Letters to the Editor
BE VERY AFRAID
Same-sex relationship reforms to the Social Security Act may sound good but they will be disastrous for some. Next July the lives of many in the community will change dramatically. Centrelink beneficiaries will be forced to declare their homosexual relationships.
Couples disclosing their homosexuality, where each received a benefit, will have their payments reduced.
The situation is more drastic for couples where one person is working. People receiving disability support pension and age pension now, who have brought some independent means to their relationships over perhaps years or decades, will be driven into partial or total financial dependency on their partners perhaps for the first time.
The dependency will be total as these individuals also lose all secondary entitlements (such as travel concessions, disability employment programs or the Program of Appliances for People with Disability to name a few).
While high earners may cope with this change in the dynamic of their relationship, low income earners may see their collective income halved, moving them further into the working poor, and a choice between poverty together or ending the relationship. The partner’s income level at which age pension begins to reduce is very low. Centrelink has an online benefit rate calculator. If you are affected by these reforms I encourage you to use the calculator.
It doesn’t matter how you might have structured your assets and income over the years when our relationships were not legal. None of your existing commitments, say, loan repayments, high medical or disability costs, the support of an adult child at university, the costs of caring for dying friends or an ageing parent will matter or be considered in this assessment of your income.
And that’s not all the working partner has in store for them. Centrelink surveillance of their earnings and assets: I have worked hard, despite my own disability, to be independent for so many years and to countenance a forced relationship with Centrelink, at this stage of my life, makes me contemplate suicide.
Other groups in the community are vulnerable. Former lovers who live together as friends, just long-term friends are vulnerable. Gay men or lesbians or queers who share accommodation, you could have the Centrelink dogs sniffing around you, going through your affairs.
If you are likely to be affected or if you’re unsure, you might reconsider how much information or images about your homosexual relationships you have in the public domain at the moment, such as on Facebook or Flickr. You might consider also closing joint accounts in share houses, even if they are useful for shopping and shared utilities. They may be used against you.
Intelligence reports that the usual consultants are faking consultation with the GLBTQ community and trawling for the right spin. Think carefully about cooperating with these parasites. If you do, use a false name.
Many aspects of this remind me of the Northern Territory intervention, particularly the relationship between the controlling of income and sexual and social behaviour. I foresee many relationships ending. It’s going to get very much harder for GLBTQ people with disabilities who are on income support to find partners and form relationships. That’s very hard in our community already.
At this stage at our house it looks like we’re going to have to separate, which after 30 years is fucking sad. The back door criminalisation of our relationships is the ultimate irony, particularly after the decades-long fight against the ideology of compulsory heterosexuality.
To the bourgeois gay men and lesbians who have championed these reforms, all shame on you. The blood will be on your hands too.
-” David, Sydney
SO LONG
We were saddened to learn of the death of Marie Fisher on November 16 (SSO 945). Marie was a longtime supporter of SPAIDS Memorial Groves and had attended the AIDS tree plantings from the very first ones in 1994.
She also represented various lesbian, gay and transgender groups at ADB Consultations and was a friendly presence at so many community events.
We shall miss seeing you, Marie, at the 2009 AIDS planting. We shall plant a tree especially for you.
-” Mannie and Ken, Sydney Park AIDS Memorial Groves.
CIVIL LIBERTIES
It is truly bizarre that there are some homosexual people expressing, at the very least, glib indifference towards the concept of gay marriage.
It is an important rights issue for many reasons, not the least of which is the fundamental importance of a formal recognition of a same-sex union by the state, in whatever form that takes.
Homosexual people must be given the choice. Let me tell you one important reason why.
A few years ago my long-term partner passed away quite suddenly. We cohabited for many years, were joint proprietors of our primary residence, and had other vested assets. Following his passing, there was literally an onslaught of contention from his family regarding the substantial assets he left behind. Of course, they did not perceive our relationship to be a real one.
Dealing with his death was bad enough. But to then have to prove our relationship with numerous statutory declarations from close friends, certified copies of things such as water bills etc, was a truly undignified and upsetting experience. One simple marriage certificate would have taken care of all that.
