades ago, at the time the anti-discrimination laws were put on the statute book. But that’s not the point, the point is that you well know that both in the coalition and for that matter in the Labor Party here are very conservative people who have a different view from you and me.
PD: But why, as elected members of our parliament, why should those views be expressed and not those of their constituents?
GB: Well I think that the views they express, views that I don’t share, are views that are held by many of their constituents. And that’s my point. Any group seeking to be treated. . .to be the beneficiary of a law reform which is overdue, as this is, has nevertheless got to confront the fact that in a democracy there is going to be a body of conservative opinion, and those people are entitled to the expression of their views as well.
DP: Senator, with the greatest of respect I entirely agree with you there, and it’s certainly true that many members of your party, including yourself, have fought for these kind of things for a long time, but the point is that your party as a whole is not going down the direction where you and Petro Georgiou are going, your party is going down a different route. Your party is going down the route of trying to equate our relationships with interdependent relationships rather than accepting them as the equivalent of de facto relationships.
GB: Can I tell you that when I was formulating the Opposition’s position in relation to this issue, I consulted widely, I consulted with conservative groups, I consulted with church groups, I consulted with family organizations and I also consulted with the gay community. I consulted with the gay and lesbian rights lobby, I consulted with the gay and lesbian business association in
DP: Senator, nobody minds if you extend the reach of the legislation to include interdependent relationships, I think what people worry about is, there seems to be a move afoot, in listening to the speeches that were made yesterday, to bundle up same-sex relationships in with interdependent relationships, rather than in with de facto relationships.
GB: Ah, I think, er, that might be what, that might be a fair interpretation of a couple of those speeches, I’m not saying it’s not, but you know, I’ve got the running of this in the senate, not anyone who spoke in that debate last night.
DP: Right. You mentioned that this is likely now to run on until September or beyond. . .
GB: Well I didn’t say September or beyond but I should say in all fairness and candour, I wouldn’t be surprised if it did, because most of the law reform is going to be found in the omnibus bill because that apparently deals with, as I’m advised by the Attorney Generals office, about 60 or 70 different acts, the bill before the parliament now deals with nine.
DP: Well, OK, if I could just quote from John Challis of ComSuper, he said he was looking forward to these measures passing because then he could finally die knowing his partner was provided for. That could happen between now and September. Will you give a commitment on behalf of the coalition that if these changes take so long to go through you will backdate them to, say, June 30th?
GB: I’m not in a position to give that commitment because no such decision has been made by the coalition, but to give you some comfort though, can I point out that that suggestion was made in the house of representatives last night by Malcolm Turnbull, and it is an issue which we have in contemplation, but we haven’t actually made a decision along those lines. And I know that Malcolm had a talk to the Attorney General Robert McClelland about that after he spoke.
RW: Given that you’ve said you’ll have the running of this in the senate . . . .
GB:….from the Opposition point of view….
RW: ….can we have a commitment from you that you do recognize and equate same-sex couples with de facto couples rather than lumping us in with interdependency?
GB: Well, I approach this in the basis that same-sex couples and de facto heterosexual couples ought to be treated equivalently. Now, having said that, I’m not going to give a commitment to a particular linguistic usage, because one of the purpose we’re going to have the senate enquiry is to see what the appropriate way is of dealing with the entitlements of these different groups, so that we can also extend the entitlements to interdependent relationships of a different character. But my own approach to this has always been not to regard there as being a moral or ethical distinction between a same-sex couple and a heterosexual de facto couple.
DP: Senator, we’ve had quite a few SMS messages in from listeners, I wonder if I could put a couple of those questions to you. This one’s from Matthew, “I’ve been working in the federal public service for three years now, I joined coming from the South Australian public service where they recognize same-sex couples for public sector superannuation, and so I’ve lost out and so has my partner I making the move to the federal public service, that’s among the reasons why I’m going back to South Australia. Why is the coalition refusing to fix this anomaly, or is it because really deep down you think the federal pubic service shouldn’t include gay employees?”
