Good turn out for Sydney rally
Star Observer estimates upwards of two thousand people turned out to march and hear speakers including Labor Senator Doug Cameron and Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon at a same sex marriage rally beginning at the Sydney Town Hall on Saturday.
Senator Cameron was among the first of a group of colleagues to break rank with his party’s official line on relationship recognition for same-sex couples and has promised a strong push for a change in policy at the ALP’s next national Conference in December 11.
Cameron told the crowd that commitment ceremonies and relationship registries were not acceptable alternatives to giving LGBTI Australians full equality and that he was proud to stand side by side with the LGBTI community in their fight for justice.
“If two human beings love each other they should have the right to marry,” said Cameron, “Love and commitment should be the test, not outdated and discriminatory Acts of Parliament.”
“We’re entering a period where if the campaign for marriage equality is handled strategically and sensibly the growing political and community support for marriage equality will result in a historic change to the Marriage Act.”
Cameron named Anthony Albanese, Tanya Plibersek and Penny Sharpe as fellow members of the ALP from NSW who had been pushing for full equality for LGBTI Australians within the party, and encouraged members of the audience and their friends and family members to write to the senators and MPs that represented them to “canvas the issue of equal rights for all Australians”.
Senator Rhiannon told the crowd that the Greens campaign to push the issue of marriage equality had had some recent success in the form of Adam Bandt’s motion calling on MPs to seek their constituents views on the issue, but that it was community members showing their concern through events like the rally that would give Australian parliamentarians the courage to do the right thing.
Rhiannon said that Cameron’s words at the rally were important as marriage equality needed Parliamentary support beyond the Greens. However she said Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition leader Tony Abbott remained stumbling blocks.
“You wouldn’t expect anything else from Tony Abbott but Julia Gillard is a big disappointment on this issue,” said Rhiannon.
“At times when you’re a prime minister you give leadership and this was an issue where we needed some leadership and she’s failed. But with people like Doug Cameron and the increasing numbers of MPs coming onside – and you know you’ve got the Greens there – we can win through on this one.”
Rhiannon finished by saying that a human right denied was a wrong for all Australians.
.
.
SENATOR DOUG CAMERON’S SPEECH
I support equal rights for all Australians. I support the rights of LGBTI Australians. I want to congratulate those who have campaigned tirelessly in the face of intolerance and institutional, political and cultural opposition to equality in marriage. Congratulations for the campaign that you’ve undertaken.
We’re entering a period where if the campaign for marriage equality is handled strategically and sensibly the growing political and community support for marriage equality will result in a historic change to the Marriage Act.
This will be a tough campaign. Nobody should underestimate the opposition that will be brought to bear against giving LGBTI Australians their rights. So it will be a campaign that we will need to bring about as much unity and sense of purpose as we possibly can because LGBTI Australians who wish to marry should have that right.
If two human beings love each other they should have the right to marry. Love and commitment should be the test, not outdated and discriminatory acts of Parliament.
No group in our society should be discriminated against or stigmatised as a result of love and their sexual preferences. In my view it’s a universal human right that all Australians should be treated equally before the law.
If we are serious about ending discrimination then all Australians should have the right to marry. Gay commitment ceremonies and relationship registries are not alternatives to equality for LGBTI Australians.
There are many who chose not to marry. But whether you wish to marry or not, you should have the right to chose- the same as every other Australian.
This is a debate that has been raging internally within the Labor Party for many years. Removing discrimination across federal laws have taken place progressively.
Anthony Albanese, Tanya Plibersek, Penny Sharpe along with Rainbow Labor and supporters like myself have been arguing for your rights within the Labor Party for many years and we will continue to do so.
The House of Representatives last week passed a motion urging all MPs to consult their local communities about this very issue.
A cross party support group for LGBTI Australians is being established in the Federal Parliament now. I will be one of the foundation members of that support group because no matter what happens in law, LGBTI Australians will still face tough times that many Australians will not and we should be there shoulder to shoulder with you, supporting you.
When you go home today I would ask you to email your local MP, your local Senator. You should seek meetings with your MPs and senators and you should canvas the issue of equal rights for all Australians. You should encourage your family and friends to do the same.
A number of arguments are being put forward against marriage equality for LGBTI Australians. In my view none of the arguments pass the test of intellectual rigor or fairness or equity.
The first argument I have heard is that in our society and with our heritage and our traditions, marriage has a special place.
This assumes that marriage is a social institution that does not evolve as social values change. There has never been a permanent fixed definition of marriage. If our definition of marriage never changed over time interracial marriage would still be illegal and marriage would still make a wife the property of the husband. That is gone and so should all other restrictions on marriage.
