Loading ...- Category:
- Letters
- Author:
- Contributor
- Posted:
- Friday, 6 February 2009
RIGHT TO MARRY
Last Sunday I joined two families -” four generations -” in congratulating their grandsons, uncles, brothers and sons on their engagement.
I continue to ask myself why it is that the Australian government refuses to recognise same-sex relationships by denying them the right to marry.
In a world full of senseless war, violence and hatred, everyone, including our government, should be encouraging, embracing and celebrating the love between two people regardless of their gender.
I congratulate Rudd on the recent federal law reform however I’d like to see him take the reforms one step further. I’d ask him to ignore the bigoted views of some Australians (remembering too the separation between church and state) and in the name of equality (and love) allow same-sex couples to marry.
To my boys: I love you and wish you both the greatest happiness in the world.
-” Kellie
GAY LIB FORGOTTEN
By accident I found an issue of Overland in a bookshop remainder area. It had an article by Jeremy Fisher on his time in the gay liberation movement. I sighed with chagrin.
We have a huge ongoing project collecting oral histories which seems to have perversely ignored the gay liberation movement entirely. Instead it interviews drag queens, bar owners and trawls yet again over the hagiography of early Mardi Gras years.
My personal interest is as follows: I was in the Gay Liberation group in Glebe. I was not at the first Mardi Gras parade though I was living with both of its founders in a collective.
My complaint is that bar owners and drag queens did not contribute to the gay liberation environment in Sydney in the mid-1970s, unlike Stonewall in the USA. It was the radical feisty perverse energy of gay liberation gays and lesbians of the 1970s that prepared the ground for the parade movement and our combined efforts against the AIDS epidemic.
To continue to ignore this contribution is to falsify our history. We have the written accounts of the media celebrities from that time: Dennis Altman and Craig Johnston to name but two.
-” Anton
OWNING CANADIANS
Dr Laura Schlessinger is an American radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstances.
The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by an East Coast resident, which was posted on the internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord -” Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness -” Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination -” Lev. 11:10 -” it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -” Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan, Jim
-”Danny
LOST THE PLOT?
Have New Mardi Gras and the NSW Government totally lost the plot?
By contemplating any possible move of the Mardi Gras out to Homebush Bay, this would play directly into the hands of the homophobic do-gooders who would love nothing better than to see this magnificent parade disappear altogether, and die a quick death.
Are the likes of Anzac Day, St Patrick’s Day, and New Year’s celebrations also in the throes of being moved out to the western suburbs of Sydney? I don’t think so!
Sydney’s Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is a street celebration of everything that is good about the gay community, and should never become a mere circus event in a stadium. Moving the location would effectively destroy the biggest money spinner this city has ever had.
Families, straight people, gays and lesbians alike from all over the world come together as one, to this great city to celebrate once a year, in a show of solidarity for the gay community, as is the case in many great cities like London, San Francisco, New York, and Amsterdam. They would never contemplate such a ridiculous notion as holding their parade like that.
Our Mardi Gras is viewed across the globe as the equal if not better than other similar gay parades held, and its marvellous reputation should never be brushed aside by the stroke of a pen.
There can be no justification for any such move of this great parade. Our gay brothers/sisters living out west do so for a number of reasons, but the majority of them gladly enjoy escaping the humdrum of suburbia by coming into the city to take part and witness the biggest celebration this nation sees each year.
Any thoughts of moving the venue out west can only be seen as an OUT OF SIGHT, OUT MIND type exercise. Who in their right mind could support such a move and act of gross stupidity?
Are we meant to keep quiet? And be treated like cattle, herded in to the holding pen (Homebush Bay), just to satisfy the homophobes?
What incentives (if any) are being thrown in the directions of our New Mardi Gras committee, for them to sell us out like this?
Does New Mardi Gras have the balls to stand up and say No, the Mardi Gras parade will forever stay true to its traditional concept and reasons for being in existence.
Remember our brothers and sisters who sadly are no longer with us who had to endure years of hatred, and the principles of why this parade was created for them and future generations of gay and lesbian people in the first place.
To the New Mardi Gras committee -” I would like them to wake up and smell the roses, stand by these wonderful principles for this parade, say No to the evil forces trying to destroy our parade.
To the state government, I say this, get off our back, and give this parade 100 percent true commitment, like you profess to in the Mardi Gras booklet.
-” Marc
EQUAL TREATMENT?