GB: Well, that’s a silly observation, and I don’t doubt that the person who sent you that text message feels very hurt about unequal treatment and they should feel hurt because it’s unfair that people should be treated unequally, but can I tell you, this is merely a question of timing. If the government had produced this legislation three months ago then it would probably be through by now.
PD: Senator, again with all due respect, your government had eleven years to produce a similar piece of legislation.
GB: …and can I tell you I think we should have, just as I think the Labor government before the Howard government should have, or the Liberal government before that government should have done, se we are in the closing weeks and months of this very very long campaign, that has been run by people on both sides of politics, and I think it is, with all due respect, a little mean spirited to suggest ill-intention on the part of the coalition in wanting to get this right.
DP: Well this is certainly the perception of quite a lot of our listeners.
GB: I think it is probably the perception of quite a lot of your listeners, because they’ve only heard one side of the story, the side of the story that suggests this is a delaying tactic.
PD: So you’re now accusing our community of being ignorant as well?
GB: Did I say that?
PD: You’re saying that we don’t read the Age, that we don’t listen to Parliament, that none of us can pick up Hansard and read it…
GB: Did I say that your community is ignorant?
PD: Well you’ve said that we’re only hearing one side of the argument – that’s an unfair comment senator.
GB: I think only one side of the argument has dominated this. It’s a very simple point! A really simple point. Is referring a complex piece of legislation to a senate committee, an utterly commonplace thing to do, a delaying tactic?
DP: But isn’t it true, senator, that’s there’s already a house standing committee on family, community, housing and youth that’s looking into some of these issues, particularly support for carers?
GB: Well with all due respect to house of representatives committees, these sorts of bills are always bills that are looked at by senate committees, that’s what senate committees do, that’s the great thing about the senate, its committee system, and I think most of your listeners would be aware of that.
DP: One question from a listener here : “Perhaps one way forward to financial equality would be to remove partner benefits altogether for all relationships and in that fashion everybody would be in the same boat that same sex couples have been rowing all these years.”
GB: Well I don’t think anybody’s suggesting that. I think the way to go forward and what I would like to see is people in same sex relationships face no form of discrimination in relation to their financial, taxation, superannuation affairs whatever, and that’s our objective, and I accept in good faith that it’s the government’s objective too.
PD: Senator, I’d just like to draw your attention to the amendment put by Brendan Nelson, the leader of the opposition, which amongst other things said, “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of marriage to Australian society.” Could you answer me and our listeners really really simply how a change in a piece of legislation regarding superannuation will in any way question or challenge of chip away at the institution of marriage?
GB: I don’t think it will, But you’ve got to understand why an amendment like that was moved.
PD: No, I don’t understand, that’s why I’m asking you.
GB: Well I’ve already given you a direct answer. But can I explain why an amendment like that was moved? Because there are many people in the community who do have that concern, who d have a concern that legislation like this will erode the status of marriage. Now I am not one of those people. I don’t think it will. But I think people who do have that concern are entitled to be reassured about what the oppositions position is.
DP: What it seems to say to us is, we want to continue to enshrine, as a pinnacle of Australian society, a discriminatory institution, marriage.
GB: Well this gets into a different argument, and that is the argument about whether or not same-sex relationships should be treated as the equivalent of marriages, and I don’t believe they should, that’s not the oppositions position, you’ve got to . . . well you don’t have to . . . but I would think that the traditional and cultural centrality of marriage in all human civilization has been recognized to be a relationship between a man and a woman, that’s not a discriminatory thing to say, it’s not a particularly radical thing to say, far from it, it’s been the situation with marriage in one form or another throughout the entire recorded human history. And can I say this, to you as well. If you want to lose this argument, if you want to get the more conservative elements of the community right offside, then elaborate this into an argument about gay marriage.
DP: Oh yes. And it was very clear from what everyone said yesterday – no gay marriage, no gay IVF, no gay surrogacy – was very firmly placed off limits, at least for now.
The article, by Glen Milne, articulates the fix Brendan Nelson has got himself into with regards to same-sex equality, and in particular superannuation.
