Pinkboard Graffiti Wall - Equality Graffiti Wall 7

"Increased pressure has fallen on the federal government to eliminate same-sex discrimination after a recent poll which found that the majority of Australians did not oppose gay marriage drew support from international gay lobby groups.
Australian Marriage Equality (AME) said last month's poll, which found 57 per cent of Australians agreed that gay couples should have the right to marry, sparked international interest from individuals and organisations.
"AME has received congratulatory emails from people whose faith in the fair-mindedness of ordinary Australians has been affirmed by this poll," said Sharon Dane, AME's national convenor.
Evan Wolfson, director of New York-based Freedom to Marry said: "Like many people around the world, in places as diverse as Canada and Colombia, Western Europe and South Africa, and even states in the USA, fair-minded Australians are taking a fresh look at how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage hurts families and helps no one. The politicians are lagging behind the people in the recognition that fundamental freedom and basic fairness are undermined when couples who have made a commitment in life are denied the equal commitment under the law. That commitment is called marriage."
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/news/20070704.htm

Great to see the Australian public now sees gays & lesbians as deserving of equal choices & equal freedom, just as they did when they supported granting equality & freedom to mixed Aboriginal/White couples, that were banned from being allowed to marry.

"Even if around half of all marriages end in divorce, actually tying the knot is better than living in a de facto partnership or remaining single.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Marriage-makes-most-people-happier/2007/08/14/1186857499806.html
The legal fraternity recognises in some small areas, there is an actual difference in Marriage vs Defacto in it's level of committment & public display/ceremony.
Our only option currently here in Australia is to either get Married overseas, in New Zealand, Canada, Spain, or U.K., or have a City of Melbourne or City of Sydney Relationship Declaration Ceremony & Certificate Signing (that satisfys the deeper commitment & public display/ceremony with family & friends). Even with the Relationship Declaration Program, you have to apply to get a "divorce" (cessation certificate from the Council) if the relationship ends. "

Interesting. When I first came out I felt like I gave no thought to the future, was unhappy & on a self destructive course as I felt like a peice of society's unwanted trash. Now, after hearing about Darren Hayes, Elton John etc weddings overseas, I feel that one day I might settle down with someone & have something to live for, rather that focusing on a downward spiral of friends into barebacking & cheap thrills, with a reckless regard for what I thought was a futile future.
Part of it I think is being just being Out 24/7. If little Anthony Callea can be out now 24/7 for the rest of his life, so can I, in every situation, every minute of every day, just like Anthony is now for every minute of the rest of his life.

"Equality between human beings is written into the US constitution. This was won through revolutionary struggle. Remember that famous bit that says “we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal”? This is why it is unconstitutional in the US to ban same-sex marriage. "
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/720/37389

... I have always wondered if when Bush failed (without the support of the opposition Democrats), he then talked his Irag War Buddy Howard into doing it here, as part of the Free Trade Agreement. It all happened around the same time- Bush's marriage ban failed, Howard was staying at Bush's ranch nutting out the free trade agreement & then came back to Oz saying things like "activist judges" who might twist our laws to recognise same sex couples. The term "activist judges" was a term Bush used heavily during his failed attempt to ban same sex marriage. It was actually in the family law courts that same sex couples with children married in Canada were having their cases heard & prior to the ban, those courts could have had the potential power to recognise those legally performed overseas same sex marriages.

so, your role models are Darren Hayes, Elton John and Anthony Callea? And being hooked into a marriage is what will give you "something to live for"? And anyone who chooses not to follow that path is "on a downward spiral of ... barebacking & cheap thrills," and a "futile future"?

I am guessing then that you are never going to understand that some gay men have no need for a codependant to 'make them happy', they take responsibility for their own happiness. And they are very happy to be gay, don't need to emulate hetero's and be 'married.'
I'm one, I live my life like I own it, not a partner, not the state, not the church. Which is what you seem to be saying is your need.

you supposedly say that you live your life like you own it, not the state, yet you are advocating that people who are on DSP aren't getting enough from the government and are liable to be worse off because others wish to be married!

there is nothing suppositional in what I said, I am not an advocate of anyone, I did not say those who are on the DSP should get more benefits; but I DID say that our disadvantaged on the dsp should not be sacrificed just so those on $300K a year can live out their Myer Gift registry fantasies.