Aristotle wrote, There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of unequals.
The Same-Sex Relationships Act 2008 was intended to provide fair treatment for people who have historically been subjected to discrimination. An unintended impact of removing welfare assistance will be crushing to our most disadvantaged, a third of whom live below the poverty line.
I expect that for those HIV+ pensioners in a relationship, the loss of part of their pension will also nullify their Department of Housing subsidy. Centrelink has said that 12,000 in this state will be affected.
I believe a case does exist for -˜welfare gays’ to be exempted from the -˜de facto’ definition. Monogamous, open or polygamous, our relations do not equate with the hetero paradigm, nor does our place in this culture, despite the gay marriage, -˜acceptance by assimilation’ school of thought.
I am pleased to see that Clover Moore has written a -˜please explain’ letter to Mr. Rudd and I would hope that with a little more community support, a grandfathering clause might be an outcome. Among many who will be affected, there remains a -˜she’ll be right’ attitude.
-” Shayne
AUSTRALIA DAY
Australia Day should be moved to May 27, the day we first recognised Aboriginal equal citizenship rights with constitutional change in 1967.
In the 1967 referendum, 90.77 percent , the biggest majority in the nation’s history, voted in favour of Aboriginals being counted in the census and to be subject to Commonwealth laws, rather than just state laws. Prior to this, Aboriginals were legally flora and fauna.
Every year the issue becomes more divisive because we lack a cohesive national identity. January 26, the day of Phillip’s arrival, is the day we started purposely purloining Aboriginals’ land, culture and identity.
Today, many are outsiders inside their own land and locked into a begging bowl approach to life.
Aboriginals had no reading or writing as we know it before Governor Arthur Phillip arrived. They had no dates. They don’t need dates: they are simply the oldest, living continuous civilisation on earth. They are timeless.
But Australia needs an Australia Day to celebrate our heritage, what we have in common.
Let’s realise the opening line of our national anthem: Australians all, let us rejoice.
-” Andrew
Tags: Letters
February 6th, 2009 @ 9:17 am
Oh dear, not the ‘Dr. Laura’ letter again. I first saw this floating around the internet in 2004.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Dear+Dr+Laura%3A+Thank+you+for+doing+so+much+to+educate+people+regarding+God%E2%80%99s+law.+I+have+learned+a+great+deal+from&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
February 6th, 2009 @ 9:57 am
RE: OWNING CANADIANS
Danny, I think you’ll find this is a slightly amended – albeit longer – version of dialogue spoken by Martin Sheen as President Jed Bartlett from the series The West Wing (Season 2.3 episode: The Midterms). In this instance the President was addressing Dr. Jenna Jacobs, a talk back radio presenter modeled on ‘Dr’ Laura Schlessinger. Do yourself a favour and watch it – great writing and snappy delivery. It carries a real punch!
February 6th, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
Shayne- so basically what you’re saying is that GLBT relationships shouldn’t be treated equally to heterosexual relationships because they’re not?
When African American civil rights leaders fought for desegregation in the South they weren’t fighting to be “assimilated” into white society. They were fighting for integration into a society and institutions that would then belong to everybody.
In the same way, same sex marriage advocates are fighting for integration in Australian society today.
Separate but equal is always wrong- even if the restaurants/buses/drinking fountains are of equal quality and are equally available because they unnecessarily fragment and divide our society- and a house divided will not stand.
Your relationship and the relationships of many other gay men may be different to the average heterosexual relationship- but so are many nonconventional heterosexal relationships. Straights have been having open relationships and partner swapping just as long as we have, yet there are no laws barring marriage for them.
Marriage is an institution that celebrates and declares a particular kind of commitment between two people. If you don’t have or don’t want that kind of commitment then don’t get married. Even people who do believe in marriage should think very carefully before they do.
If we’d been given marriage and not defacto we wouldn’t even have this problem as marriage is an opt in system. Defacto lumps in any couple that’s lived together for more than two years whether they want it or not.
I know you’re so very into segregating the gay community from the rest of Australia, but this should be taken as an opportunity for the gay community and straight people to join together and work to replace defacto with an opt in form of registered partnership for people who want their relationship recognised but don’t believe marriage is right for them.
February 6th, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
Olympic Park would be a much better venue for Mardi Gras, at least then on the night the City would be less crowded and it would be more secure. It is 2009 not 1978 is it not??