On the one hand, he personally doesn't have a problem with it, but on the other hand he owes his leadership to the arse-end of Howardite right-wingers, who think that to even mention 'gay' in the same breath as 'equality' means an instant epidemic of men in drag galloping down the aisles of every parish church.
So instead of telling them to shut up, sit down, and stop being so dense, Nelson displays his lack of fitness to lead by appeasing them, which is never a good idea.
The interview with Senator Brandis does display the split in the Liberal ranks very clearly, with Brandis at some pains to point out that he didn't agree with what some of the more rabid members of the party were spouting during the debate.
He spent a lot of time trying to establish how wonderfully pro-gay the Liberals had been in the past (but not during the last 11 years) and in the states (but not in Canberra), and how he personally (but not his colleagues) had supported the gay community.
In fact he rather dismissed the troglodyte faux-Christian faction, saying HE was in charge of steering this matter in the Senate, not them, implying that it was just a matter of allowing them to have a say but that in the end they didn't count. I wonder if any of them have heard it?
They can check out the post I made at the time and download the interview for the full story, any time!
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Reports say that initial estimates of 70% hotel occupancy rates during the event have been scaled back to no more than 30%, and now the church has backed away from a commitment to pay for any damage to Hyde Park.
The church is refusing to pay a $150,000 upfront bond for use of the park, saying the state government should be responsible.
Mayor Clover Moore said if they don't pay the bond they won't be allowed to use the park.
She told the Sydney Morning Herald, "The City supports the event, but not at the expense of our most famous park. WYD organisers have applied to install structures in many parts of Hyde Park, some of which will be in place from June 20 to August 1. There is no question that many of the grassed areas of Hyde Park will need to be re-turfed after this event but now, just weeks before it's due to start, organisers are backing down on a commitment to fully fund the cost of restoring Hyde Park to its pre-WYD condition."
Moore said that overall the event would cost the city $2.2m.
Friday, June 13, 2008
My what a period piece we are, stylus on the gramophone and a kitsch eighties band theme!
Never mind - it's radiothon time again, and with Joy 94.9 looking healthier than ever before in it's history, with amazing new studios in the heart of the city, a new members mag and bags of enthusiasm - why not bring on the City Village People!!
We want you, we want you, we want you as a new recruit - er, sorry, got a bit carried away there.
Do you realise that Joy is UNIQUE? There isn't another 24/7/365 gay and lesbian radio station IN THE WORLD!!!
That's amazing! And all of it supported by sponsors, members and volunteers.
Did you know that the government severely restricts the amount of airtime we can sell to sponsors? That means most of the day-to-day costs of running the station depend on the money we get from members and donors.
What do you get for your money? Well, most importantly (as far as I'm concerned, but then I'm biased) you get me and The Rainbow Report - an hour of GLBTI news and current affairs once a week (the station also throws in a whole load of other stuff - music programs, programs for yoof and programs for old, for trannies, women - but that's just the icing on the cake.)
And you know what? You get me - and all the other stuff - for just18 cents a day - less if you join as a family. What else can you get for 18 cents a day that's half so much fun, so informative, so very, very you?
Oh, and you also get HEAPS of prizes every day during the radiothon and the chance of MORE prizes every day of the year. But you don't care about that, do you?
Tax time is almost here so remember, you can get a tax deduction for every $2+ you donate to Joy.
Call the station NOW on +61 (0)3 9699 2949 and sign up - or renew. Not due for renewal yet? Fear not - we'll tack a year onto the end of your existing membership.
+61 (0)3 9699 2949
Thursday, June 12, 2008
How to grow old - wonderfully!! Outspoken, arrogant, trenchant, angry, probably the greatest gay man alive today, Vidal rips into George W and his would-be replacement Senator John 'Mr Magoo' McCain. Scary, wonderful stuff. There'll never be another like him.
The Rainbow Report, tonight at 7pm on Joy 94.9FM, streaming live at www.joy.org.au - newsw and current affairs with a queer slant.