Changes to the Marriage Act may not even be necessary. The implementation of an all-encompassing Civil Union Act, however, which formally recognises a union regardless of the gender a person identifies, is a very important rights issue, not just for homosexual people, but for transgender and intersex individuals who may not necessarily identify with a particular sex.
This is not an issue of gay liberation, but one of civil liberties, and should be supported by everyone.
-” Darron, Footscray, Vic
DOUBLE STANDARD
Just how mean is it that gay couples are recognised by the federal government as a couple so that their Centrelink payments can be reduced, but not recognised as a couple if they just want to be married?
For shame, Rudd, for perpetuating this nasty, unjust double standard.
-” norrie mAy-welby, Redfern
BEAT USERS
It is always the same.
As soon as anything related to beats appears in the media the more prissy members of the gay community announce that they are embarrassed, ashamed, disgusted by people who use beats … and invariably say that if people want beats they should use sex-on-premises venues and of course, consequently show their utter ignorance of both types of venue.
Bluntly, telling a beat user to use a SOPV in preference to a beat is like telling someone who wants a pub that the golf club has a bar. They simply aren’t the same thing. Period.
I walk past a park. Maybe I see someone I like. We click. Maybe we have sex there. Maybe we go home together. That, dear people, is freedom. Me, under the sky. Being me.
I go to a sex-on-premises venue. What is that? Some guy has paid the straight community for the right to run a kind of lucky dip. I go to the place, I pay cash, usually between five and 17 dollars, to go into a black stinky hole and just perhaps, meet someone and have sex with them in a little dark box like a rat. That is if there is even anyone else in the damn place to start with … and do I get a refund if that happens?
Get real. It is a lucky dip, and the owner doesn’t even have to provide a prize. Is it any wonder that SOPV owners are rich? And usually straight? And well connected?
Sure. Beats are dangerous. They are dangerous not because there is anything wrong with gay people, but because society penalises beat users by legal, economic and criminal means, because, get this … society simply does not like gay people.
Shocking, isn’t it?
When I read the mealy-mouthed rubbish in the gay press that amounts to if we can pretend to be more like straight people then maybe they will like us, all I see is a bunch of credulous twerps announcing that they think that wearing a pink triangle and having the right identity papers is fitting in.
Hell. People like that belong in sex-on-premises venues.
-” Alex, Surry Hills
WEAK LAWS
RE : Anti-discrimination push goes national (SSO 944).
It would be wonderful for the GLBT community to achieve uniformity in anti-discrimination laws but an absolute disaster to follow NSW AG Hatzistergos’ suggestion that the rest of Australia should adopt the NSW model or its legislation.
In most respects NSW has the worst and weakest set of anti-discrimination laws, largely due to Hatzistergos himself. The 1999 NSW Law Reform Commission reported on reform of these laws including proposals to remove the unjustified exemptions for religious organisations and educational authorities to perpetuate discrimination against the GLBT community. The Labor Government, ( Hatzistergos in particular) rejected these recommendations -” almost all of the LRC’s significant proposals remain unacted upon.
By contrast most other jurisdictions (apart from SA) have taken steps to modernise their anti-discrimination laws and nearly all limit religious-based discrimination exemptions.
The claims by Hatzistergos that NSW laws are one of the strongest, that adopting them would not involve winding back any protections are simply false -” in every respect. His failure to address the key recommendations of the LRC report [and] failure to address religious-based exemptions which perpetuate discrimination against the GLBT community are matters of public record.
That Federal Commissioner Innes (an outstanding supporter of the GLBT community) clearly does not endorse the NSW model speaks volumes -” he knows the truth.
If we really want to advance the cause of removing discrimination against the GLBT community, we would press for the adoption of the Tasmanian model and a complete rejection of the nonsensical claims that NSW can teach the rest of the country anything in this area of public policy.
-” Chris Puplick, NSW Anti-Discrimination Commissioner 1994-2003
DEAR PREMIER
Dear Mr Rees,
I’ve noticed, as I’m sure you have too, the turbulent economic times we are living in. The talk of recession, or worse, depression, seems to be getting louder and louder, and with consumer confidence plummeting, it’s difficult to see how we’ll avoid it.
Comrade Rudd has been going on about handouts and bailouts and the War on Recession. He just wants us to spend more money to lift Australia out of the doldrums. I’ve noticed that you’ve had your fair share of troubles too, what with the $900m deficit, and so on. Well, Mr Rees, have I got the ticket for you.