February 6th, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
I agree with Andrew. Australia Day should be moved to some other day. M preference is 1st January as that is the day we came together as a nation for the first time. 26 January 1788 marks the day that another nation’s flag was hoist on this land – and that is only part of the reason we are “Australia”, not the whole reason. Approaching Federation in 1901, Western Australia was almost NOT a part of Australia, if that had happened it might’ve been it’s own country, so how is 26 January reflective of us as a nation?
Besides, when NSW finally decides to do the sensible thing and become it’s own country (we really do need to stop carrying the rest of Australia), will the people left in (what’s left of ) Australia still celebrate their national day when the event they are celebrating didn’t even happen in their country?
February 6th, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Andrew, you confuse equity with ‘gay marriage.’ There are many examples of special interest groups for whom special consideration is given by social security. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can rightly access Medicare benefits, ABSTUDY, scholarship schemes, AB Legal aid etc etc not available to others and Affirmative Action discriminates POSITIVELY for women and ethnic minorities etc.
A more concrete example is the Special Assistance Subsidy (SAS)is a rental subsidy paid to people with a disability or HIV/AIDS to ensure that they are not financially disadvantaged while they wait for suitable public housing. People with HIV/AIDS may decide not to wait for an offer of public housing and choose to receive a rental subsidy as their long term housing option. To be eligible to receive the Special Assistance Subsidy you must be diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and meet the priority housing eligibility criteria or have a disability and be approved for priority housing.
It is an example of one form of POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION that is applied to those in need. It is a precedent of a welfare schedule not available to others.
(A few years back, the DoH wanted to revoke the SAS/S and move all HIV pozzies into those dreadful HIV-phobic ghettoes (described by acon as ’secure housing.’) They fought tooth and nail to retain their homes, I know, I led the lobby, and they won. Part of the resolution was for a grandfather clause which exempted all those (360) that were receiving it from any future changes.)
Try and extrapolate that situation to your fellow glbqti who stand to lose or have their income reduced to an impossible rate. Try to remember that the HIV Futures survey found that one in three PLWHA are still living in poverty. Try to see how that precedent for grandfathering, common in every other social security change, is just as right for those who are reliant on welfare assistance such as those receiving the disability support pension, sole parenting payments, concession card benefits, the OAP etc., now.
Couples reliant on welfare,(especially the HIV+ with their extra life expenses incurred with having to pay for ongoing therapies and medications etc.)do NOT enjoy social equality in this culture and it is a mark of our civilisation that is recognised and ameliorated by special provision. Unfortunatel the many examples I give of just how UNEQUAL we are have been editted from my letter. I had suggested years ago that a special provision be made in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) to allow for the uniqueness of the glbqti situation. “Grandfathering” is a second best option yet even that is argued against by those selfish enough to question why the disadvantaged should have something that they can’t have – even if it is only a few crumbs.
The simple fact is that while our advantaged celebrate relationship reforms, 12,000 in this state dare not register or even overtly declare their relationship, they are the victims of this community’s apathy and callousness. Nor can they expect any help from the Commonwealth Street oligarchy that has consistently shown it doesn’t give a tinker’s toss about them.
The reasons that many of our disadvantaged share accommodation include considerations such as physical security, help in case of a fall and the high costs of renting alone. They are much more important considerations than entering into a -œmarriage-like relationship. They do care for each other, but the last thing they see themselves as “married” and are desperately seeking ways to be “unmarried”.
Your ambit forces our low income and disadvantaged (notably the HIV+, yes) to to PAY for other’s equality. Social Security changes have always contained grandparenting provisions. The current OA pension for women was phased in over twenty years.
I think it’s terribly sad that we have become a culture that fosters a polarisation marked by extreme misfortune and poverty on the one hand, and great advantage on the other. Brunch money for some of us is a week’s food for others. I would have hoped that at this historic time of equity reform, we could have related to each other in a manner that affords dignity, inclusiveness, respect and due process for the common good of all.
February 7th, 2009 @ 7:14 am
Let me tell you here and now ….no Queen is going to travel way out west for MARDI GRAS.
And in regards to John saying Australia Day should be moved from the 26th Jan to the 1st Jan …No Australian wants to lose a PUBLIC HOLIDAY, by moving it to the 1st we hard working Aussies lose a holiday….I THINK NOT !!! LOL
February 7th, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
A grandfather clause for ‘welfare gays’ certainly is a “second best option” (Shayne, Letters 5/2). A compassionate welfare system should fairly safeguard ALL disadvantaged people (elderly, chronically ill, etc) in proportion to need, not sexuality .