Join me live tonight as we look at fundraising fatigue in
There’s also a lack of support for World Youth Day, with organizers fearing the Pope won’t have a big a crowd as he likes, so to help things along, plans are afoot for an Alternative World Youth Day. And even more sad news for ex-Sydneysiders – Golds Gym is closing.
Bnews editor Daren Pope counters with all the latest in
The British Foreign Office has issued a gay toolkit to all its embassies around the world, outlining how they can help promote gay and lesbian rights. I’ll be asking the British Vice Consul what his plans are to encourage gay rights in
And as the Liberals dither over whether to support same-sex super equality or not, we’ve a report from
All that and more on the Rainbow Report, tonight at 7pm on Joy 94.9FM, streaming live at www.joy.org.au.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Speaking last Thursday on the Rainbow Report on Joy Melbourne 94.9, Shadow Attorney General George Brandis confirmed that the Senate enquiry into equalising superannuation for same sex couples would not be over in a couple of days and the bill would not pass in time to come into effect at the start of the new financial year.
The MP3 file is here Rainbow Report Brandis Interview (15Mb).
You can download the whole show, which also includes an interview on the same subject with Sen. Kerry Nettle here (55Mb).
Sen. Brandis also refused to give any guarantees that the Liberal party would support the backdating of any changes to the start of the financial year.
He said the Coalition would wait for the Omnibus Bill, which will amend other pieces of legislation identified by HREOC and the Attorney-General's office as discriminating against gays and lesbians, and consider the two bills together.
This means reform will likely be delayed at least until September.
He denied this was a delaying tactic, saying the profound changes proposed meant the bills could not be allowed to proceed without thorough scrutiny.
He distanced himself from the more extreme comments made during the House debate on the same sex bill, such as those of Stuart Robert and Donna Vale, reminding listeners of his record on supporting gay rights. He said that while he respected their views, he will be the one piloting these measures through the Senate on the Coalition's behalf.
The Rainbow Report - News & Current Affairs with a queer slant. Joy Melbourne 94.9, every Thursday 7-8pm, streaming live at www.joy.org.au, hosted by yours truly, Doug Pollard.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
From: Sally Goldner
Your contribution can keep a voice for pansexuality (including issues of transgender, bisexual and generally knowing no boundaries of sex or gender) on the air – and keep people alive.
No way, you say? One transgender listener was feeling very low and tuned in one day. She realized she was not alone – and is still here to talk about it. 3 CR and Out of the Pan can make that much difference.*
Out of the Pan has to raise $500 as part of 3 CR’s target of $210,000. So your contribution can make a difference. Donations of $2 or more are tax deductible.
On a personal note, I love presenting the program. I have fun preparing and presenting it. It informs people about issues with a viewpoint not likely to be heard anywhere else. And let’s remember that great range of pansexual music…knowing no boundaries of sex, gender or genre (alright, play whatever I feel like on the day!)
So donate now. Remember to put "Out of the Pan" in the box "I would like my gift to support the following 3CR program/s" if using online or write it on the downloadable donation form.
Thanks for your support.
*This is no exaggeration. Happy to send the email to anyone who wants it (including the person’s permission to be quoted).
Out of the Pan, 3 CR 855 AM www.3cr.org.au Sunday, noon to 1 PM AEST
Monday, June 09, 2008
"Ever since encountering Annie Proulx's extraordinary story I have
wanted to make an opera on it, and it gives me great joy that Gerard
Mortier and New York City Opera have given me the opportunity to do
so," said Charles Wuorinen was commissioned to
write the work.
Senior Sergeant Joy Lynette Murphy - Australian Police Medal
Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Unit - Diamond Creek
Victoria Police Media Unit
Sunday, June 08, 2008
What's that you say, Mrs Robinson - the wife of Northern Ireland's new First Minister, Peter Robinson - that homosexuality is "disgusting, nauseous, loathsome, shamefully wicked and vile"?
You won't meet us because, "I do not need to put my hand into the fire to know I will get burned."
But she would like us all to meet this 'lovely' Christian psychiatrist she knows who can turn us straight.