You may remember, back when you were just the Minister for Toongabbie, that same-sex marriage ban that Howard forced on the gays and lesbians. Well, in light of the fact that Comrade Rudd is unlikely to overturn that, it falls to the states to implement a state-based civil union partnership scheme. I know that Mr Hatzistergos has dealt with this before, but let’s look at it this way.
NSW is in $900m deficit. Rudd wants us to spend more. Imagine if NSW implemented the first state-based civil union scheme. It would be an instant vote winner with the gay community, and given our reputation with the pink dollar, why not capitalise on that?
If NSW were the only state with one in place, people from all over Australia would flock here to get their civil union. That means money, people. Not just the license, but catering, floristry, the works. It’s not like gays and lesbians would suddenly become stingy once they were granted the right to be recognised as a legal couple. And remember, with our divorce rate, at least a third would likely be divorcing within two years, meaning more dollars into the system. Who gets that $3000 Armani jacket?
Of course, you’d make sure that priests and rabbis and such who refused to legally bind these people wishing to do so under the scheme weren’t sacked or whatever as a result. I can respect that. It’s their religion and their belief. Just so long as they respect the fact that gays andlesbians can still legally bind together in a civil ceremony. If it’s a state-based affair, and not a religious one, I can’t see what their objection would be.
So, I ask you, not just as a part of the gay and lesbian community, but as a New South Welshman and an Australian citizen to grant us the right of legal civil union recognition. Not just for the gays and lesbians, but for all of us in this great country. To inject some much needed cash into the NSW and Australian economies is a win-win for all of us.
-” James, East Hills
WALK FOR AIDS
As a gay man living with HIV/AIDS I would like to thank the organisers of the walk [Walk for AIDS], the sponsors, the generous donors (those who were not able to be there but made a donation), the volunteers, the invited guests and, most of all, those people who turned up despite the rain to walk.
The number was pitifully few. It is sad to reflect how many members of the community can drag (no pun intended) themselves up Oxford St dripping with rain for a Mardi Gras parade yet cannot manage to face the elements to help support an HIV cause.
For those of you who don’t know (?) or those of you who have forgotten, HIV/AIDS has decimated our community and changed the lives of people living long term with HIV/AIDS. The organisations involved in Sunday’s walk contribute in so many ways to the fight against HIV/AIDS and their continued welfare.
I am saddened that so few members of the community felt the need to show their support.
-” David, Sydney
Im sorry, but If we want equality, and if that means losing some of our benefits thats some people are currently getting, well, so be it!
You can not yell at the Government for equal rights for us(gays) and then say thanks but no thanks….
As long as it fair across the board ie regarding super and will entitlements…etc.so homosexual people are exactly the same as hetro couples, than I see no problem!
Impact of the proposed amendments on older people
The following is an extract from the National Welfare Rights Network submission to the Senate enquiry. It sets out the case for grandparenting older gays & lesbians.
There are compelling reasons to continue to treat people in same-sexrelationships as single under Social Security and Family Assistance law, or togive them the option whether to disclose a relationship to Centrelink,particularly in relation to older people in same-sex relationships.
Older gay men and lesbians have suffered long-standing inequality,particularly in relation to family law, health insurance, property rights, access to employer benefits, access to insurance and superannuation, death and disability entitlements, compensation, laws of succession, and employer benefits for spouses.
Social Security policy has evolved in response to social change, allowing for savings provisions for those who have been historically disadvantaged. In many ways, the situation of gay and lesbian couples now affected by The Equal Treatment Bill is analogous to that faced by women during the phasing out of Social Security payments targeting women, due to the changing role of women in Australian society.
Many older people in same-sex relationships will be precluded from Social Security entitlements under pension and allowance income and assets tests due to their partner’s income and assets, despite the fact that historically they have had no or limited rights to other entitlements (including employer, disability, uperannuation and insurance entitlements) because their status as a partner was not recognised. Given that the raft of reforms the Government is now introducing have come too late to affect their accrual of such entitlements, it is unjust that they now bear the effects of the disadvantageous aspects of the reforms.
