Fewer rallies, more community engagement for marriage fairness

Fewer rallies, more community engagement for marriage fairness

Rodney CroomeTHIS week is the most momentous in the history of the Australian marriage equality movement.

Yesterday the High Court heard the case for and against the ACT’s Marriage Equality Act. On Saturday, as the court won’t deliver its a verdict until 12 December, the first same-sex marriages will take place on Australian soil.

But this important and potentially very happy week has been overshadowed by recent rallies for marriage equality.

A banner at a recent Brisbane marriage equality rally attracted criticism for depicting Tony Abbott hanging by a rainbow noose, as has deliberate provocation of police by organisers of a similar rally in Perth. They came after controversy about a poster for a marriage equality rally in Sydney earlier this year that abused Tony Abbott.

All of these actions are deplorable, and not just because they show a remarkable lack of civility.

They drive away the people who most need to hear the marriage equality message, including suburban and regional Australians, the elderly and people of faith. They launch an unfair, partisan attack on the very people who will get marriage equality over the line – Coalition politicians whose belief in fairness and family make them potentially strong supporters.

They send the message that the marriage equality movement is about conflict and hate when it is actually about love and respect.

They give the impression that the future of marriage equality is frustrating and bleak when growing support means there’s every reason to be optimistic.

But ultimately, it’s not helpful to dwell on the handful of counterproductive and unrepresentative acts. A better response to recent events is to consider what actually works to promote reform and how supporters of marriage equality can demonstrate their support more constructively.

This year’s marriage equality community gatherings in Manly, organised by Nathan Thomas, James Argent and their friends, are a great example of what we should be doing around the nation.

Nathan Thomas and James Argent's Manly Marriage Equality rally was more about engagement than protesting according to Rodney Croome
Nathan Thomas and James Argent’s Manly Marriage Equality rally was more about engagement than protesting according to Rodney Croome

The Manly community engagement were in Tony Abbott’s electorate and sought to persuade him to change his mind. They did this in a way which was respectful and optimistic, which brought together people from all walks of life and reached out to non-engaged citizens rather than driving them away.

The same ethos pervaded a series of marriage equality family barbecues in Tasmanian towns like Launceston, Ulverstone and Latrobe over the last 12 months. They brought diverse community members together, including parents, politicians, clergy, young families and older residents in an atmosphere that was festive and relaxed. The message from these barbecues was not just that marriage equality was important but that support for it was mainstream.

Most of all, these events were important because they provided a safe and supportive place for personal stories about marriage equality to be aired.

We know from the experience that such stories are critical to achieving marriage equality. Some of the most important personal stories in the marriage equality campaign emerged first at small, local events where there was the requisite time, space and calm for them to be properly spoken and heard.

I’m not saying rallies aren’t important.

In the early years of the marriage equality movement annual rallies were held on August 13 to commemorate the day in 2004 when the Marriage Act was amended to explicitly ban same-sex marriages. These rallies were organised by broad-based community action groups, drew thousands of people and inspired those who attended.

Now is the time to revisit that kind of annual day of action and to ensure it is owned by and representative of all the different voices supporting reform. It is also a good time to recognise that rallies aren’t enough.

The growing diversity among supporters of marriage equality means there needs to be equally diverse public events to highlight this support. Whether it’s a fun run, a fundraising dinner, a sausage sizzle or a march down main street, there are a number of ways to peacefully and respectfully show your support for marriage quality and educate others about its importance.

If you have an idea for a marriage equality event contact Australian Marriage Equality and we will do all we can to help out, including putting you in touch with other people interested in marriage equality.