"THE federal cabinet is split before deliberations today over whether same-sex couples should have the same legal and financial rights as heterosexual couples.
Amid lobbying behind the scenes by backbenchers and ministers for cabinet to adopt the proposal, sources said yesterday the result would most likely swing on the view of the Prime Minister.
John Howard was cited by one source as "being quite supportive" but neither he nor his office would telegraph his view yesterday.
The Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has been urging his cabinet colleagues to end the legislated discrimination in 58 separate areas of financial and work-related entitlements ranging from government pensions and superannuation to veterans benefits and Centrelink payments.
He is understood to have the backing of fellow ministers Joe Hockey, Brendan Nelson, Nick Minchin and Philip Ruddock.
The Liberal backbencher Warren Entsch has driven the push from the outset.
Yesterday Mr Entsch said he was being inundated with angry mail from envangelical Christians and he feared people were confusing his push with gay marriage, which was not being proposed.
The proponents of the change want the definition of "de facto" broadened beyond a man and a woman to include couples of the same sex.
The High Court judge Michael Kirby highlighted the inequity recently when he pointed out his partner of 38 years, Johan van Vloten, would have no access to Justice Kirby's pension if the judge died before him.
Under current law, if a retired judge in a heterosexual relationship dies before his or her partner, the partner is entitled to 62.5 per cent of the judge's pension. But Mr van Vloten would not receive anything because he is not female.
One minister supporting the change expressed amazement there was opposition to the idea.
"There shouldn't even need to be a debate," the minister said.
Labor has promised to end the discrimination if elected. The Democrats also support the changes. Both parties have tried to amend pieces of legislation to include same-sex recognition but were defeated by the Government, which intends to deal with the matter as a package."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gay-rights-ruling-hinges-on-howard/2007/08/20/1187462176760.html

I have always voted Liberal based on financial performance, being tough on Terrorism etc, but only now can I see how they are dragging thier feet on gay rights reform- just like how federal Labor dragged its feet under Paul Keating. But with the election so close, the Libs would have to spell out exactly what they are proposing, BEFORE the election, with actual concrete details, not like the Superannuation fiasco where after the election we found out they were only going to implement it with us as Third Class citizens under "interdendant" status instead of de-facto as directed to them to do so by the Australian Christian Lobby ACL. Better yet, I might do what's been suggested here before, & vote 1 the Greens, & 2 Lib so Libs can only form government under Two Pary Preferred Preferences.
But the main thing to remember is that the Evangelical Christian Extremists are bombarding the goverment telling them not to give as de-facto recognition as that "mimicks" marriage, but instead to only give us Third Class "interdependant" status only e.g. like a mentally retarted relative would be interdepenant, we would be lumped into that same category like we are now for Superannuation (Prior to retirement- after retirment when it really counts, we are not recognised at all!!)

Start writing letters now! Don't worry about writing to Warren Entsch (he's already collected 25,000 signatures in support of gay rights), but write to Howard, to Rudd, and to your local federal members ASAP, telling them you don't want interdependant status, you want equal de-facto, and marriage if you want (to bring us up to standard to other civilised countries that have equal marriage).

Very interesting to see how this pans out, particularly as Howard has the last say......here's hoping for the best!!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gay-rights-ruling-hinges-on-howard/2007/08/20/1187462176760.html

but DSP is a STATE benefit - so they DO own you - even if you aren't on it yourself.

How many people do you know on $300K? I don't know any. It's an insult to claim that the average gay man is on that much when in reality we are just ordinary people trying to make our way in the world (and still manage to volunteer our time to community causes).

I live in Potts Point, it's not hard to know someone on $300k. I also have 3 csn clients. 'Marriage' rights still discrimnates aginst HIV+ battlers. What's your point?

I have seen straight hetero opposite sex couples sitting in HIV clinic waiting rooms- what makes gay couples so special that they deserve special treatment in getting extra above those couples??????????

""It makes me angry and frustrated," Hayes told News Ltd newspapers. "I'm Australian and the way the law sits I can't bring my partner home as my partner.
"That to me is an infringement of my civil rights - a very un-Australian thing.
Hayes hit out at the need for his partner, Richard Cullen, who he married in London last year, to fly to Australia on a tourist visa."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/darren-hayes-arrested-in-uk/2007/08/21/1187462274300.html

He was here in Australia last week. He should cut his losses & just bypass Australia altogether, whilever there is still extra discrimination being written into law against us by Liberals & Labor.
Also, Natalie Imbruglia's cousin, Stephanie, a trasngender, has copped the full force of a new homophobic 2006 law that now records her birth gender intead of her new gender- http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/08/082007trans.htm

It isn't Marriage rights that "discriminate against HIV+ battlers". It is more likely the de-facto laws.