If our heritage and our traditions did not evolve we would still be flogging workers for insolence, using transportation to meet our labor needs and we would be hunting down aboriginals who threatened wealthy landowners. The white Australian policy would still be in place but things change and marriage rights should change in this country.
Surely if you want to protect and advance marriage then it should reflect contemporary social values and be an inclusive not exclusive institution. In places around the world such as South Africa, Argentina and Catholic Spain you can have a marriage between anyone- that’s inclusion- why cant it happen in Australia?
Another argument is that the Australian community does not support marriage equality as it is a fringe issue- this is the one I find really reprehensible – [that] we should just be concentrating on economic issues.
This is simply wrong. We live in a society not a market. We can manage the economy and build a good society. We must fight to build a good society where the market serves society and human rights and human dignity is respected and your dignity is respected.
Recent public polls show that a sizeable majority of Australians support marriage equality and more Australians support marriage equality than oppose it. I am with you for your fight for justice.
Your fight is a fight for a more inclusive and compassionate society. Your fight must go on and we must right the wrongs and change the law.
Thank you.
The contradictions abound…. you don’t want government to infringe on your civil rights yet say marriage is a civil right the government should give you. I can’t see how that’s supposed to work.
Baz- I want to marry my partner.
That does not mean for a moment I think that other relationships should be discriminated against over marriage, or individuals who are single. I find that discrimination abhorrent. It is a gross violation of your Civil Rights that laws are made to favour married couples.
There are many examples of discrimination in Health, Superannuation and Employment. You can be sacked from a nursing home if it is run by a religious institution, and you are in a defacto relationship no matter what your sexuality is. In effect this is government sanctioned oppression. The government is seeking to control where you work on the basis of your relationship status. That is a violation of the UN Convention on Human Rights. Religious Nursing homes are run mostly from government funding. Equally a religious Gp Clinic in a country twon can deny treatment on the basis of your sexuality.It is the government that controls what laws they operate under.
I like marriage not because I think it is a heterosexual institution or I think it oppresses people, but because I have seen in my family many happy marriages. I believe we own marriage, but I am asking for the right to have the State not to infringe my Civil Rights in laws that seek to oppress me. I am essentially complaining and raving about being denied access to this Civil Institution that I love and value. I believe it should be my choice. I do not want to get married to ensure any rights, but I will gladly point out the government favours marriage over other relationships, and individuals, and that is a great injustice. It is a breach of our Civil Liberties by our government to oppress us freedoms on the basis of us not being married. I think this also devalues marriage.
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. Clearly the Labor Party seeks to oppress us on the basis of our relationship status. This goes to the heart of what I think is fair and just.
Yes I want to marry, my choice, but why the Hell should anyone else be denied rights who does not get married? Why should the State decide where you work, your access to health or a nursing home, and jobs, let alone supper on the basis of you not being married?
Why do you have to get married to secure your civil rights Dave?
If heterosexuals have rights that homosexuals don’t then it’s scorned as ‘discrimination’.
If married couples have rights that de facto couples don’t then that too must be discrimination.
It only follows than that same-sex marriage will end one form of discrimination in order for people to opt into another.
Marriage is discriminatory. You opened my eyes to that Dave with your explanation of superannuation etc. Thank you.
Now, if you’re opposed to all forms of discrimination then you have a lot more explaining to do.
I agree with you Baz. Why should our Civil Rights be violated simply because we are not married?
If married people have rights, privileges and protections that the wider community don’t then that’s discrimination.
Owen- You call people “Gay Serial Pest”. You say defacto couples are treated by government the same as a married couple when clearly they are not.
You might think there is a lot of homophobia but it is far better then the way things were. I see great changes in society from the old days. I live in the country and I go to country marriages, balls etc, and have no problem dancing with my partner. The attitude of Australia has changed a great deal. People I remembered as saying terrible things about gay people would never say such things now.
Yes there is work to do, but society has greatly changed since it was not illegal to make love to your partner. It is worth remembering this when talking about homophobia.
Single people are truly discriminated like yes third class citizens. The amount of work Ive had to do overtime to work around married people and with kids is ludicrous. I for one never attend weddings. I never went to my relatives, my brothers nor my sisters wedding. Why? because the whole thing is based on lies. Even a Gay wedding would just add to the already fairytale joke of the modern age. Also, seems I cant have my own opinion without being discriminated by other gays as being in the Christian Evangelical category simply because I dont go with the (cough) rainbow flag way. Its just like the attitude of the Australian flag these days (cough, Cronulla). Im in no way religious or a Christian fundamentalist but then I dont need to justify myself.