You May Also Like

13 responses to “Fewer rallies, more community engagement for marriage fairness”

  1. hey rodney;
    I dont have to follow any of your 5 principles above
    I pay for me in this world; oz will not pay me a cent in pension/not a cent in child support/whatever you retards get to keep your retarded babies…….. i dont get….. i pay for the welfare state that eastern aussie has become
    I am seeking my records from centerlink to pay back with interest anything paid to me when i went through a period of unemployment some 35 years ago.
    thinking of that now disgusts me..its a disgrace to have to hold your hand out to take money to accept anything from other people…
    the point “Pride”
    yeah thats right self righteous pride oz hasn’t given me anything and i hate its guts, i hate multiculturalism i hate the fact that my taxes pay for faggots and dykes to bring up kids with that rubbish going on around them

    to be allowed to have children to that is disgusting
    let me tell you about my 5 principles
    1. pay for yourself in this world dont accept anything from anybody or any govt.
    2. if you done the above, your beholding to nobody , you dont have to follow anyone because they say this has changed or that has changed..
    nothing has changed…you should say my opinion has not changed!
    3.you have a natural right to hatred…..to preach hatred against what you hate….to say what you have to say without fear…
    “i hate your guts you faggot bastard” “die of some new disease ”
    4.there is no love in this world….i dont love you ive never met you
    i feel no compunction to love you…the fact that you are a homo does not register with me ..thats your problem dont share that with me keep that to yourself dont tell my society… i will look upon you as a weakling defective..
    5.it is right to fear the unnatural.. same sex attraction is that…something has gone wrong genetically
    so keep that shit away from me and from this ever more becoming weak country
    you have a right to hate .. you have a right to preach hatred

    i

  2. The real issue here seems to be the rules of engagement. There are some principles to be upheld in our long march to equality and safety and both sides have breached them. Here are some that need to be revisited from the old days.
    1. We have a right to be angry
    2. Our actions and words are non-violent (no hate speech)
    3. All have a right to be heard and understood (no group or elite class purporting to speak for us)
    4. We act through consensus (exhausting discussions until that is reached)
    5. Visibility is the most powerful tool in the face of oppression. It expresses faith in the goodness of the majority of our fellow citizens.

    The first thing in claiming a right for ourselves is to assert it applies universally – even to our enemies like Abbott. Hate speech directed at him wins nothing though saying we are angry is being legitimately visible. On the other hand Rodney Croome’s powerful voice and position maybe suppressing other’s legitimate anger and outrage. All need to be heard. I used to make fun of workshops in the old days but a well facilitated one might bring some hearing and understanding and consensus on action.

  3. i am opposed to this my reason ..the children
    look at those in the above photo..
    where are their biological parents?
    they must be what 7 or 8 they must be thinking what community do i belong too?
    who knows what they are thinking…but is that natural? to have two people the same sex……
    was it ever natural? natural meaning of “nature ”

    there is no “nature” in same sex thats a human conflagration
    not a natural one…and thats reflected in the eyes of the children in the photo…they are confused..

    i am allowed to give my opinion here i am allowed to hate
    just as you are allowed to wave your filthy banners and lobby your filthy gay poli’s
    so in parting
    it is natural to hate the unnatural..the defective of ones own species ..its a species survival instinct older than recorded time
    so i am allowed to say i hate your filthy gay guts and i teach my children the same…dont tell us what to think of what to print to say its ok its not ok its a precursor to immoral ambiguity in a country already divided by multiculturalism
    a reading of “germany abolishes itself” leads any thinking human to the same conclusion
    as the makers of south park once said you cant be married “you can be butt buddies”

  4. Rodney your insights are amazing. Until reading this article I believed it was the actually the Liberal Party’s fault for changing the marriage act to excluded same sex partners. Now I realize its the protesters fault.

    Its the protesters fault Rudd/Gilard maintained the discrimination.
    Its the protesters fault Abbott has done the same and is actively moving against ACT victory.

    Lucky we have you to remind us how the protesters are problem and that Abbott is just a future ally.

  5. The point here is not whether the tactics used have been helpful.

    I find it incredibly audacious to assume the right to not only “own” the injustice but attempt to dictate how it should be righted. As a campaigner of many years, Rodney, I would expect more of you than presuming to know

    * the nature of another’s oppression
    * the level of anger they should feel
    * the tactics/words/demonstrations they should use to express that anger
    * the general intelligence level of the “public” and their supposed inability to understand satire/symbolism/anything beyond the words ‘marriage equality.’