Wow! Simon & Garfunkel were right! Heaven holds a place for those who pray! Hey, hey, hey!
But you know what? I'd rather have Mrs. Robinson's upfront honesty than all the mealy-mouthed claptrap slithering out of the mouths of some Australian Liberals right now.
So here's to you, Mrs. Robinson, Jesus loves you more than you will know for exposing the true feelings behind all those terribly nice-sounding lies about 'loving the sinner but hating the sin'.
Or as the Liberals say, we're not homophobic and we support equality, BUT........... don't expect us to actually vote for anything remotely resembling fair and equal treatment any time soon.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Koninginnedag, as it's called, is also very, very gay, as the city shuts up shop for the day, the streets and canalsides fill with market stalls, the bars stay open all night, people dress up (mainly in orange) and everyone has fun.
Not so much fun this year for a couple of gay models taking part in a fashion parade, allegedly beaten up by a bunch of Muslim youths.
It's the latest in a series of assaults in the once-tolerant city that was my home for a number of years. Mind you, Dutch 'tolerance' is not quite what you may imagine it to be.
When I lived there, no-one would try in any way to prevent you from being and acting as gay as a goose, but having granted you that licence, anti-gay Amsterdammers always felt free to loudly carp, criticise and insult you for being gay, and you were expected to take it on the chin.
The same principle allowed you to carp, criticise, insult and argue back.
It wasn't the polite English version of tolerance, where 'we don't discuss politics or religion at the dinner table, thank you' - but once you got used to it, it was quite fun. Though you did need to grow a considerably thicker skin.
That wouldn't be enough nowadays, it seems.
Now you need body armour.
Friday, June 06, 2008
“Oh, not so bad, you know. Keeping busy with the redecorations.”
“Well, it makes sense for me to do that, I’m glad you asked me. After all, I do have the experience.”
“Listen, Barry, I was thinking. We’re still not doing too well in the Southern states. You know, I hate to say this, but they still haven’t 'cottoned on' to the idea of a black man as President. But I think I see a way to get them onside.”
“Let’s swing through the south, play up the Kennedy thing, give ‘em a real guilt trip – you know, do a motorcade through
“No, no need to thank me Barry, we’re a team, right? I mean, that’s what Veeps are for, watching the President's back, making sure he's on target, you know.”
“How’s your diary – you free for lunch?”
“Bill? No, he’s out of town right now. Some property deal he’s working on. Checking out a book depository someplace. But I’m sure he’s thinking of you.”
“OK see you at lunch. And Barry, can we leave Michelle out of this one, please? I do not want another fight about the Oval Office curtains. See ya!”
The ABC reports that the rights of New South Wales children with lesbian parents have been expanded under laws passed by the State Government, clearing the way for children from lesbian couples to inherit
money from their non-birth parent and receive workers' compensation on
behalf of their non-birth parent.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
It’s time to bring sex back into the conversation, says Doug Pollard, writing in MCV.
I’m bored with talking about marriage. I’d rather talk about sex. Sex, after all, is what it’s all about.
But the success of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission enquiry into discrimination against same-sex couples came because the Commission focused on equality, sidestepping sex altogether. Likewise, the Tasmanian relationships recognition system increased its acceptability by creating near-parity between the sexual partnerships of same-sex couples, and cohabiting elderly siblings, long-term carers and their charges, and other non-sexual pairings.
Warren Entsch, in the days when he was trying to get the Liberal Party to be sensible over same-sex rights, also downplayed the sex.
“Irrespective of ... the gender balance in any relationship, I can assure you that after five or 10 years in that relationship, sex tends to take a back seat,” he said.
Even the Catholic Church has no problem with intense, even passionate friendships between two people of the same sex, so long as it doesn’t involve any ‘homogenital’ behaviour.
It seems as if the only way gays and lesbians can get any rights in this supposedly modern, progressive 21st century country is if we don’t mention sex at all, or brush it aside as something we’ll get over in a few years time.