A blunt exemption of current GLBTQ welfare recipients from assessment of their relationship status would effectively create a “gay pension” exclusively for existing ‘welfare gays’. This would compromise the ability of the welfare system to properly apportion resources according to genuine demonstrated need. It would create unfair financial and procedural inconsistencies within that group (not all of whom are equally disadvantaged), as well as between new GLBTQ welfare applicants and existing GLBTQ welfare applicants, as well as preserve existing inconsistencies between heterosexual folk (including those among them who are HIV+ and/or elderly) and their GLBTQ counterparts. It would also fail to address the more substantive causes of disadvantage that are common to the most needy (gay, straight, or otherwise). That is hardly fair, reasonable and proportionate.
A rising tide lifts all boats. If the procedures Centrelink may use to assesses relationship status are of concern, it would be kinder and fairer to call for changing those, to the benefit of all disadvantaged not just ‘welfare gays’. If an excessive reduction in welfare payments to the most needy is a growing concern, it would be kinder and fairer to call for the raising of the base rate of these welfare payments ACROSS THE BOARD, which is surely the right and better thing to do in these current uncertain economic times, to the benefit of all disadvantaged not just ‘welfare gays’.
I agree that something needs to be done to improve the welfare system so that it is fairer to the most disadvantaged – ALL of them. It is a shame that some adherents of a piecemeal grandfather clause cling to it so tenaciously, preferring to deride equality supporters while studiously ignoring that there are better solutions to this situation which preserve equality, are consistent AND fair.
February 7th, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Shayne, none of that distracts from your ongoing attempts to paint people who believe in marriage equality as a bunch of assimilationist quislings.
An intrinsic part of true equity is everyone being able to access all of the rights and social institutions available to everyone else.
Why not be honest- you don’t want GLBT people marrying because it runs contrary to your ideologically framed idea of what it means to be gay and how GLBT people should live their lives.
February 7th, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
Australia day should be taken out completely! Why? because its become a Racist Day! Proud to be Australian? Gays excluded.
February 8th, 2009 @ 12:05 am
“A compassionate welfare system should fairly safeguard ALL disadvantaged people (elderly, chronically ill, etc) in proportion to need, not sexuality .” Brendan?
The ‘grandfather clause’ to which we are referring, applies only to those 12,000 glbqti that will be affected by the changes to same-sex couples where one or both are reliant on welfare, Brendan, it has no relevance to heterosexuals and I have no idea why you are unable to understand that. The issue is one of saving those ‘welfare gays’, many of whom already live in poverty due to their HIV status.
A rising tide does indeed lift all boats. But that is not equitable treatment (as Aristotle wrote, -œThere is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of unequals.).
Andrew, I repeat, you confuse the equity reforms with -˜gay marriage.’ Gay marriage is not an issue here, whatever my own views on it. The concern is for those in need who stand to lose life support. Gay marriage has never been the issue.
But for the record, my ideologically framed idea of what it means to be gay and how GLBT people should live their lives” includes all the wonderful diversity that comprise this community, but not, perhaps, those that manipulate and exploit it to their own benefit.
February 8th, 2009 @ 11:20 am
“Gay marriage is not an issue here”
Fine, then how about you avoid attacking its supporters when discussing this issue in future.
Our unpaid equality advocates asked for a lot of other things we didn’t get from the Government in this reform package- it was the politicians who decided what would be included and what wouldn’t. Blame them.
February 8th, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
“The -˜grandfather clause’ to which we are referring, applies only to those 12,000 glbqti that will be affected by the changes to same-sex couples where one or both are reliant on welfare, Brendan, it has no relevance to heterosexuals and I have no idea why you are unable to understand that.”
But surely Shayne, the ‘grandfather clause’ to which you are referring would enshrine the current ability of a same-sex couple to receive more in welfare benefits than a comparable heterosexual couple – so it does affect heterosexual couples.
One side-effect of the Labor Government legislation is that same-sex couples who choose to have their relationship recognised will no longer be able to utilise the loop-hole in the welfare system that allowed each to receive a ’singles welfare payment’ rather than get paid as a couple.
Unfortunately, that is equality.
