Plibersek seeks views on marriage

Plibersek seeks views on marriage

The Federal Member for Sydney and Minister for Social Inclusion and Human Services, Tanya Plibersek, has begun seeking her constituents views on same-sex marriage.

On November 18 Plibersek voted to support a motion put forward by Greens MP Adam Bandt calling on MPs to gauge community attitudes in their electorates towards relationship recognition for same-sex couples, including same-sex marriage.

“Over the coming weeks I will be seeking input from residents in the Sydney electorate on this issue,” said Plibersek

“I am proud of Sydney’s diversity and its strong ties with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community,”

“People in our local community are passionate about social justice issues and I look forward to hearing their feedback in the weeks ahead.”

The consultation will run from now until 5pm on January 21, 2011, after which Plibersek will report back with the results to participants and present them to the Federal Parliament.

Persons residing in the electorate of Sydney can make a submission to the consultation via www.tanyaplibersek.com

Energy and Resource and Tourism Minister Martin Ferguson is also conducting a similar consultation.

Constituents in Ferguson’s electorate of Batman can make a submission here

You May Also Like

28 responses to “Plibersek seeks views on marriage”

  1. Plibersek is hiding from her responsibility to openly advocate for the Civil Rights of all Australians, including us good and decent people.

    Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. Plibersek’s opposition to us having a choice about marrying our love, or not to marry at all, speaks volumes about her belief we do not deserve some Civil or Political rights based on our sexuality. Plibersek as far as I am concerned, has not made the case to me that I need to be oppressed and denied freedoms due to my sexuality.

    Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, or sexual orientation; and individual rights such as the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement. It is just a few words to say “Let them be free”. But Plibersek does not even do that.

    I can understand that getting legislation up and passed is not easy. But I cannot understand why Plibersek would not openly talk about freeing us from laws that are not just. I want the government, not to stop me from participating in all Civil Institutions. My sexuality is used as a weapon by Plibersek. This is a severe breach of my Civil Rights. Further, to use our taxes to discriminate against us in nursing homes, jobs, and hospitals is a bloody disgrace. The government gives billions of dollars of our taxes to religious institutions that impede our ability to participate in government services based on our sexuality. The Labor Party might think this is wonderful but it is a gross violation of our Civil Rights.

    Should we be angry? Hell yes. Should we seek justice? Yes, we will raise these issues. Plibersek swore an oath to represent all people, not just some. She has no place violating our Civil Rights. We must hold Civil Leaders to account when they seek to oppress us and deny us freedoms. Plibersek is not saying “Let them be free”. Even Penny Wong now openly calls for freedom from laws that oppress us. Paul Howes can even put pen to paper to talk about his hope, one day, will be free from all discrimination. Politicians around the country are starting to stand up and be counted on Civil Rights Violations, but not Plibersek. She still has much to learn about leadership. She in parliament only because of the leadership of politicians before her, that wanted her rights protected, politicians who valued her Civil Rights, and changed laws to give her the freedom of choice.

    Plibersek should be judged for trying to deny us good and decent peoples our basic Civil Rights. Is it too much to ask her to say “Let them be free”? If she cannot say these important words, then she should be condemned by all in society, including the victims of her oppression like myself. All I want is freedom.

  2. Dave:- You made a completely untrue statement “I simply want to marry my love, and Plibersek is trying to stop that”. You won’t cope well if Plibersek comes out in favour of same-sex marriage – but you could start by withdrawing the slur and welcoming her support.

    And I have denied not marriage, but prefer civil unions. I can’t get enthused about squeezing into a heterosexual model of relationship.
    I am happy to be different but equal – and 58/08 gave us the legal and financial entitlements. We now need the state to formalise recognise relationships and I would prefer that to be a civil union New Zealand style.

  3. Ben I can hardly find a post at all where you are critical of Labor. On the contrary you are defensive of Labor. If I did not know better I would say you are Labor staffer.

    Now I have no faith in a person who has said over and over she supports the governments view on Marriage between a man and woman. You expect me to think she has any honesty in the process? She now supports Same-Sex Marriage or is open to it? Why the hell would I trust a process known as The Survey that politicians have abused over and over. This is a system with no independence. This is a tool politicians use over and over to stop debate on many issues. Who really knows the results? I cannot verify all of them. No person can. They are not scientific. Yet we are asked to trust a politician on such a device.

    But wait. Let us look at the marriage enquiry. The vast majority of submissions were in favour of Same-Sex Marriage. But did anyone in the Labor Party follow that? No. So this is a distraction from the real question facing Plibersek, leadership. Will she be a leader and give people the right to chose to get married or will she make that choice for them. Saying over and over marriage is between a man and a woman? Ah trust thy Plibersek? Not for me.