Marriage is a contract voluntarily entered into. You actually choose to get married.

The rights in de-facto relationship happen automatically after a time if you are living in a domestic relationship.

...because it's a convenient argument against same-sex marriage for rebellious queers. When in reality it's just discrimination against hetero couples. We either believe in a equality for all - or we don't. It's that simple. These people who are arguing against same-sex marriage because HIV poz couples will lose their advantage are better off using their energy to lobby for increases to DSP for everyone.

PS. i live in western sydney and don't know anyone who is earning $300K let alone gay people who earn that amount. THAT's a much more realistic picture then a couple of people living in Potts Point.

"THAT's a much more realistic picture then a couple of people living in Potts Point."

Well either you want equality or not - should Potts Pointers be excluded fro the equasian?

OK, now this is getting a bit confused, let me try and catch up here. So you guys actually WANT the law changed so that gay couples living in poverty will be further disadvantaged because that will make us equal to hetero's? And you're not satisfied with getting the areas of taxation, super, inheritance etc etc equalised, you HAVE to have a marriage certificate, even if pushing for that means NOT getting those other rights? Do you understand it's the MARRIAGE thing that is the sticking point for those conservative curmudgeons with the power to effect change for us? Sorry, I just don't see your reasoning any more than I can see how a 'marriage certificate will in any way validate or improve your relationships. Do you think more of a hetero if you tell you they are married? I hate to say it, but I don't think queers are the same as straights. We're neither better nor worse but different than; and that's something I've always celebrated.

"It seems Philip Ruddock's Cabinet submission in favour of granting some entitlements sparked quite a long and passionate debate, but there was no resolution and the matter was deferred indefinitely.
I'm told Ruddock, John Howard and most others sided with reform. But they couldn't persuade Tony Abbott, Kevin Andrews and some recalcitrant Nationals who frequently cited an anti-reform letter-writing campaign to justify their position.
We are looking at a double tragedy.
The first is the Coalition is showing itself to be incapable of embracing moderate, overdue, widely-supported gay law reform, despite the hard work of key figures like Warren Entsch and Malcolm Turnbull, plunging hope of reform under a re-elected Coalition Government to a new low.
The second is that national policy on same-sex couples is being held hostage by the Vatican.
Powerful Prime Ministers like John Howard are not usually thwarted by fretful National MPs or even intimidated by bulk church emails.
But when Australia's two most successful church-loyal politicians, and a senior employee of its leading Catholic prelate, speak with one voice against any recognition of same-sex relationships at all, you can be sure there are forces at work it would be unwise to antagonise."
http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/weblog.php

Sorry Malcolm, but you either need to now run as an indepedant, defect to the Democrats, or hand the seat over to The Greens.

"...Another issue exercising Christians is the debate over extending to gay couples the same legal and financial rights as enjoyed by heterosexual de facto couples.

After two hours of debate on Tuesday, cabinet deferred making a decision and there is no indication when it might do so.

The cabinet is evenly split on the issue with ministers Tony Abbott and Kevin Andrews, both conservative Christians, leading the opposition while Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey, Philip Ruddock and Brendan Nelson are pushing to change the law.

It is understood the Prime Minister, John Howard, supports changing the law but told cabinet "we'll have a further look at it".

Although the proposed change does not include gay marriage, the evangelical Christian lobby is strongly opposed to ending discrimination against gays, making it a sensitive topic so close to an election.

If adopted, same-sex couples would qualify as de facto couples and partners would enjoy the same Commonwealth superannuation, pension and welfare benefits as if they were in a heterosexual relationship.

However, some same-sex couples on single-person benefits would lose money."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/no-votes-in-aid-for-family-planning/2007/08/22/1187462354385.html

You are quite right - queers are not the same as straights, gay men and lesbians on the other hand.....

ok, ok., gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, intersexuals, omnisexuals, vegesexuals and assexual lesbian transgeneders...I just used the shorthand.