The bigger issue of whether such benefits are sufficient to live on – in particular if you have a serious medical condition, whether that be HIV, Dementia, MS or Osteo-athritis (as examples) – should be the argument. If not, then as others have suggested the fight to government should be to increase the welfare payments for all – not just same-sex couples.
February 8th, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
I fully agree with Brendan of Wollongong. If we have a problem with Centrelink unfairly treating people who are in de facto relationships, then we should seek broad-based reform of the welfare system. However, such reforms cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Treating elderly same-sex couples as “single” so that they are advantaged by Centrelink, while denying the same option to opposite-sex couples, is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We need to remember that there are lots of opposite-sex couples out there who are disadvantaged by Centrelink’s means tests and reductions in payments for people living in a couple relationship.
Introducing a grandfather clause may merely be discrimination against an “advantaged majority”, a form of “affirmative action”, but that does not make it right, and neither does it reconcile with the philosophical basis behind LGBT equality.
February 9th, 2009 @ 9:12 am
I agree that there are inequities for others under the Centrelink rules, Rob. (For example, a single-income, two-parent family earning a certain amount will receive child-related benefits that a two-income, two-parent family with the same number of children and income does not.) However, the suggestion that we should change the Commonwealth Social Security Act is probably a bit of a wide target when my concern is for 12,000 glbqti. Maybe we could also lobby to end cholera and depose Mugabe in Zimbabwe or to decamp the illegal settlers and end the blockades in Gaza too? In political lobbying, the idea is to aim to achieve the possible. (Besides, I’m currently recovering from six months intensive chemotherapy, so I might not have the health to change the world right now.)
What I am proposing is simple and austere notion. That with the kind of support shown by Clover Moore in her missive to the PM, this community might end the worry of 12,000 fellow glbqti who are wondering how they’ll put bread on the table after July. When I spoke with the Attorney General while he was in opposition, he said that he favoured a phasing-in period of 5 to six years for these people to ‘make adjustments.’ They have six months, it’s an extraordinary and unique unfairness in terms of Social Security changes. I’ve given precedents of other benefits only available to certain ‘welfare gays’, and examples of many kinds of positive discriminations afforded to minorities. I began arguing that case years ago when I could see this coming. But so long as that idea is obstructed by apathy and recalcitrance, I doubt very much if it has much chance of success.
Andrew, with the utmost humility, may I say I know a little about ‘unpaid equality advocates’. When I first came to this town, alone, at age 14, this community took me in and became my family. In the decades since I’ve been involved in dozens of campaigns for basic gay (and human) rights. Often I came into conflict with those with an “All I See I Own” attitude to community, or those who thought their was some spurious status in climbing over others, like creatures crawling out of the primordial swamps to gain some position of advantage. The appalling politicization of the community lobby against homophobic violence was a good example of how such people can work against community. Many of those lobbies have been at considerable personal cost, not just financially. None of them were about the individual, but about the glbqti ‘family.’ I guess we just have different ideas about what ‘community’ means.
February 9th, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Lets keep Australia Day on January 26. It is what is, the good, the great and sometimes the shameful…our nation’s history.
But lets also add another day, one that can be shared with indigenous Australians.
(Love to see it between Queens B’day and Labour Day – it’s a long 3 months without a break)
February 9th, 2009 @ 11:45 am
Your singular concern is only for 12,000 existing welfare gays, Shayne? You don’t care about welfare heteros and new welfare gays living in equivalent circumstances of disadvantage? For all your “simple and austere” notions, you sure do insinuate some very limited constructs of community at times.
It would be bad public policy to subject all 12,000 welfare gays in Australia to the rights of equality (eg. a more generous MediCare safety net) but few or none of the responsibilities (eg. recognition of relationship status by the welfare system). Your frank admission makes this self-evident: a grandfather clause is blunt (ie. does not assess actual need on case-by-case basis) and exclusive (ie. only applies to existing welfare gays). This will create inequities for new welfare gays. It may preserve inequities between existing welfare gays who are genuinely disadvantaged and ones who aren’t (by equally entitling them; remember Aristotle?). It will preserve inequities for all welfare heteros who have had to comply with relationship assessments all along.
It’s odd that Shayne so flippantly dismiss the idea of reforming welfare legislation/regulations, as implementing a grandfather clause requires the very same. Whereas his altogether ignoring the idea of raising welfare payments across the board won’t alter the case that this would clearly be the better response to this situation. At this critical time, when the welfare system very much needs to move forward with fairness for all and has the opportunity to do so, an isolationist ’small target’ approach seems quite ethically and strategically wrong.
