The Queen of Ireland

[Jennifer_1]

The Lakeline interview was very interesting. It sounds as though the Plebiscite on marriage equality here in Australia would follow a similar path to the Referendum in Ireland. The campaign brought out some extreme views and beliefs which caused a lot of anguish for the LGBTI Community. I only hope that the Plebiscite is quashed and common sense prevails, (although common sense is not all that common).

One thing that I picked up on was in relation to the question of the Safe Schools program, Panti stated that children are taught what to accept and what to reject, that children are very accepting to start with. I agree with what she said. On a number of occasions I have had relatives say to me, don’t say anything to the children about being Jennifer, it will upset and confuse them. It’s not the kids who get upset, it’s the parents, but they feel justified in blaming their feelings and beliefs on their children. A few years ago my next door neighbours granddaughter, (about 5 years old), approached me and asked, “Jenn, are you a boy or a girl? ” I said, “I’m a girl.” She said, “Right!” And that was it, question answered, all clarified. If only all encounters were that straight forward.

Anyway, the interview did provoke a lot of thoughts and emotions with me, great interview.

[Elizabeth]

In total agreement with you, Jenn; it’s just common sense in the final analysis.

[fiona]

Great interview
The two things that hit me
1 why should the majority decide something for a minority

2 criminals who have done really bad things can get married

Thank you

[Elizabeth]

Fiona,

1. It has always been that way, and sometimes the other way around. That’s why we have to fight for what we think is right.

2. Always been that way, it seems totally unfair, the good folk are to often silent (Germany 1939 – 1945)

[Anonymous]

“It has always been that way”

The interesting thing about the Australian Marriage Act 1961 is that in its original form it did not discriminate, so it has not always been “that way”. The original act did not give a definition of marriage and allowed case law to determine the definition. The act discriminated against same sex marriage union after the amendments made by the Howard government in 1984. Howard wanted the act to provide a definition of marriage because recent family court law had recognised the marriage between a transgender man and a woman as legal and concerns that gay couples adopting children from overseas could also seek to use the family court to rule they were legally married because they were living as a family just like married opposite sex couples, or to put a finer point on it couples who were of the opposite sex when they were born and still are the opposite sex. (oh does that mean a trans man and a trans woman can get married, now I am being naughty, but seriously that is how ridiculous the Howard amendment is and highlights the problem you create when you set out to discriminate against people)

Great article in The Saturday Paper about this:

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2016/09/17/battlelines-drawn-same-sex-marriage-plebiscite/14740344003747

And the Australian Parliament House document on the 1984 Howard amendment gives a good background to the original act and the 1984 amendment.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0405/05bd005

Are we going to active on this issue? If so how?

[Julia]

1984? My memory is not what it was , but wasn’t Hawke still PM then?

[Jennifer_1]

Sara asks a very good question, “Are we going to take action on this issue and if so how?”
I am not a political activist nor am I in a relationship, so as such, the issue is not directly relevant to me. However I do know some people who are currently being affected by this law. I believe that if I do not support my friends and all the others who are being discriminated against, I would be failing in my duty to them. So the question is, what, as a group, can we do or should we do if this unfair and discriminatory plebiscite takes place?

I will be doing whatever I can as an individual, however there is strength in numbers. Should TGR be involved in this form of political activity? Personally I say Yes, however it is a decision that needs to be made as a group.

[Anonymous]

Thank you Julia. My mistake the Howard amendment was 2004. Don’t know how I got that wrong.

[Anonymous]

In The Saturday Paper the journalist refers to Bob Brown’s speech. It was a fantastic speech where he stares down both the LNP and Labor parties.

“There was an SBS Newspoll on this matter quite recently. Rather than this overwhelming majority the Prime Minister talks about, it showed that, with a majority of 44 to 38, people were opposed to same-sex marriages in Australia—but that was with the leader of the country advocating that point of view. I have been around long enough to see the enlightening of times. These are the sorts of figures we used to see with regard to same-sex people not even being allowed to live together only 20 years ago. Now it is 90 per cent to 10 per cent or 80 per cent to 20 per cent. It will be the same with same-sex marriages a little further down the line. If we had leadership of quality in this country—if we had a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition in this country who were prepared to lead on important community values—those figures would turn around and we would see people feeling comfortable with instead of fearful of difference and variety.”

It finishes:
“The legislation will get through and will do untold harm to many people who will suffer the waves of discrimination coming from Capital Hill, wherever they are in Australia. More enlightened times will come, though, and this will be turned around.”

Are the more enlighten times here? The opinions polls say so.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2004-08-12%2F0399%22

[Jennifer_1]

I have just finished reading Bob Brown’s speech. WOW, great speech. I was never a fan of Browns, but maybe I should have been.
In the speech he quotes the PM as saying things such as, “I don’t want to hurt anyone, but……” I have found that when the “but” word is invoked the speaker means the exact opposite.
Also, how big was the sample of people who were “overwhelmingly” in support of the 2004 legislation? The speech quotes 44 to 38, was 82 people the sample for this survey. If so that is a very sad reflection on the decision making ability of Parliament.