Even as new claims for Widow Pension and Partner Allowance were made unavailable, those payments were retained for older widows, divorcees and separated women whose adult life was one of financial dependency on their partner, with no or limited accrual of superannuation entitlements during
periods of employment.
Similarly, the Age Pension ligibility age for women was raised from 60 years to 65 years in 1995 in response to changing societal values about women’s increased labour market participation and reduced dependence on their partners. That modest increase in age eligibility is being phased in over some 20 years.
There is a particular need for savings provisions for older people who would be adversely affected by the Social Security amendments. Members of same sex couples have lived until now with certain societal limitations and their own
particular expectations. That is vastly different from a person in their twenties who may now enter into a gay or lesbian relationship expecting equality before the law, and acknowledging their relationship’s -˜de facto’ status and
presenting the relationship as such to family, friends, colleagues, employers, the Australian Tax Office, their superannuation fund, Medicare, etc.
Older gay and lesbian couples have lived and worked anticipating their relationships will not be recognised under Social Security law, and without any expectation of equality before the law generally. They may have sought to
have their relationship recognised in respect of property law or laws of succession at some stage, but they have had no expectation of forced financial inter-dependency via recognition of their couple status under Social Security law. Applying Social Security means tests to people who have long been disadvantaged before the law is effectively a doubling of their experience of discrimination.
Yeah well the heterosexual model has never been a great one to aspire to, on almost every level – and we’ve done everything we can to join it. What a shame we didn’t use our energies instead to champion the rights and benefits and differences we had as gays and fought for change to the flawed hetero model. We once had the power and solidarity to make real changes to society on our terms rather than the lame road we’ve gone down to assimilate into compulsory heterosexuality.
Well, shaye and Col, if what you were trying to say is that you think there’s a problem with the Centrelink system as a whole, fair enough.
Now, get in there with the heterosexuals and get it fixed. Instead of saying what sounded a lot like “we don’t care if the system is stuffed for heterosexuals, so long as we’re okay”.
Rob -œCould someone please explain where this sudden hysterical paranoia is coming from that just because you are gay and happen to share a house with another gay guy you will automatically be classed as a couple by Centrelink? How ridiculous can you get! Based on that logic college and university boarding accommodation must be one big polygamous mess! You’ve clearly been napping: Centrelink have bee penalising hetero non-de facto couples unfairly for years. Don’t you read the news at all?
Trevor, -œI just don’t see that the solution is to keep pretending that all gays are single, the fact remains, (and you continue to evade my point) that not all gays living together are de facto couples and many will be unfairly penalised -“you really need to concentrate: that is what all the fuss is about here. Do pay attention or stop babbling.
Trevor, no, the law hasn’t changed yet, and yes, Michael Raper clearly is talking about heterosexual couples. The clue is in the -˜older people and carers’ that he refers to.
I give these quotes to answer Rob, (“please explain where this sudden hysterical paranoia is coming from “). Perhaps you think the investigations into and culling of poz beneficiaries will differ from the “judgements based on moral, not legal, grounds and often makes decisions based on flimsy information and prejudicial attitudes ” experienced by defactos already. Perhaps you think they will be exempt from Centrelink inquisition, which currently invoilves finding out: where they live and who they live with, their financial arrangements, shared expenses, bills, social interaction, sexual relationships, how their friends and family see their etc. by contacting neighbours, the DoH, estate agents, energy suppliers, council, or any person they think that can provide them with details of a relationship including BGF and acon. Check the Centrelink webby for yourself.
I also expect a large number of those who still don’t see why anyone should get this basic support because they aren’t, will be on the hotline dobbing in anyone they suspect may have an advantage.
Shayne… as the law hasn’t changed yet, Michael Raper clearly is talking about heterosexual couples!
I have no problem with an argument that looks at people with HIV, because I can see how HIV would affect a person’s financial situation.
16,692 people were living with HIV in Australia at the end of 2007. Centrelink claims 11,000 people in same-sex relationships will be disadvantaged by these -˜reforms’, the majority of whom are HIV+ gay men. NAPWA has made a submission to the review panel for urgent action to be taken on the rate of pensions and concession entitlements as they affect people with HIV using data from the HIV Futures 5 survey of HIV-positive people in Australia which reveals that, of those on a government benefit, 58% are living below the recognised Henderson Poverty lines. The costs of living with a chronic illness are significant, with extra costs for pharmaceuticals (including some non-PBS items), complementary medicines, dietary supplements and services like counselling, etc., etc.