    It shows “a remarkable lack of civility” to sit in closed-door meetings with the very folk who have spent the last ten years using every tool at their disposal to prevent the inclusion of the LGBTI community in our Federal Marriage Act. After deliberately changing it. Specifically members of this government.

    I find it “unrepresentative” that AME saw fit to make a tweak to the most recent bill, amending ‘marriage equality’ to ‘same-sex marriage’ before Parliament, thus excluding our trans and intersex brothers and sisters. At their own personal discretion.

    This line is good -“If you have an idea for a marriage equality event contact Australian Marriage Equality and we will do all we can to help out, including putting you in touch with other people interested in marriage equality.” Yeah. Provided you share our views/thoughts/social standing/dichotomy precisely.

    But seriously mate, that’s your choice, if that’s how you want to be an activist, I’m certainly not going to campaign against your right to do so. I simply ask that you afford other members of the ‘community’ you claim to be a part of the same courtesy.

    Great, cheers.

  6. No one, denied their civil rights, has ever won them by politely asking for them. The flimsy justification that our politicians use to deny basic rights to the LGBTI does not deserve any respect or consideration, it needs to be exposed for the rotten bigotry it is. It is entirely correct to be angry and to demand that this injustice be corrected. Being meek and apologetic only validates the anti-equality stance.

  7. Another rightwing delusional article by Rodney Croome, attempting to push his conservative rightwing agenda. If Stonewall or the very first Sydney Mardi Gras happened today, no doubt Croome would be running around condemning those who stood up for their rights. Why? Because of “their remarkable lack of civility” and no doubt what he would deem “unrepresentative acts”. Imagine Harvey Milk and all the campaigners who fought for our rights in the past that they should not have taken to the streets to demand our rights. If Croombe had done this he would have been laughed at (as he should be now, in my opinion)

    As for the claim that rallies and a few controversial shirts or banners will drive away people, oh dear, poor Rodney! Won’t someone hand him (and those supporting his right wing nonsense) some the smelling salts!

    The fact is that the majority of Australians support Equal Marriage Rights and they are not suddenly going to abandon such a position just because someone where a tshirt with colourful language or because of a silly banner.

    Croome is simply trying to drive a wedge into the Same Sex Marriage campaign because he wants to spend his time lobbying homophobes, such as Tony Abbott, who have made it categorically clear that they will not support Equal Marriage Rights. It is a fool’s errand and Croome is the fool, if he thinks that if he is all sugar and spice that suddenly Abbott will change his mind.

    History has shown that the only thing that changes public policy is direct action on the streets – including in relation to LGBTI rights. Croome may have the loudest voice (and I still can’t work out why for the life of me) but it doesn’t mean his strategy has anything to offer our struggle.

  8. Deliberate provocation of Police? We were informed that anyone who marched was liable to be arrested, and the police presence was stronger and much more intimidating than has been seen in years. While marching we as usual attracted a crowd of interested onlookers, and there could be heard chants of “Join the rally,” hardly an attempt to drive away people who need to hear the equality message.

  9. My partner and I did a day trip to Sydney just to join the march and rally when the federal Labor conference was on. I think we’d be reluctant to attend another if we thought that it would be used as an anti-Abbott focused event. I’m very anti-Abbott, but suddenly making the cause about the current PM personally when previous Labor PMs haven’t been supportive lays the cause open to accusations of party-political motivation.

  10. Wise words however a bit of civil disobedience wiith creativity would be welcome

    I miss some fun rabble rousing of old school that achieved real change

    In the U.S.A hlitter bombing is popular amongst conservative politicians

    Would that be a better alternative and more acceptable? ?

    • Helen, I think not. Unless you are a fan of pointless, juvenile, undergraduate type protests that achieve nothing. Oh and “glitter bombing” is arguably assault. I think I’d rather defer to a successful activist’s advices (ie Rodney Croome). I suspect his advice would be far more useful :)

  11. A great article by Rodney Croome. He has done so much for LGBTI rights over the years. Thank you Rodney for your words of wisdom yet again.