HMAS Inequality leaking on marriage
A leaking hole has been blown in the Federal Government’s case against same-sex marriage with the news that transgendered individuals with partners of their reassigned gender will be recognised as married from July 1.
Recognition will only be granted to those who marry as opposite-sex couples before the transgendered partner undergoes surgery, but it’s a powerful precedent, and one unlikely to go unnoticed by social conservatives.
Post-operative transgendered individuals are considered their reassigned gender by law throughout Australia, but breaking up such marriages would have been just too ugly and would have generated too many headlines.
But it begs the question: other than political expediency, what makes an opposite-sex couple who later become a same-sex couple fit for marriage but not a couple who’ve been the same gender since birth?
The inconsistency of allowing some same-sex couples to be married but not others sets a powerful precedent for campaig-ners to exploit -” particularly while the Labor-governed states refuse to honour the ALP National Conference’s pre-election promise to create nationwide
relationship registries.
Speaking of the National Conference, the decision to bring its next meeting forward six months has set off a flurry of speculation about an early election in September.
If it were to occur, it would be a full Senate election, meaning both Steven Fielding and Nick Xenophon would be up for election.
With Fielding unlikely to receive much in the way of ALP preferences, Family First’s foray into federal politics is probably at an end. Xenophon is likely to be returned and is largely pro-gay -” cautious on marriage but likely to support civil unions, putting him ahead of most of the federal Labor team.
But the Greens could be the big winners should they clinch another two Senate seats and grab an unshared balance of power -” allowing them the strength to force the government’s hand and deliver final and complete GLBT equality.
With NSW Greens leader Lee Rhiannon poised to switch to federal politics, they look set to wage a strong campaign to win back the Senate spot of former Greens GLBT spokeswoman Kerry Nettle.
At this stage the Government’s big election promise to the gay community seems likely to be federal anti-discrimination legislation, though I remain willing to be surprised by a federal registry.Significant reforms in the meantime are unlikely.
I don’t disagree with your maths…but sharks and shrubs had a better chance of getting a deal done on their behalf than Lesbians and Gays.
Re the Greens refusing to support Government legislation unless the marriage ban was overturned, they can hardly spring that on voters AFTER an election, that would be very dishonest and misleading.
Go to the election and say it clearly – “If we hold the balance of power, the Greens will not support Government legislation until the marriage ban is overturned.”
I don’t think Green supporters would be less likely to vote Green if they knew this was such a core, fundamental part of the Greens reason to be in parliament.
Of course, I do remember after the 1995 election when briefly it was thought Clover Moore had the balance of power.
Initially, Clover stated her support to form Government was contingent on one of the parties agreeing to comprehensive gay and lesbian law reform.
That disappeared in 24 hours in a sickening, spineless cave in. (It was a moot point, because Carr got enough seats to form Government in his own right.)
Lesson out of that?
It is not a matter of trust in political figures or parties. It is the practical results and realities of power. I want to hear more than best intentions from the minor parties or independents – I want to know how they will accomplish things – especially getting the marriage ban overturned.
Ben, Stephen did get that one wrong but during that time the ALP also had the numbers for a majority with the Shooters, Christian Democrats and right wing independents whenever it suited them. That dramatically reduced the ability of the Greens and Democrats to make the sort of demands you’d like to see.
Don’t believe me? Do the maths-
During the period 2003-2004 there were three Greens and one Democrat in the NSW Legislative Council. Total: 4
There were also two Christian Democrats, One Shooters MP, one Unity MP one Outdoor Recreation Party MP, and One Nation’s David Oldfield. Total: 6
The Labor Party clearly had more flexibility when dealing with the Right.
It would be very noble and touching for the Greens to pledge to block any legislation the Federal Government wants to pass unless the marriage act is amended but realistically if they were going to do that it’s something they’d do after the election rather than before- declaring you’re going to hold the Government to ransom generally isn’t the best way to get preferences from the party that will most likely be that Government. It would also scare off some voters who’d see it as reckless behaviour. It just doesn’t make any electoral sense.
My question for you Ben, if you don’t think either the Democrats or the Greens are sincere in their respective equality pledges to us, then who the hell can we trust?
Stephen:-
Check the record from 2003. The ALP, with the Greens and Democrat had a majority in the NSW Upper House for 4 years.
All done. Legislation through. No need for anyone else. Check your own grasp of recent Oz history you will (sheepishly)realise your error.
Andrew:-
The Democrats were in exactly that position – holding the balance of power – and never forced the Gay and Lesbian rights issue.
So ahead of the next election, lets see a pledge from the Greens that unless the next Government agrees to amend the marriage act, it will not support any of its legislation.
Rather less theoretical exercise in power and altogether more practical and demonstrable support for our issues.
Ben, I’m sure there are many examples where the Government relied on the Greens and Democrats to pass legislation during the twelve year period that both were in the NSW Legislative Council, but any deal has to have two sides.
In a shared balance of power situation, if the Greens ask for something that the ALP thinks will lose them votes, they’ll simply knock them back and either offer them something else or threaten to go to the other side of politics to make a deal. They can keep going back and forth like this until one side caves and puts up a demand they’re willing to concede. They can even go to the Opposition if they want to- some sort of deal is always possible if you do enough horse trading.
If the Greens achieved results on “national parks, dolphins and certain unions” and not gay and lesbian rights it’s probably because our rights demands fell into the government’s “other” category, not the Greens.
But when a minor party holds the balance unshared it’s a different kettle of fish altogether- where not just the passage of individual pieces of legislation are at stake but the very ability of the government to function without their support.
This forces the ruling party into coalition in everything but name with the minor party, allowing them to influence the overall legislative program of the government in a very profound way.
However I seem to remember having an almost identical exchange with you on another column last year, so we’re probably not going to convince each other here either.
Talk about rewriting history.
Ben, when you get proven wrong, at least have the integrity to admit you are wrong.
What Andrew is clearly saying, and what actually happened, was that the government required more than just itself, the Greens and the Democrats in the NSW Upper House to get any legislation through, therefore requiring either Fred Nile, or a Shooters Party candidate to add their voice.
Quite clearly Fred Nile was never going to lend his support to any gay law reform – and one look at the Shooters Party’s background would tell you they are in the same boat.
It really is mischevious of you to blur the lines between state and federal politics. They are two different entities with two completely different political make ups.
Seems you just want to rip into Andrew for the sake of it.
At least people can see just how poor your grasp of australia’s political history is when you post silly comments like those above.
Can’t imagine what they will think about your comments on other stories as a result. Best you change you posting name on here – again!
Doesn’t sound like you would make a very good politician Andrew. There are many examples of legislation that only the Government had to rely on the Greens and Democrats to get through – no deal was possible with any other group. Minor parties wheeling and dealing for national parks, dolphins and certain unions was okay…but gay and lesbian rights fell in the “other” category.
Hi Ben, during the period of which you speak the NSW Greens and Democrats also shared the balance of power with the Shooters Party, the Christian Democrats and a range of other right to centre right Independents.
A minor party needs an unshared balance of power to force a government’s hand- otherwise they can simply make a deal with somewhere else (as the NSW Government does so often with Fred Nile and the Shooters). The Greens have never had that in New South Wales, but it is a distinct possibility at a national level after the next Federal election.
Andrew Potts claims the Greens having the balance of power in the Senate would “force the government’s hand and deliver final and complete GLBT equality.”
When the Greens, had the balance of power in NSW (with the Democrats) they did no such thing. And that included Lee Rhiannon.