Maree O’Halloran from the National Welfare Rights network says, -œWe’re asking Centrelink to pay special consideration to the very vulnerable people.
Michael Raper, President on the National Welfare Rights Network said, -œThe fundamental problem is that Centrelink is not looking closely enough at all the factors that indicate that no relationship exists. It makes judgements based on moral, not legal, grounds and often makes decisions based on flimsy information and prejudicial attitudes. We are representing a record number of clients in appeals against decisions to cancel or reduce their payments because of an alleged marriage-like relationship-¦The increased number of cases involving older people and carers who share rent and provide companionship and support, is extremely alarming. Add the HIV+ to the -˜older people and carers’ and you might begin to see the real cost in human terms of what some call -œ closing a legal loop-hole.
Could someone please explain where this sudden hysterical paranoia is coming from that just because you are gay and happen to share a house with another gay guy you will automatically be classed as a couple by Centrelink?
How ridiculous can you get! Based on that logic college and university boarding accommodation must be one big polygamous mess!
Even if you do happen to be a couple there are a number of elements of ‘evidence’ that Centrelink must obtain before they can make such an asusmption – not least of which would be that you were gay in the first place.
Col, I don’t share your cynical view of motives here. These legal changes came from a Human Rights Commission report.
I do care, as I think I’ve made clear in posts on this page and another, about people being worse off. I just don’t see that the solution is to keep pretending that all gays are single. There are other ways of providing people with assistance.
You seem to think that I should support gays over and above everyone else in my life. Once I’m over 65, I’m not going to turn to my sister and say that I deserve more money than her just because I’m a queer. And in return, she’s not going to turn around and say that I deserve to get a worse deal on Medicare just because I’m a queer.
If I get more money than her, it should be because I have a greater need.
Um Trev, I Don’t think you are commenting on my point -“ rather, you are attempting to deflect. The fact is that where government departments are concerned: if they can save a few bucks… they’ll use any argument they can. You know this perfectly well. So I can only put the case back to you yet AGAIN: whose side are you on? (Clearly not gays living together who will be 100 dollars a pay period worse off!) But then as others on here have demonstrated, yourself especially: why would those unaffected care??? Not because they’re of the same sexual persuasion, clearly.
To illustrate, imagine the following exchange of letters:
CENTRELINK: We’ve noticed you live at the same address as another person receiving benefits. Are you a couple?
GUY: No, he and I are just housemates. Separate finances, a bedroom each. Share the grocery shopping.
Now, does anything in that response tell you whether the guy, or his housemate, are gay? Nope. Could be both straight, or both gay, or one gay and one straight.
But odds are they’re both straight.
Um Col, I don’t think many people understand what the law is. Two people living together is NOT automatically a couple. It’s not the case automatically now for a guy and a girl living in the same house. Nor will it automatically be the case for a guy and guy in the same house, or a girl and a girl.
And if Centrelink gets it wrong… well, there are review and appeal processes – same as there are now for a guy and a girl living under the same roof. People already can – and do – get decisions overturned when they think Centrelink has made the wrong conclusion.
All the law means is that Centrelink will enquire about the nature of the relationship, rather than ASSUMING that you’re single.
The idea that Centrelink will swing from assuming everyone is single to assuming everyone under the same roof is a couple is just… well, it’s a total misunderstanding of the law in my opinion. For starters, they will have to ask the same question of two STRAIGHT men living under the same roof. So it’s pretty obvious it won’t be the position that everyone pair of guys in the same roof will be taken to be a couple.
And Nate… I will have exactly the same viewpoint in that situation. I may, however, want to argue for a raise in the pension – FOR EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE STRAIGHTS.
I wonder if Trevor would have the same viewpoint if he found himself in misfortune, living on the pension with a depenndant, or if he ever gets to be 65?
