Letters – Melbourne (122)
DANGEROUS PLAN
Reports that the Victorian government is planning to restore an unfettered right to religious organisations to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity before new equal opportunity laws have even come into force are confounding and more than a little dangerous.
Having recently promised $4m to combat suicide among same-sex attracted and trans young people, this latest proposal flies in the face of all research (of which there is much) demonstrating a clear link between discrimination, harassment and poor mental health — especially among younger people.
Perhaps this move is not so surprising given the state’s new protector of human rights, Attorney-General Robert Clark, described homosexuality in 1995 as “foolish”, “destructive” and more harmful than smoking.
Let’s hope the new EOA is not pronounced DOA like far too many of our young people.
— Jason
SURROGACY
My friends used a surrogacy clinic in India and have two wonderful children. The clinic did not allow them to see the mother or know how she is doing after the birth. There are no cards, no correspondence.
My partner is a medical doctor, and has seen that sometimes mothers can die at birth or have other complications that require ongoing medical treatment.
There is not even a guarantee that the mother will get paid well, or have the ability to get ongoing medical care if required. You certainly will be not around to find out.
I fully support laws that protect women from exploitation. Laws that give people a voice. I would have liked to have seen commercial surrogacy happen in Australia where it could be regulated.
We have a chance to take control of commercial surrogacy and allow it in Australia. I hope we can make laws that give us some control over commercial surrogacy, rather than giving us no control over it as is the current approach in banning it.
The current system in India is ripe for exploitation. It is not transparent. It is not open. We must make commercial surrogacy legal in Australia if we are to have any hope of controlling it.
— Dave
ALARMING IGNORANCE
Marriage is covered by Section 51 of the federal Constitution. A state cannot legislate with respect to marriage.
Civil unions, (probably) yes. I say probably because the matter has not been decided by the High Court.
That some self-styled activists are so ignorant of the federal constitution is alarming.
— Joseph
THE HOUSE AND A CAR
Strangely enough you don’t seem to have noticed that the things you mention (Doug Pollard, Southern Star Observer, #121), “Now we want the house, the car, the kids and a cute little life in suburbia, all in the name of equality. Far from trying to change society, we are changing ourselves to fit in with the society that already exists,” are already available to every member of our community, already embraced by many in our community, plus many more advantages like government benefits, wills and probate, adoption laws, etc, that you might care to catch up with sometime soon.
You are spot on about Pell and his cohorts and cronies — a pox upon their houses.
— Lea