Free speech? Not while we're on sheep's back

price is too high to pay to protect the Aussie woolgrower. With marked contempt for the effect it would have on freewheeling public debate, Peter Costello has introduced a little bill to clobber campaigners against the bloody business of mulesing sheep. But not only them: his strategy will snare anyone calling for customer boycotts.

So if you're asking Australians not to buy lipstick tested on caged rabbits, rugs woven by Pakistani slaves or suits made with mulesed wool, then pray your boycott calls don't succeed, for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is about to be given the power to sue you out of the water if they do.

Gagging public debate with such threats has been an old ambition of the Howard Government.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/free-speech-not-while-were-on-sheeps-back/2007/08/22/1187462353847.html

This could have serious implications for the gay and lesbian community. We would no longer be allowed to advocate for a boycott of companies that are homophobic without the risk of being sued and having to pay for their commercial losses.

Alot of people are offended by the term queer and refuse to be labelled as such. Just like Lesbians didn't want to be included in the umbrella term "gay" so too with "queer". I'm not queer. I'm not even close to queer.

After the news today, that the Evangelical letter writing campaign to Tony Abbott has outweighed the 25,000 signatures in support of same sex couples collected by Warren Entsch, then we need to start sending some letter too.
Would have been a good idea if at he recent national rally, everyone got a pre-printed post card with stamp & the rally march then swung past a red post box. From around the country, that would have guaranteed 5,000 letters to Tony Abbott.

if they are all so happy, why do 50% divorce? I support marriage for those that want it, but can I just say how much it irritates me when people who want marriage say that marriage is happier and a 'deeper' committment than defacto relationships. So if we had marriage rights and I met someone tonight at a bar and had a whirlwind romance and got married next week, that relationship is a deeper, more committed and happier (altho it may be a fun filled few weeks!) relationship than my current 27 year defacto relationship?? Just because you have a ceremony? Oh come on.....there is a lot more to a relationship than a ceremony. By all means push for marriage but don't do it by insulting other people'
s relationship choices.

Shouldn't we be organising a mass rally ,while the world leaders are here for APEC. This would then at least put it in the spot light of the world media as to how Australia is lagging behind other civilised countries in its treatment of us as second class citizens.

If we knew the motorcades would be proceeding down Oxford Street could'nt we line both sides with a massive demonstration outling how we are being discriminated against?

It's just what the studies are finding, that de-facto is not as deep of a public committment in terms of what is available to publicy celebrate & affirm your relationship with your friends & family- about your parter officially joining your extended family of support.
The City of Melbourne & City of Sydney Relationship Declaration ceremonies are a great way for gays & lesbians to still be able to participate in bringing thier friends & families together to publicly affirm thier relationship in an officially recorded civil ceremony. (or religious ceremony, if performed in MCC who can officiate on behalf of the City of Melb & Syd)

"(Canberra) Any improvements in benefits for same-sex couples appear to be a long way off in Australia following a raucous cabinet meeting this week in Canberra.
Conservatives within Prime Minister John Howard's Liberal government have managed to delay the introduction of a bill to provide limited rights to gay and lesbian couples until after the next federal election.
Cabinet moderates had been pressing to bring in the bill as soon as possible.
In the end the cabinet decided to leave it up to Howard when the bill would be presented to Parliament and just how far the reforms would go.
Putting the issue solely in Howard's hands will mean no possibility of either same-sex marriage or civil unions. The prime minister has consistently said he would not consider either.
Australia lags behind other major industrial nations in providing rights to same-sex couples.
In 2004 Howard's government passed federal legislation limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
In February for the second time Howard's government quashed an attempt by the Australian Capital Territory to enact civil union legislation. The government said that it violated the gay marriage ban.
Last year after Howard's government trashed the first ACT bill the federal Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission began an investigation into inequities faced by same-sex couples. The commission held hearings across the country.
Commissioners heard from dozens of gay couples in hearings across the country of how partners have been cut out of wills because they have not legal status, how children in same-sex relationships are harmed, and how federal pension law hurts one partner when the other dies."
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/08/082407aumar.htm

This is the lead story on the international gay news network at the moment. Oh well, we know what we'll get if we wait till AFTER the election from Libs- nothing. And if we vote in Labor on Primary Votes, we'll get a few crumbs say in the last year of thier second term- the year 2015. But, if we vote in Labor on Secondary Votes under the Two Pary Preferred system, with Primary votes going to the Greens, then Labor will be under the thumb of the Greens policies, including immediate removal of all discrimination- starting with extra discrimination added in 2004 in the form of the 2004 Marriage/Civil Union Ban.