Trevor, it doesn’t amaze or even vaguely surprise me that here we have someone like you attacking Shayne’s comments in that sickeningly -˜let them eat cake’ way with regards to gays of welfare. The fact is that even I, as a single gay man, have my chances of sharing with a friend/care reduced significantly with these new laws, as we would be classed as being in a de facto relationship. I won’t disclose the precise nature of my personal possible reasons for benefitting from sharing with a friend, but I will point out the painfully obvious to you: 2 gay men do not equal a de facto relationship and therefore should not be financially penalised as such. (Well, duh, did you really need that explaining). Honestly, the laissez faire poofs of Sydney will, never change: Trevor darling, get your head out of the ether and your arse into reality. The whole purpose of a gay publication (-˜community’ even) is that we share a common feature – all you are focussing on is the differences… in incomes at least -“ and like, screw those of my kind who’ll lose out as a result of this ridiculous, elitist and otherwise totally useless government gesture.
Luke, I won’t say that I’ve never broken a law, but I’ve never been dim enough to get outraged when the police have done their job by pulling me up for it.
If only it was just parks and beaches in the evening where beat users gather. Unfortunately, a cursory look at the more popular beat websites will reveal that beat users are also taking over public toilets in shopping centres, office blocks and department stores during the day when non-beat users are around. Even in parks a lot of it is going on during the day in toilet blocks busy with non-beat users using them for what they were intended for.
Yes, gay men used beats for centuries- centuries in which homosexuality was illegal (sometimes even punished by death), and in that context pursuing a live in relationship or finding sexual partners through the normal channels increased the risk of discovery and the chance of a life destroyed.
Back then they had no other choice. Now, thanks to years of hard work, we can afford to live our lives in the sun with a modicum of dignity.
Using a beat in today’s context (particularly one located in one of the most gay friendly areas in Sydney) is an entirely different thing. Not only is it entirely unnecessary, it shows a disrespect for the community that has accepted us and it is behaviour that undermines and erodes that friendliness.
Personally, there are a lot of things about Dutch society which I admire. But as for decriminalising sex in public parks, I think it’s boneheaded and an idea that is doomed to fail because it’s based on the idea that if you extend beat users respect they’ll return it by not leaving used condoms lying around or by not having sex in risky or exposed areas. Many beat users are there precisely because of the thrill they get from potentially dangerous sex and the risk of getting caught. Make it safe and they’ll only find somewhere else more public and risky to go to.
It is not homophobic for police to patrol beats when many people in the local area both straight and gay object to them. If police are not there, who will stop the gay bashers beats inevitably draw? Police are doing exactly what they should by instructing users to move on, or by removing them from the area and then using their discretion not to prosecute.
What concerns me most about the changes to the method of assessing pensions for same-sex couples is the lack of time that people like my self have to rearrange our finances. My partner and I made arrangements according to the rules which existed in 1995 when I was granted the Disability Support Pension (I now receive the Age Pension). I have always received the single rate of pension because, in the eyes of the government, our relationship was non-existent.Now some of the rules have been changed. Only some, because we still cannot marry.
Under the new rules, if I remain in a relationship, my fortnightly pension would drop from $576 to $126. My partner is a low earner, who can work only part-time due his physical and mental disabilities.
I want the Rudd Labor Government to ‘grandfather’ the changes for pensioners at age 55. There are, I’m sure, many HIV positive people who, before the dramatic improvement in drugs, thought they would not live very much longer. They spent their savings and, sometimes, superannuation enjoying what little time they believed they had left. Who wouldn’t. As these people get older their chances of employment are severely reduced.
I would also like the Rudd Labor Government to establish regulations delegating authority to the Attorney-General, and senior officers in his Department, to grant dispensation in hardship cases as is done in immigration cases.
If we allow discussion of the pensions issue to sink into internal division about copping it sweet because hets do, we are less of a decent community than I ever thought.
That the govt is imposing on us a patriarchal archaic system of measuring a ‘relationship’ – against notions of female dependency on a husband, and the man as breadwinner utterly stinks in itself.
Social policy analysts have argued for years that the so called ‘couples saving’ is rubbish and sexist.
Now we cop it.
Pensioners are ALL suffering, singles, couples, whatever.
As we know there is a pension review on, and a strong push for increased payments to be made so people do not starve and suffer.