    Ben you have not explained why I should be denied the dignity and respect to make my own bloody choice about marriage, and why I should be denied human rights. You might want a Civil Union but I do not. What is the matter with people making their own mind up and have a choice? Labor used to be a progressive party. Whatever happened to Labor leading on issues of social justice? They are simply not the party of a fair go. The Greens are the only party in parliament that is advocating for all our rights. The right not to marry or to marry, the right to be free of oppression from religious groups, the right not to have our taxes used to deny us jobs and services. The right for all couples and individuals to free of discrimination. I am looking at realit of Plibersek and what she is not doing.

  4. Dave, I have tried to find what you based your rant on…that Ms Plibersek’ survey of her electorate tries to stop marriage…but it’s not there.

  5. I believe in full equality, not the notion we should be restricted to some rights and not others, this does not fit with my view of equality or fairness.

    Why should some rights and freedoms be denied simply because of our sexuality, our gender, or our race? What other rights should we not have if we follow this path? I believe in fairness and a fair go. I believe in equality. Denying people rights and freedoms simply because of their sexuality does not fit into my belief of fairness at all. I see no reason why people’s civil rights should be violated.

  6. Has anybody seen the statistics of divorce these days? And marriage is an institution to greatly value? it gives us dignity and respect? Yes marriage is an institution that similar to a school or a prison. And that is a civil right? Makes you wonder what your truly fighting for doesnt it?

  7. I love my partner of many years and look forward to when we can get married. For us it is about allowing us to participate in a institution in society that we greatly value. It is about giving us the dignity and respect to make that choice regardless of our sexuality. And the wonderful thing about marriage is it is optional. Those against it do not have to marry. But we want to make the choice to participate in the important institution, not others make it for us.

    I simply want to marry my love, and Plibersek is trying to stop that. For me my choice to marry represents the core human values of fairness and justice. I want the equal right to marry.

    http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/civilunions.htm

    http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/AME-MarriageNotCivilUnions.pdf

  8. A survey you say Plibersek?

    If politicians were so week and feeble as Plibersek in the past, women would never vote and she would never become a politician. She would instead be confined to housework and marrying a husband. If that husband were to beat the crap out of her, she would never be able to divorce. If she left him, she would go hungry as there never would have been a pension. We would have to resort to meeting each other only at beats or parties. Homosexuality would never have been decriminalised. Police would belt the shit out of us without anyone carrying. All this was changed not by a survey, but by guts and courage, and the determination to give people dignity and respect. Plibersek is betraying all in the community with the seedy deception known as The Survey, and she is laughing at us.

    Not every voter will do a survey, it is not scientific, who knows what her staff will do, will they fudge the results? There is no independent oversight into politician’s surveys. It is not representative of her electorate. Presently politicians love this device as they use it to stop anyone challenging there stand on any number of issues. They do say to any opposition, “I did a survey and it supports my policy.” How good is that for a politician to wiggle their way out of issues.

    I was living in the electorate of Indi. Here is a case in point. Sophie Mirablla did a survey, my partner and I filled it out, and she then went on to say no person raised Same-Sex Marriage with her in her electorate. Well that was a lie. But politically it is powerful. It worked well for her in the local media to say the electorate does not support Same-Sex Marriage and here is the proof, my survey. Of course you cannot challenge it, look at it, get an independent investigation. The Survey always wins. It is the politician who makes a decision about issues not a survey.

    What is needed by Plibersek is leadership. You know, the good old fashioned type that gave women the vote, decriminalised homosexuality, and the kind of leadership that will give people dignity and respect to choose if they want to marry their love.
    When I go through some oversees newspapers I see the marriage sections. Amongst the couples who are getting hitched are Same-Sex couples. All these are in no order. It is just accepted without a blink.

    Now Plibersek is not treating us with dignity and respect hiding from her leadership obligations in a survey. Some say she has done a lot for the community, but I say there is so much more to do. We do not have protection in the Federal Equal Opportunity Act, we have many laws that discriminate against couples who are not married, the smoke screen about the superannuation is case is a good example. Changes made to the laws do not cover private superannuation. The SSO has many documented cases where private companies, do not give your money to your partner of many years. In effect Plibersek made grave robbing only illegal for some but not others. Legally, a private superannuation company is entitled to direct your money wherever it sees fit, regardless of your will or the beneficiary slots you fill out on the initial forms. The government legislative changes only covered public service/government superannuation funds. Nursing homes can legally discriminate as they are Federally Funded. Private schools can discriminate and deny us jobs. Hospitals can deny us jobs if run by religious institutions. Hell I could not even get a job at the Salvation Army helping homeless people because of my sexuality. There is no Bill of Rights that protects us. I ask Plibersek what is the date that all laws that discriminate against us will be removed? When will have equality? She must answer that fundamental question. What is the date we will have full equality? Oh well she might just do a survey on that to.