- for the second time Howard's government quashed an attempt by the Australian Capital Territory to enact civil union legislation. The government said that it violated the gay marriage ban. -

Mmmm. The government themselves are referring to it as a marriage ban, yet some in our own community are still under the delusion it's not a ban. Worst thing is, now the ban is in place, it is being used to ban much more things that what we originally thought. The ban has the power to bar civil unions, and bar post-retirement self funded same sex couple superannuation pensions.

I phoned my work Superannuation hotline, & was told (by the supervisor), quote: "Since 2004 the Federal Government spelled out that they do not recognise same sex couples at all in this area" when I enquired about my super pension - a pension made up of MY money. It would go to my latest opposite sex defacto, but not my legal husband as married in Australia's so called mother country U.K. in 2006, plus defacto of 12 years.

That totally sucks, it must break your heart. I really think the push for 'marriage rights' is going to cost us the chance of equity in any of these fiscal areas, like super, inheritance, tax etc. The reason is that the 'covenant of marriage' is one way the church retains power over the state (education is another.) And the churches are never going to relinquish that power. (Anyone remember their history? The English version of the Reformation was precipitated by a marriage dispute between Henry VIII and Church authorities. Church conventions did not allow even a King to exercise jurisdiction over matrimonial matters. )

Homosexuals are not the same as heterosexuals. Legislation can be ammended to embrace that difference; the Entcsh bill for example, has nothing to do with marriage... it is simply about glbqti being given the same rights as every other Australian citizen while respecting the uniqueness of our relationships - and there are plenty of precedents for that.

The marriage model some insist on is the playing of 'husband and wife' roles. Apart from the patriarchal and archaic nature of that idea, it is problematic because it inadvertently victimises the already impoverished. Same sex couples on welfare - and we're talking about HIV+ peeps here mostly - would be considered by Centrelink not as equals, but man and wife, with the wife role dependant on the husband, and so ineligible for welfare.

I have seen references to Superannuation Funds that do recognise a same-sex partner in this situation. Perhaps people who have their funds in invested with a "gay friendly" fund could contribute to a list, so that those who are currently with "stigmatic" funds can ring up and say "Sorry, I'm taking my money elsewhere."

Shayne,

As I said above, it is not marriage that will cause "problems" for couples on disability pensions. It is the de-facto laws.

"For the first time, the Federal Government has laid out what it regards as the 10 essential Australian values every citizen must embrace.
The values in the 40-page draft guide released today were written mostly by Mr Andrews and Prime Minister John Howard.
The pamphlet provides a summary of Australia's history. It will be given to all new citizenship applicants. It describes Australia as "a nation at ease with the world and itself".
The 10 Australian values focus on "mateship and a fair go", including tolerance and mutual respect and compassion for those in need, dignity and freedom of the individual and the freedom of speech.
Other values include the freedom of religion and secular government, freedom of association, support for parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, equality under the law, equality of men and women, equality of opportunity and peacefulness.
"On the whole, Australians support the principle of live and let live," the pamphlet says.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22309787-29277,00.html

O.M.G.! I don't know which line of hypocracy to start with- apart from saying that obviously gays & lesbians born here are not citizens!!
We are sub-human, third class citizens (interdependant status, down from de-facto, down from marriage access), who don't get to enjoy all this overflowing "equality this, equality that".

Howard's new personally written Citizenship Test. Aboriginal history before Europeans arrived is dispensed with in four sentences. Aussie rules football is explained at length.

The "marriage model" as Shayne puts it is NOT patriarchal nor archaic.

It is easy to see how it has evolved over the centuries to become what it is today. Women are not owned by their husbands anymore. Marriages aren't forever bound together regardless of the circustances. Divorce is legal. Married couples don't need to live together. Separated couples are allowed to live under one roof. A woman (or man) has the right to say no to sex with their married partner if they choose. Women don't have to take their husbands name. Marriage can be whatever heterosexuals want it to be.

If you don't like marriage that's fine. But please don't make up lies for the rest of us who want to be married to our same sex partner.