The Feds would not grandfather (protect) elderly gays from the onslaught of this, and some people say ‘why give THEM special treatment’. Would they say that to Indigenous people who had been abused as children, seeking some extra assistance for study books? No. Across the US there is affirmative action which recognises past injustices and compensates. Our elders deserve compensation and peace. They need independent trusted advocates NOW and education of the aged care industry NOW, and why the Feds were not forced to resource this, and guarantee to do so alongside this legislation astounds me.
What an easy ride they had with us.
Collective solidarity, not pensioners divided, pleeeez.
Has anyone else wondered what the benefits of no state recognition of gay relationships would be ?
I wonder how many long term relationships wont happen because the ‘de facto’ status will apply?
Has anyone wondered how many gay divorces there will be ?
Gay relationships were once so free and uncomplicated . They stayed together because the really wanted to, not because of marriage or legal status or sharing of assets or as a popularist gay rights movement.
I hope it all gets settled soon before the Oz general public gets well and truely sick of hearing about it !
Regarding Beats…Go Alex. I whole heartedly agree.
Mr Potts, what gives you the moral authority to get up in arms about such ‘illegal’ behaviour? If you have never committed a crime or any illegal activity, then good for you. Something about stone glasses and throwing houses.
For some of us, some laws are wrong and need to be challenged, disregarded and/or ignored – which many in the community do and that is their choice.
The reality is that men have been having sex with each other in the outdoors for as long as men have been around. It is not going to stop.
The moralistic tone of your article last week is precisely what breeds ignorance and bigotry. This is not an issue about equality, It is about systemic homophobia that has plagued the police force and obviously continues to.
Using the language of ‘when we cry homophobia’ is unduly provocative. The people who are opposed to these actions aren’t ‘crying’ homophobia, they are bringing attention to the specific targeting of men who have sex with men who are yes ‘breaking the law’ but are going to do it anyway and should not be harassed for the sake of a law that rarely leads to a charge or conviction. How progressive that Amsterdam has just passed laws that allow men to have sex with men in parks after dark if they clean up after themselves etc. The police there work with the community to help eradicate violence at beats.
If the police allocated the same time and resources to addressing acts of illegal violent behaviour against the gay community with the same gusto, maybe we would have more arrests and less bashings.
‘Many gay men don’t like beats’ – This is meaningless. Many gay men don’t like sitting at a keyboard in front of a monitor for hours/days on end fantasising about getting off with a 2 dimensional image, but they still do it.
I say get out there and actually do it, do it with someone you love or someone you don’t know. Have sex in the street, the bar, on the roof, wherever you want. The world needs more affection and/or sex and less violence and sexually repressive waspish laws.
In much of David’s letter where he talks about gay people, you can substitute straight people and get the same result. For example:
“Former lovers who live together as friends, just long-term friends are vulnerable. Gay men or lesbians or queers who share accommodation, you could have the Centrelink dogs sniffing around you, going through your affairs.”
Yep. Former heterosexual lovers who live together as friends, just long-term friends, are ‘vulnerable’. Straight friends who share accommodation, you could have Centrelink inquiring about the nature of your relationship.
I don’t doubt that some people will find the transition to equal treatment in this area difficult. But the reality is, it will just mean learning to deal with Centrelink in the same way that heterosexuals already have to. If there’s something wrong with that system, then it needs to be fixed for everyone, not just the homosexuals who’ve been outside the system until now.
I like Phil Scott’s comments – what I got from them is maybe we need to look at the issues of pensions overall
I don’t think the Centrelink issue is a gay issue – it is rather a wider consideration of how benefits should be paid to recipients – should one’s relationship status affect how much one is paid? Phil Scott, for example, believes that one should be paid the same amount whether or not one is in a relationship.
And I would also support pensioners being paid more, or being offered in-kind support (for example greater discounts at Woolworths or increased rental assistance) in order to help them with the costs of daily living. But I would not support this only for gay pensioners – I would support this for all pensioners whether LGBT or straight.
CORRECTION:
Sorry Phil Scott doesn’t say that in his article, but he does say that in the comments he made underneath his article at:
https://starobserver.com.au/soap-box/2008/11/19/how-can-we-be-loverswere-only-friends/2736
SSO Editors:
You need to qualify David’s comments above – perhaps with a comment after the letter (as I know you have done previously with other posts – thanks for doing that in the past)
David says that:
“Couples disclosing their homosexuality, where each received a benefit, will have their payments reduced.”