  9. Tanya is MP for the queerest electorate & yet she doesn’t know what the views of her constituents are. It’s all about not rocking the boat & keeping your seat in Parliament.I do not believe in marriage but every fool should have the same rights as everyone else,after all we all pay the same taxes.

  10. PS don’t forget that the motion passed by parliament didn’t just refer to marriage it actually said “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same-sex couples, including marriage”. So Plibersek is actually following the motion to the letter.

  11. But David, Plibersek isn’t ignoring the Greens Bill at all. On the contrary, the first line on the page and the first survey question are precisely about same-sex marriage and that Bill!!! I don’t think it hurts e.g. to discover whether some people in her electorate who wouldn’t agree to same-sex marriage would agree to civil unions and people have the option of ticking multiple boxes, so it isn’t set up as an either/or question. Civil unions can also be an incremental stepping stone to marriage – as in Connecticut USA. But I agree they are second-rate and still discriminatory compared with marriage. Suppose same-sex marriage didn’t have the numbers in parliament though, would some members of the glbti commmunity prefer civil unions as an incrmental stepping stone towards same-sex marriage rather than nothing at all? Personally I think it is probably best to hold out for marriage as the debate is moving now (e.g. no Kevin Rudd PM implacably opposed to marriage etc, even some right-wing Labor pollies concerned about losing votes to the Greeens) but would all members of our community agree?

  12. Headline should be “Plibersek seeks views on serving up outdated civl unions” instead of civil marriage.
    Civil unions are a failed experiement from years past, that are now being dismantled/challenged in countries that got them such as UK & NZ.
    Countries like South Africa, Portugal & Cananda, that opted for civil marriage in a government registry office for all tax payers as equals…. well they have no such “challenges” to dismantle it, the sky didn’t fall in, and everything is going along fine.
    You would expect that Tanya should be educated enough on this issue to know all this. She sounds like she’s offering no more than some of the redneck outback Queensland MP’s.
    Yes she did lots of things for the gays back when it was fashionable to do so- prior to 2004. But since then, it’s more important for pollies to suck up to Hillsong & the Australian Christian Lobby. And hence, the major pollies will continue to lose their seats to the Greens until they finally get the message (and at the moment, Labor, and Tanya, is nowhere near ready to get the message).

  13. Yes David that is a great idea – knock off two of the people who have been amongst the strongest supporters of same-sex rights within the ALP. Losing their votes within the party will really help change the ALPs policy position on same-sex marriage! Why do you think Wong mentioned both Plibersek & Albanese by name as people she’d been working closely with when she gave her speech (within ALP internal process) at the SA state conference. TAKE THE HINT! Not that one would need to take a hint since Albanese has been working for same-sex law reform ever since he moved private members’ bills on same-sex superannuation rights in the 1990s. Why can’t people understand that Labor party politiicans consider themselves bound by democratically decided policy decisions made by the party in their public statements but can at the very same time be working behind closed doors within the party to change that policy??? Maybe that isn’t how you or I want to operate but it is how loyal Labor party members operate and, after all, they aren’t elected as individuals but as members of a party. So we need to understand that even if we wouldn’t do it ourselves. So why not target catholic right members of the Labor party – they actually deserve it and are the ones that have been resisting changing Labor policy on same-sex marriage? Not Albanese or Plibersek.

  14. If Plibersek & Albanese (Grayndler) ignore this issue, and the overwhelming demand for full equality, they should start looking for new job’s in the near future.

  15. @Robert – there was a 6% swing away from Plibersek at the last election, but after preferences this was reduced to 2%. Certainly not enough to unseat her, but enough to give her a fright.

    And Plibersek HAS NOT publicly supported same-sex marriage, and in correspondence to me when I wrote to her asking why she supported the Howard Marriage Act change she stated that “marriage was between a man and a woman”.

    On two separate occasions I wrote to her on this matter (12 months apart) and both times received nothing more than the Labor mantra “marriage is between a man and a woman”.

    In my book that does not equate to supporting same-sex marriage.

  16. My last Anthony Green moment…to explain the swing.

    Plibersek lost near 6% of her primary vote – that is, the number of people who put her first.

    However, after preferences were distributed, the swing against her was around 2%.