Crikey Mikey, marriage is not patriarchal? From the removal of the bride from her father's house, through the vows of obedience, to the consummation that completes the ceremony and the ring symbolising ownership, the hetero marriage rituals enact a husband's power over his wife. The father of the bride actually gives away his daughter to the groom, (like a keg of beer!) Have a little think about what it is you are putting your name to. Anyway, I don't really care if you want to play out those roles, sorry to throw poo on your wedding frock. All I am saying is that insisting on 'marriage' will jeopardise all glbqti getting equality in the law because you are challenging the church's authority over the state. And it will mean many hiv poz couples living in even more miserable poverty. (And to be fair, if you don't care about them, why should they care about your right to marry?) But on the latter point, I approached some of our local community orgs. but found little interest. However, appararently, the shadow Attorney-General, Joe Ludwig, supports a transition period of 4, 6 or 8 years (this will be probably be determined by how best to soften the disadvantage experienced by same-sex couples with children), if/when they take power.

Howard supports equality in superannuation etc
Shame Abbots blocked it.... again Typical letting his religous beliefs stopping reforms.

The reason probably being the rules to aussie rules are straightforward Aboriginal history is debatable

Aboriginal Australians lived here for between 41,000-46,000 until the European invasion in 1770. The history of the Aboriginal people's struggle to gain land rights, citizenship rights and social justice has been and cvontinues to be deliberately repressed. They were used as slaves and hunted as sport. Their children were taken from them. They were only allowed the vote in 1967. Their struggles are the same as gay and lesbian or any other marginalised minority's struggles for equality. Today, their life expectancy is 17 - 20 years less than other Australians, their babies are four times as likely to die at birth, they are 17 times more likely to be arrested, 14 times more likely to be imprisoned and 16 times more likely to die in custody and there has been a 70% rise in Aboriginal incarceration since 1989. The suicide rate is 6 times higher for Aborigines than the national average and infant mortality rate for Aborigines is over three times the national average while unemployment amongst Aborigines is four times the national average. So what part of the 'secret history' would you like to debate?

Marriage has transformed into an equal partnership, where two partners can have thier love & shared lives celebrated & recognised..... that is until 2004 when Philip Ruddock sent an edict to all Australian marriage celebrants saying that they are no longer allowed to use the word partner & can only say husband & wife, PLUS have to recite the wording of the 2004 marriage ban during the ceremony. (PLUS, told them thier licences are now subject to a 5yr performance renewal!!) So in that respect, the reforms & evolution of marriage into an equal partnership for the last 20years has been forcibly turned back to the 1950s here in the banana republic of Australia. We just need to change it back again & take ownership of it, so it becomes an equal partnership again. Problem is, that people in our own community have now even bought into the 1950's mindset that is sweeping our governance here, with complete blinkers on to the equality now being enjoyed in more advanced countries around the world such as South Africa, Spain & Canada.

You are still trying to say that marriage will mean gay couples living on the pension will have to go on the couples rate. As I have said above, marriage is optional. It is de-facto relationships that will cause this problem.

By failing to acknowledge this point, or even to debate it, you loose even more credibility with your other arguments.

Hetero defactos and hetero married couples receive less than same sex couples. A patriarchal philosophy supposes that it is the husband's role to support and provide for his wife while glbqti are considered by Centrelink as 'not in a relationship.' It is possible to draft a model for the recognition of same sex relationships that is not based on the hetero model - but will none-the-less enshrine the fiscal and human rights we seek without disadvantaging those struggling on the bread line. Now what part of that would you like me to repeat, Arti?

Being gay is not the same as being aboriginal.

I am personally sick and tired of this constant guilt being applied to us non-aboriginals.I was born in australia, I am equal/ they are equal to me, australia is my homeland. I do not believe they deserve special treatment because of skin colour.
Everyone is responsible for there own actions.
Not all aboriginals are abuses/drunks/thieves etc
They are able to live such as the rest of us do.
By making constant excuses you are making it easier for the poverty cycle to continue.(please also note whites also live in simular conditions)
Look at africa,after billions of dollars in aid from well intentioned people the wanting or relience on handouts is still being put on us.

If the rules to "Aussie Rules" are so straight forward, how come they can't be similarly covered in a mere four lines?

Aboriginal history goes back thousands of years and is worthy of a higher rating than this.

This whole document is nothing but a testament to jwh's hypocritical attitudes.