GetUp [ http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/EconomicFairness&id=508?dc=627,93486,3 ] and The Greens [ http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/turnbulls-stimulus-gamble/2009/02/07/1233423559411.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 ] are calling for more assistance to those who lose their jobs during the global financial crisis. Lobbying for an increase to welfare payments at the same time would be a perfect tie-in. The economic mantra for these times is ’spend’. On welfare, the Rudd government is “open to suggestions” [ http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2009/01/26/2474242.htm ].
February 9th, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
Here’s an idea, Brendan, instead of your eristic armchair polemicising, go to http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/EconomicFairness&id=508?dc=627,93486,3 or http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/turnbulls-stimulus-gamble/2009/02/07/1233423559411.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 or http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2009/01/26/2474242.htm and click something.
To paraphrase our PM (who still hasn’t responded to Ms. Moore’s letter, btw.), “I would say … get out of the road of those who getting on with the job.”
February 9th, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Thanks for that glib vapid response, Shayne. It added so much to the running debate on how to uplift all disadvantaged Australians.
What job are you getting on with exactly? Dividing the gay community over your narcissistic rejection of marriage equality? Good for you, mate.
February 9th, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
I discussed the Autralia Day issue with my aging migrant father the other day and asked him what day it should be.
His reply “Friday”.
Now you may think he sees Australia Day as just another public holiday (like some on here complaining they’ll lose a public holiday or wanting a public holiday where there is a long run without one), but my father is a retired pensioner and one day is just the same as the next for him.
But even in his humour, my father has made an interesting statement about how important celebrating your nation is.
It isn’t just another day off, and it should include ALL people who are a part of that nation. And even more, we should be celebrating all the good things our country has to offer as often as possible.
Even every Friday….
February 9th, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
OMG, welfare is handed out like candy these days. So wheres mine? Where are my rewards in life for actually going out there every day and working? and they call it a “Gay community?”
February 9th, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
“Narcissistic rejection of marriage equality?” LOL. I give up, Bren mate. You and Andrew are unable to understand that the changes to welfare relief for same-sex couples has nothing to do with ‘marriage’ and I’m tired of saying the same thing over and over.
The 58.08 campaign was concerned with reforming inequities in 58 areas of Australian law for same sex couples, and great news that it succeeded. Not marriage. Inadvertently, the disadvantaged in our community became victims of it. That is the issue to be ameliorated.
On marriage, ex-federal Attorney-General and sometime feral, Philip Ruddock introduced the Marriage Amendment Bill in 2004. It passed the House of Representatives in June 2004. On August 13, the Senate passed the amendment by 38 votes to 6. The bill subsequently received royal assent, becoming the Marriage Amendment Act 2004. Gay marriage is not legal in this country.
The changes to the income of 12,000 welfare-dependent glbqti have nothing to do with the marriage act, no matter how many times you rabbit on about it. Thank you both.
February 10th, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
Shayne, you brought it into this- “I believe a case does exist for -˜welfare gays’ to be exempted from the -˜de facto’ definition. Monogamous, open or polygamous, our relations do not equate with the hetero paradigm, nor does our place in this culture, despite the gay marriage, -˜acceptance by assimilation’ school of thought.”
In fact you bring the marriage debate into this issue almost every time you join a discussion on it- for example, from last year:
“Gay Pension Threat” shayne said, November 8th, 2008 @ 11:45 am “Also, some of us have been saying for years that adding the straighty-potatie ritual of marriage to the list of demands would mean disadvantage for an awful lot of our marginalised.”
People will stop “rabbiting on about it” when you stop bringing it up.
February 10th, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Thank you Andrew. However my asides from two days ago were a reflection of my own view of the concept of ‘gay marriage,’ it was never suggested that was relevant to the matter of ‘welfare gays’ losing their support, specifically in terms of the government’s legislation. That is the focus, not the ‘gay marriage’ lobby which is the only reference that you and Brendan have made in your last half dozen posts.
But as you raise the issue so often, I’d say that politically, the push for gay marriage rights will be an uphill one because that (and perhaps education) are the last bastions of power that the church has over the state.
I have to sometimes wonder at the value of such media and forums as this. Some of the correspondents remind me of graffitists, people with limited competence but much ambition to make their mark on the world.