From my understanding of how it will work with Centrelink, this only applies if the defacto couple LIVE TOGETHER.
It therefore does not apply to all homosexual couples – eg it will not apply to your writer, Phil Scott, who has said in his article that he does not live with his partner
These are large significant changes, and the SSO can really play a real role in getting the message across to the GLBT community about how these legislative changes will both benefit and disadvantage them – to give people a true idea of this rather than perhaps a sensationalist idea?
People in a relationship with each other ARE dependent on one another both emotionally and financially.
David, I’m not sure what your point is?
If a heterosexual couple are expected to survive on a couple allowance from Centrelink, why can’t a same-sex couple survive on this?
I appreciate that any Centrelink benefit is a low amount in the first place, but why are we different from heterosexual couples in the money we are entitled to from Centrelink?
I want to be sympathetic to people in your situation but I am having difficulty understanding why same-sex couples should be treated differently from opposite-sex couples – perhaps you could explain?
You also scare people in your letter about the “surveillance” of Centrelink on their affairs. This examination by Centrelink of their client’s relationship status is the same for same-sex couples as well as it is for opposite-sex couples – so there is no malice behind this.
My heart goes out to you – but why do you think we should expect to receive more money than straight people?
Take care and good luck
DNA is not my idea of a news resource, Andy. I would, however use it to wrap fish. The info was reported in all the mainstream and queer news services.
The research was published in the international economics journal, Kyklos, entitled Love Thy Neighbour: How Much Bigotry is there is Western Countries, and was co-authored by Professor Vani Borooah (Vani Borooah) of the University of Ulster. It was probably a flawed study anyway, you can’t just ‘ask people’ about their prejudices; what people do is often more telling than what they say.
In fact, I’d have thought a more enlightened view is that there’s actual a causal relationship; when gay people move in, the community quality and house values improve.
Anyway, the original document is published here:
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/library/set_publications.html
Yes Shayne, in other words, the vast majority of Australians (75.3 percent) were fine with gay neighbours. Did you by chance use this article (www.dnamagazine.com.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=1943) as your source for your post? Because FYI, I wrote it.
AMP, the Human Beliefs and Values Survey, conducted in 24 Western countries found that one in four Australians don’t want homosexuals as neighbours, of the 2,048 people sampled by phone in Australia, 24.7 per cent said they did not want homosexuals living next door. The same study also found that Australians are five times more homophobic than they are racist and that homophobia was less prevalent in George W Bush’s America than in Australia, with 77.1 per cent of Americans happy to live next to a gay neighbour. 81 per cent of students said they had experienced bullying based on their sexuality.
“This society simply DOES like gay people.”? Sure it does, honey.
Alex of Surry Hills- “telling a beat user to use a SOPV in preference to a beat is like telling someone who wants a pub that the golf club has a bar”
Telling a beat user to use the internet or a SOPV in preference to a beat is like telling someone who is breaking the law to abide by the law, nothing else.
“I walk past a park. Maybe I see someone I like. We click. Maybe we have sex there. Maybe we go home together.”
If all beat users were doing was meeting other men in parks and going home with them, their behaviour would be completely legal and no one would have a problem with it- hell, they could do that in broad daylight.
Significant numbers of beat users are attracted by the illegal nature of the activity they’re engaged in, by the thrill of danger at beats, and by the chances of being discovered by non-beat users.
“They are dangerous not because there is anything wrong with gay people, but because society penalises beat users by legal, economic and criminal means, because, get this -¦ society simply does not like gay people.”
First of all, most of us gay people don’t use beats and many of us don’t like them. In 2008 a clear majority of Australians want full equality for GLBT Australians- this society simply DOES like gay people.
Heterosexuals object to gay men having sex in inappropriate places for the same reasons that they object to heterosexuals having sex in inappropriate places- the only difference is that heterosexuals who have public sex do it in a far less organised manner.
That being said, when we cry homophobia over legitimate complaints about the behaviour of a minority in the gay community, we give ammunition to very real homophobes who want to paint us as a community that, rather than equality, wants special rights that no one else has.