The part where you blame people wanting marriage on depriving people of pensions. You again blame marriage, when it has nothing to do with marriage.

"Being gay is not the same as being aboriginal." The struggle for human rights is the same struggle for all those disadvantaged by this society. As you don't give a toss about they way aborigines are treated, why would you expect anyone would give the same for your rights?

"I am equal/ they are equal to me" etc., is not supported by the fact that..."their life expectancy is 17 - 20 years less than other Australians, their babies are four times as likely to die at birth, they are 17 times more likely to be arrested, 14 times more likely to be imprisoned and 16 times more likely to die in custody and there has been a 70% rise in Aboriginal incarceration since 1989. The suicide rate is 6 times higher for Aborigines than the national average and infant mortality rate for Aborigines is over three times the national average while unemployment amongst Aborigines is four times the national average."

I have just listened to an interesting podcast about a little known part of our history. It was called 81 Words: the inside story of psychiatry and homosexuality and was rebroadcast by ABC show All In The Mind. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/default.htm (2 parts)

Prior to 1973 the American Psychiatric Association, in their standard diagnostic manual, had an 81 word definition of "Sexual Deviance" which classified us as mentally ill. This is the touching story of the fight to get that changed. It is told by the granddaughter of one of the key players Dr John Spiegel, who was a closeted gay psychiatrist. Because being gay was a mental illnes, all psychiatrists needed to remain closeted otherwise they would not be permitted to practice.would

Here is the link- http://www.acl.org.au/pdfs/load_pdf_public.pdf?pdf_id=923&from=national

Very interesting stuff... they are going to fight tooth & nail to get firm committments from both major parties that they will never recognise same sex defacto's & also hopefully extinguish existing state same sex defacto.

OK Arti, "It is possible to draft a model for the recognition of same sex relationships that is not based on the hetero model (MARRIAGE) - but will none-the-less enshrine the fiscal and human rights we seek without disadvantaging those struggling on the bread line.".

How out of touch are you? Do you really think that the "father giving away the bride" is now anything but a tradition that really doesn't mean anything at all?

How many married women have you spoken to lately? I think you'll get quite a rude shock if you tell them they are still owned by their husbands because they are married to them.

Get out of the ghetto and see how the rest of the world lives. I think this is a case of too much university queer politics and not enough real world experience.

Well, the officiant always says, 'who shall give this woman to this man in matrimony?' Maybe you enjoy a tradition that considers a woman to be like a chattel. For me, I think it's totes bullshit. Anyway, this is a digression.

The point is that, under law, and in the eyes of the orthodox church, the woman is subserviant to the man - and I don't wanna get into feminist politics here either. None of my straight friends would ever buy into such crap if there weren't significant financial benefits in it for them, like tax breaks etc etc. That is why a disadvantaged married woman can't get welfare. That is the status that glbqti couples wish to avoid.

"Get out of the ghetto and see how the rest of the world lives. I think this is a case of too much university queer politics and not enough real world experience." Thanks for the condescension; it's an attractive look. You must also be aware that hetero couples on welfare bust a gut trying to prove they are not in a relationship because it will mean a loss of about $100 a week in income.
There is an underclass of gay men in Australia. For most of them, it is because they were unlucky with HIV. I have always believed that community means we are all a little bit responsible to look after each other, especially those with extra needs. Your notion of 'community' seems to be more like some primordial swamp with creatures climbing over each other to gain advantage. Don't ask me to your 'wedding,'I hate passionfruit pavlova anway.

Shayne you really don't know the difference between some old relic that no-one believes in and what happens in reality.

There are still statutes on the books that give sheep the right of way down George st in the city. But do you think that would actually be given right of way if some sheep farmer decided to herd his sheep there?

And to add to the insult you are saying that women are only getting married because there are financial benefits! Firstly what if *I* too want those financial benefits of being married!! and secondly how much more can you insult married women? You are claiming they would happily enter a "archaic" institution simply for $$$$. what kind of money grubby people do you think married women are??

I think you should seriously talk to some modern married women to see if they really think they are owned by their husbands and before that that they were "given away" like a piece of property that is owned by their fathers.

I think you'll find, that just like judges wigs, they are simply and old tradition that means absolutely nothing.

"You must also be aware that hetero couples on welfare bust a gut trying to prove they are not in a relationship because it will mean a loss of about $100 a week in income."