Now the great thing about marriage is it is optional. The fact some are advocating against our right to choose does not bother us. They are few and I find no reason why I should not have that right to marry my love. I love my partner of many years. We look forward to marrying. For us it is about allowing us to participate in an important institution in society that we value. It is about giving us the dignity and respect to make that choice. I look forward to the day when we get together with our family and dear friends. We love marriage, and value it.
And what of single people Dave? How safe is their superannuation? Where do they fit into the scheme of things? If you assume married couples are first class and de facto relationships are second class, does that make single people third class? Sounds to me like it’s marriage that’s discriminating. If you choose to co-habit with another individual then so be it. Why should couples get benefits that single people don’t?
For those who might not be aware the government discriminates against relationships in favour of those who are married. Many Laws have been made to favour married couples in a whole range of areas. A married couple has more rights than an unmarried couple.
When the government says they will not recognize your marriage or relationship, they are saying you should be treated as second class citizens with many laws discriminating against you.
Hang on…. if a private superannuation company is entitled to direct your money wherever it sees fit, then exactly what is marriage supposed to achieve??? If there are anomolies in the superannuation rules then they should be fixed. What guarantee is there that changing one laws will have a flow-on effect to other laws? I thought the key issues here were equality and freedom, neither of those is served if couples HAVE to get married to secure something as basic as superannuation.
Owen
I think you are mistaken in your assertions.
My partner runs two hospitals in a country area and I assure you a rent receipt would not cut it at his hospitals. He knows of many hospitals like his, that have no government guidelines to demonstrate that you are in a lifelong relationship. At times defacto couples, do have trouble, as they cannot readily prove their relationship. This is regardless of your sexuality. You are at the mercy of the staff that are on at the time of your crisis.
Also as the editor said, Private Superannuation legally only has to pass on your money to your husband or wife. It is at the discretion of the trustees to give it to your defacto. It has been well documented in the SSO that many a time they do not give it to your partner of years and years. I have met trustees before who have told me sometimes they do not give to hetrosexual couples have they have the relationship was sanctioned by the family. So you can imagine some nasty bastard looking down on us.
There are simply so many areas of discrimination that presently only a marriage can protect your relationship.
What the government does with relationships, for better or worse, is to discriminate against relationships that are not marriage in some important areas, Federally and at a State Level.
I accept a government should have no place deciding if your relationship is real or not real. It should be up to you and your beloved. But in real world of the Government running everything you can either fight and have Same-Sex Marriage, or live with your current relationship being discriminated against, and try to fight the government to stop butting into your life and telling what is an acceptable relationship and what is not.
For me I am bit old fashioned and I kind of like Marriage. There was a time, not so long ago, you got together with your partner, did some ritual and celebration, and so you were married as far as anyone is concerned. Now we live with government over our shoulder. They decide if you are married or not married. As wrong as this is it is a reality I live with.
Dave, you are wrong. You can in fact leave as a benificiary your cat or dog in your superannuation if you want to, actually you can leave it to who ever you desire if you want. Centrelink have recently made changes to same sex de facto relationships, in case you havent noticed. The Gay scene itself is outdated and needs to change. Majority peoples attitudes in Australia today support same sex relationships, its the Gay community that needs to put their finger out! Dave, of course a hospital and nursing home needs proof of de facto relationship! That can be a rental receipt or rental agreement copy.
Editor’s Note: 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.
Just for the record, I am not a Christian or of any religious persuasion (shudder). Nor am I naive enough to think one law (marriage) will make all other discriminatory laws fall like dominoes. We learnt that when homosexuality was decriminalised almost 25 years ago. But some people never learn.
It sad to see some people posing , as a person from the GLBTI community, who are really Christian Evangelicals. They talk about an end to the marriage debate and say we have no discrimination at all. They say no person wants to marry their love. Of course we know the reality is different. They are following a script handed out to the faithful to stop Same-Sex Marriage in California run by the nutty alliance of Mormons, Catholics, and others against our rights.
A superannuation company does not have to give your super to your defacto partner if you have private super, even with the changes by Kevin Rudd it is up to the trustee of that company. If you are married, they have to give the super to your wife or husband.
If your partner is rushed off to hospital the hospital can require proof of your relationship before they give you access to your beloved. It is at the discretion of each hospital as there are no guidelines for establishing your relationship.
In Nursing homes there is no obligation to accommodate your partner as again a defacto partnership is not recognized.