February 10th, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
Shayne, you claim that “Inadvertently, the disadvantaged in our community became victims of it” when referring to the legislation that removed discrimination against same-sex couples, yet you provide no argument as to why same-sex couples deserve special treatment – after all, that is what you are seeking.
Why do same-sex “disadvantaged couples” deserve special treatement and receive greater welfare payments than an equivalent heterosexual couple – after all that is what you are asking for?
February 10th, 2009 @ 11:47 pm
Shayne, do you never blush at your own evasive sophistry?
The only reason anyone has rabbited on about gay marriage is because you and your ilk spuriously pointed a niggardly finger of blame at marriage equality supporters for supposedly causing disadvantage to welfare gays.
Rodney Croome (http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2875_0_1_0_C) rightly singles out that divisive ideological underbelly to which snide classist comments by yourself and others across various fora have clearly subscribed (http://sxnews.e-p.net.au/letters-to-the-editor/unease-over-pension-changes-2-4818.html).
It’s great to hear, however, that at last the message has sunk in for you, that you finally get it: this issue has nothing to do with gay marriage nor your dim personal view of it, and that marriage equality supporters are undeserving of the past smears that you made against them. Thank you indeed.
February 11th, 2009 @ 10:17 am
To recap, Rob, I have given many examples of ’special advantage’ afforded to certain groups, such as our indigenes and other ethic minorities or women, under the Affirmative Action policies, and also many precedents of grandfathering of changes to social security payments, like the 20 year phasing-in of the change to the age for women retiring.
I’ve given examples of precedents for special benefits available only to the HIV+, like the SAS/S scheme, most of whom, let’s face it, are gay men – and pointed out that the loss of their social security payments will likely also mean the loss of that rental support.
You’ll have also read arguments by others of the unfairness of our elderly being outted or otherwise punished fiscally by these new reforms. I’ve also pointed out that our HIV+ have special needs due to the additional expense of medications and ongoing treatments; I’m sure you understand that the loss of their DSP would mean they can no longer access PBS rates and would most likely be unable to afford such meds.
As I have already stated, these columns seem to be peppered with correspondents whose only purpose is to bitch and snipe. I’m not wasting my energy on them further, in a few month’s time when many of our needy are on the street, and acon is busy redecorating the rumpus room and the penthouse again…they’ll still be here sniping at someone in the belief that that somehow comprises ‘activism’.
But I would point out finally that I do believe it is a mark of a civilzation how we care for our marginalised and disadvantaged, not the least because it embraces the benefits of diversity in all levels of society, and redresses the disadvantages of overt, institutional and homophobic discrimination.
February 14th, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
I totally agree that “it is a mark of a civilisation how we care for our marginalised and disadvantaged”, Shayne. That’s why I’ve consistently argued for improving the lot of ALL disadvantaged at this most critical time – not just a subset of ‘welfare gays’.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree on what would make better public policy and a better social outcome. But what cannot be faulted is your passion and genuine concern for those you know are suffering or are likely to suffer if absolutely nothing is done, so kudos to you.
February 22nd, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
Postscript:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/30-pay-increase-for-pensioners-20090221-8e8w.html?page=-1
Kerry-Anne Wash
Sydney Morning Herald
22 February 2009
SINGLE aged pensioners are in for a pay boost of about $30 a week in the May budget as the Government prepares to accept the findings of a review that criticises the current payment as inadequate.
Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin told The Sun-Herald yesterday the Government was committed in the budget to addressing the adequacy of the pension.
“The Government gave a down payment to pensioners in December, when we paid the $1400 for singles and $2100 for couples, because we really do understand how difficult it is for pensioners.
“We’re serious about fixing this.”
[...]
Council on the Ageing NSW President Kath Brewster said she hoped the Government would not react to the Harmer report with “reflex and short-term solutions”.
The council will reject as inadequate any recommendation for just $30 a week extra for single aged pensioners, and will instead push for a lift of about $100 a week for singles. Anything less did not consider the multitude of research undertaken into the real cost of living in retirement, Ms Brewster said. “We should not allow the current financial crisis to deflect us from the reform agenda. The task is to design a viable system of adequate pension entitlements as a genuine pillar of Australia’s retirement income system.”
The Harmer review has also scrutinised the level of support payments for carers and those on disability pensions.
[...]