  17. Rob – just a fact check/Anthony Green moment…

    Tanya Plibersek did have a 6% swing against her last election – but just over half of that went to the Greens.

    The Greens did not win a single polling booth, not even in Surry Hills, Newtown and Erskinville. In fact it was the Liberals, not the Greens, who came second in 30 of the 44 polling booths in Sydney.

  18. Um, wrong, Rob1966.

    A 2% swing in Plibersek’s electorate? Doesn’t sound like a “right royal” anything to me.

    Also, I don’t recall Plibersek ever saying anything to publicly support the Howard Government’s Marriage Act definition. She’s always supported gay marriage, as I think you’d already be aware.

    You’re entitled to your own opinion Rob, but not to your own set of facts.

  19. The only reason that Plibersek is doing anything now about same-sex marriage is because of the right royal kick up the backside she received at the last federal election when there was a significant swing against her and Albanese (Grayndler).

    Plibersek has, time and again both publicly and privately, supported the oficial Labor Party stance that “marriage is between a man and a woman”, and she voted along those lines when the legislation to amend the Marriage Act was passed through Parliament.

    Whilst I comend Plibersek for finally doing something – even if it is only doing a very quiet survey – but make no mistaqke, it is only because she knows that if she doesn’t she may well get booted at the next election.

    This is not about Plibersek looking out for our rights from some idealistic sense of humanity – it is about Plibersek trying to keep her job.

  20. A reason why the LGBT agenda gets stalled so often is that every time any politician tries to advance it (as Plibersek is doing here), people attack them for not doing even more. As a community we seem to be saying if you can’t fix everything in one go, you shouldn’t bother fixing anything at all.

    Good on Plibersek for asking people what they think, and having the courage to raise the issue. Its a lot more than most MPs.

  21. Yes, I am really tired of Greens’ supporters targetting Labor politicians who are trying to work for change within the ALP because they see progressive labor politicians as electoral competitors for the same voters and not focusing on criticising socially conservative Labor and Liberal. The Greens need to focus more on actually delivering equality in regard to marriage (which needs both ALP and Green votes in parliament – and probably some Lib votes too) and less on winning votes for yourselves!!!

  22. Brian, I hardly see how this is offensive in the least. Your rant about civil unions is about a discussion that may or may not have taken place about 3 years ago. The only reason there would have been discussion about civil unions as an alternative is because there was not enough support for marriage at the time of the ALP National Conference. I really don’t see how civil unions would be a sell out anyway. I mean sure, its not what many may want, but its a stepping stone and as is the case with all reform its incremental. Rarely in a democracy does any community or interest group get 100% what they were asking for in one go.

    And even if all of the above was not true, this article is indeed about marriage and not civil unions so I don’t see exactly what your problem is!

    Tanya is clearly wanting to consult with her community, which is a crap load more than most other MPs are doing. I sometimes wonder some in our community spend all their time attacking clearly progressive parliamentarians while the Libs get off scot free!

  23. I support civil unions like they have in New Zealand (not the UK) –

    1. There is a govenrment sanctioned ceremony
    2. Religious bodies have to apply for exemptions
    3. Civil unions are open to both heterosexual and homosexual couples

    I am happy to be recognised as different – but with equal rights.I don’t want an institution (marriage) that is premised “to the exclusion of all others”.

    I do recognise there may be some constitutional issues with civil unions…but I’d rather create an institution reflective of homosexual life, not appropriating a heterosexual one.

  24. Search your feelings young Plibersek…..

    The force is stroooong in you. Remember, hate leads to the darkside.

  25. Brian,
    I’m not sure why you think the ALP is trying to sell us civil unions instead of marriage.
    It is not what this article says and it is not what Tanya has said.
    The motion which Adam Bandt moved and Tanya supported was in relation to same-sex marriage.

  26. This is outrageous and offensive. What is the ALP up to?

    The original Greens motion was about MARRIAGE! Not about Civil Unions, let alone civil unions for gays only.

    Is Ms Plibersek (a hard left member of the ALP) actually supportive of GLBTI people wanting to get married, or is she pushing her own ultra-progessive view that marriage should be abolished – as many of her feminist collective of years gone by have called for.

    While I support the concept of civil unions being available, and encourage further development of the NSW state relationship register into such a civil union… I cannot help but feel with the Albanese/Wong/Rudd deal discussed that we aren’t being sold down the river -just a little bit – by our ‘friends’?

    If I am mistaken (I hope I am) and this is not the case, then perhaps Ms Plibersek will not just consult her constiuents in a tick a box aspect of what this means, but rather, EDUCATE her community about what these aspects mean.