There are many areas of discrimination that exist as the government does not recognize defacto relationships in the same way it does marriage
Some good points there Owen. Equality is in the de facto status, marriage is a formality that fewer and fewer heterosexuals exercise. And of those who do, the divorce rate is alarmingly high. Opening up marriage to anyone and everyone isn’t equality, just politically correct tokenism.
Furthermore, it was only six years ago that the Marriage Act was amended to exclude same-sex couples, why didn’t some of these people get married when they had the chance? The possibility was real enough to force John Howard’s hand. All this carping a mere six years down the track sounds very hollow.
Oh Chris, the decriminalisation of homosexuality is an entirely different situation completely. Thats what the first mardi Gras was all about, “A protest for Gay Rights” now the Mardi Gras has simply become a joke, run by money grubbing “Gay Pests of 2010”. Unlike many other countries around the world, Australia recognises a Gay couple living together as a “De facto” which is just the same as your married anyway. Tell me what rights do I enjoy today in 2010 as a 39 year old gay man that I should be greatful to the previous generation? Um in case you hadnt noticed, Homophobia is still alive and happening! The previous generation didnt put an end to that. Chris, I think youve frequented the golden mile for far too long where you dont see outside the Gay “Square” thats why you get so defensive. I, like many others dont fly the rainbow flag, I dont go to or like Gay bars because theyre full of Queens, and I dont think issues like marriage are important, in fact I think Marriage is out dated like religions.
Owen..you sound self loathing..’ gay pests’ eh !..we need more ‘gay pests’ in this country not less ! Gay marriage is a civil rights issue nothing less . The same rights should apply equally to all australians gay or straight.That includes the right to get married.
The rights you enjoy as a gay person in 2010 were achieved by the actions of ‘the gay pests’ in earlier times eg the right to not be concidered a criminal – homosexuality was decriminalised in 1984 in nsw largely by the continued action by ‘ the gay pests ‘ the funding for hiv prevention and treatment at the start of the hiv epidemic was achieved by the lobbing of government by ‘the gay pests ‘ Anti vilification legislation and equity in financial matters was achieved by the continued protests to politicians by ‘the gay pests “…need i go on?
Chris, in Australia today, if you live with your same sex partner, your relationship is classed as a defacto which is pretty much equal to marriage. Also, “Gay Community” in 2010, thats a laugh! Many Gay and lesbians treat each other like second rate citizens! These Rallys could go on for years. Why has Civil unions passed in many other countries? because they dont have forceful Gay pests like we have here in Australia.
Owen ..where did I demand in my post that ALL gay and lesbians should attend? Owen you may be happy to be treated as a second rate citizen in your own country , denied the same rights and obligations as heterosexual citizens. I for one am not ! Marriage personally does not interest me , however i will fight for my right ,as a citizen of this country to marry the person i love if i wish to.
Chris, are you saying all gays and lesbians have to attend? Not all of us fly the rainbow flag nor feel that Marriage is important. Thats very demanding of you Chris!
We need a television advertisment for the next rally. Seriously. People will come. They just need to know it is on.
Tanya great post and congratulations on your social awareness at the age of 15! Awesome ! Sorry i gave the impression only gay and lesbian people support these events (in small numbers ). What was really amazing to me as a 50 year old gay man was the number of young and heterosexual people who hit the streets demanding equal rights for our community , especially young women such as yourself Tanya… big big thank you to you and people like you – it gives me great hope for the future. Fellow gays and lesbians – lift your game !
This was an absolutely amazing, phenomenal experience. The turn out was actually estimated upwards of 3000, double Melbourne’s rally last week. ALthough a small turn out, we were loud and proud. I just want to say that it isn’t JUST the gay and lesbian community that attends these things – as chris suggested. Everyone has to step up and get involved. The next rally is in march and I think that ANYONE who cares about human rights and equality should come and march. I’m only 15 and I think that it is about time that not only Sydney, but Australia stands up for equal rights for all Australians. For those that are saying this is a ‘non-issue’ I hardly think equality for Australians doesn’t matter. This matters to a group of people, and if we want equality we have to start somewhere.
Legalise gay marriage now.
The numbers speak for themselves. This is a non issue. In fact I don’t even know anyone who’s cares about this, they only seem to exist online on sites like this. Why is that?
Pathetic turnout – why are Australian gay and lesbians so apathetic compared to those from other parts of the world? Shameful and embarrassing! Compare these numbers to the turnout for Fair Day! Sydney you deserve what you get and have become !
A great day of solidary and peaceful protest. Well done everyone
[…] See the article here: Good turn out for Sydney rally – Sydney Star Observer […]
Two thousand people is not a good turn out…even the last Sleaze Ball managed double that.
[…] Full Story from The Star Observer […]