It’s amazing that we’ve managed to do this, given the tabloid image of gay men as wildly promiscuous shagabouts who love to screw in public and parade down city streets in spangly frocks or with our arses hanging out of leather chaps.
But the moment we put sex back on the agenda – by demanding the right to marry – all hell broke loose. Because marriage is all about sex. It’s about two people deciding to make a public commitment to have sex with each other – and no one else - for the rest of their lives.
Sex is the essence of the institution. You cannot enter into a marriage with the intention of having an open relationship, or a relationship with a time limit. Never mind that straights do it all the time – it’s what makes marriage unlike any other partnership arrangement.
Those conditions are there to try to ensure that the couple’s children will be biologically theirs, and that they will take responsibility for any offspring that result until they are capable of looking after themselves.
None of this is necessarily relevant to same-sex couples, which is why many, on both sides of the debate, think that marriage is inappropriate for us. And nowadays, heterosexuals frequently don’t keep the rules themselves, which makes their opposition to our getting hitched rather hypocritical.
Hell broke loose because letting same-sex couples marry means everyone has to think about two men having sex (they seem to mind two women having sex rather less).
Politicians who support same-sex recognition are deluged with crackpot letters full of disgusting fantasies of gay male sex that say far more about the writers than they say about us – ask Warren Entsch.
Emma Tom, a journalist with The Australian, wrote: “As someone who has written frequently on gay rights, I have been astounded at the x-rated content of the hate mail that invariably arrives in response. I’ve run some of these anal-rific missives past gay friends who’ve blushingly admitted that the florid boy-on-boy scenarios dreamed up by homophobes are a far cry from the relatively mundane reality of their day-to-day sex lives.”
Emails I’ve received in the past combined grudging support for ‘you disgusting perverts’ to have your relationship recognized if it ‘stops you spreading AIDS’; with trenchant opposition to parenting rights, because ‘you rich poofs’ only want to ‘buy or breed up babies to abuse’.
Only the crackpots say it in public, but it’s the unspoken nightmare that poisons the minds of our opponents. Because everyone ‘knows’ gay man = sex obsessed = paedophile, don’t they?
Well, frankly, a few are. So are some straights. But when one woman abuses and kills children – see Myra Hindley or Rosemary West – no-one jumps to the conclusion that all women are potential child abusers and killers. They ask: what went wrong with that individual? Whereas when one man does likewise, the tabloids scream ‘keep these gay monsters away from our kids’.
My father always used to say, ‘Listen carefully to what people accuse you of. If it bears no relation to the facts, they’re probably accusing you of what they would do, if they dared.’
So when these foam-at-the-mouth types start up, they’re railing against their own secret desires, not mine.
I said earlier that people have less of a problem with the idea of two women having sex (indeed it’s practically compulsory these days for pop stars and actresses); perhaps because, in the absence of a penis, they think it isn’t ‘real sex’. (I know this annoys all my lesbian friends, but in this instance, dicklessness is an advantage.)
People also have less of a problem with two women wanting to have children, because women are assumed to be maternal. No danger of child abuse (Rosemary and
I reckon that a major factor is the omnipresence of girl-on-girl action in straight porn, and in mainstream TV shows, too. Familiarity has made lesbian sex unthreatening; even slightly passé.
We need to desensitize people to gay male sex too. Dr Who and Torchwood’s Captain Jack have blazed the trail, but to make a real impact, we need lots of boy-boy smooching in Neighbours and Home and Away; two-man tangos on Dancing With The Stars; Shane Crawford and Tim Campbell crooning together on It Takes Two – well, it’s only acting, isn’t it?
Forget Mardi Gras; it’s expected there. We need to revive the public kiss-in at big mainstream events, starting with World Youth Day in
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Gay rights are far from accepted in Latvia, which makes the action of British Ambassador Richard Moon all the more significant.
Ambassadors from the UK, Holland, Sweden and Denmark attended Pride events.
The UK Foreign Secretary is considering a request from Green MEP Carolyn Lucas, that all British embasies and consulates should fly the rainbow flag whenever a city has a Pride day.