Oh so you actually CAN see that people other than gay men are struggling and that gay men currently have and AD-vantage. ie. NOT equal. That's great to know. Nice to see your world view is expanding.

(PS. If they are a "hetero couple" trying to prove they are NOT in a relationship then that means they are breaking the law because they ARE a couple).

As I have said repeatedly. You need to advocate for higher pensions FOR EVERYONE - hetero as well as gay couples. That would solve the problem that you think will happen should we ever get federal relationship rights. It's a much better use of energy than saying we shouldn't aim for relationship equality because someone down the road from you who is on $300,000.00 will even better off.

And you should also be out there getting more gay men and lesbians to be volunteering time and money to organisations so that those people you feel aren't getting what they need to survive DO get what they need.
i've already said this repeatedly and THAT is my notion of community - not one rule for struggling gay men and forget about the struggling heteros.

As for being invited to my wedding. When did I ever say that I wanted to get married? All I want is equality. That means having access to every institution that hetero couples have should I ever want it. including marriage. including divorce. including the family court. including relationship centres. including centrelink.

I just got home from doing my bit for three poz guys I help out through csn. Thanks.

This is what the Marriage Ban paved the way for- it set the precedent for writing extra discrimination into law for us and winding back our rights. It's only a matter of time before state level defacto rights are extinguished. The framework is already in place- in 2005 the courts for hearing defacto cases was moved from state courts to federal, leaving same sex couples only at the state level like sitting ducks ready to have their rights extinguished.

Yo1 The SMH let someone use the word 'fag' in the letters this morning...I just thought I'd let you know so you can jump up and down and moan loudly...
'When gay is not an option

You have to laugh. Another defender of family values gets caught up in a sex scandal ("Foot-tapping senator insists he's not gay", August 30) and shouts: "I'm not gay." What else is he going to say to the constituents of one of the most conservative states in America who would much prefer their elected representative to be a raging hypocrite than a flaring fag?

Max Fischer Scarborough'
http://www.smh.com.au/letters/?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

No matter what background we come from we are all human, we have a brain in which we make choices on the way we live.Every society has rules/laws which we live by.Australian law does not discriminate on colour of skin etc. If we break the law we go to gaol.
Aboriginals are no diferent.As we see they are able to live like 21st century people do.They can be high court judges,members of parliament,teachers,bankers etc etc they can do what any other nationality can do.If some of their peoples can do it then all can too.
If you were serious about the aboriginal causes you would go up north to the communities and help, give them education not cash to pss ip against a wall.
The do-gooders that throw around statistics like yours do not help them....It reduces them to a third-class status.
Why is it gay people are always taking up causes unrelated to being gay and grouping them together?
David hicks,detainees etc are diferent circumstances to us.Sure injustices/inequalities are here but by always being anti-everything makes gays appear to be a mob of arseholes.
I have never heard of an aboriginal being rejected by family/society and peers for being aboriginal.Being aboriginal you can see you belong to a certain race,being gay which cross's all nationalities,genders and religions how do we see we are normal?

"“I’m worried about what will happen to my partner when I die.
“My partner and I have lived together for 40 years. While we were both still working, in order that I could put extra money into superannuation, we lived mostly on his wages. So the pension is part of his investment also.”
“That’s a real day-to-day financial consequence of financial discrimination. We’ve had to tie up a considerable amount of capital so he has enough income when the residual pension ceases, meaning when I die,” Challis said.
“My partner suffers from macula degeneration in his eyes. In four or five years he is likely to be blind. It would be far more comfortable for him to receive a regular income from a residual pension than manage a series of investments.
“I just want make sure my partner is secure. The only other solution is to make sure I outlive him.”
http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/weblog.php

We are facing the same problem- I took a less stressful job & looked after my same sex partners children & cooked meals for the family etc, knowing that my partner's higher stress job & higher pay (that he paid extra into super), would convert into a pension for us both to live off. If he dies & we were straight, I would still get that superannuation pension for life (a pension made up of our hard earned gay money), but since we are a same sex couple, it goes up in smoke- right into the pockets of the greedy superannuation funds who quote the government discrimination & marriage ban as an excuse to make a huge financial windfall by stopping the super pension & pocketing the gay money themselves.

I actually suspect that such prejudiced, uninformed stereotyping bilge is what "makes gays appear to be a mob of arseholes," matey.

Here's a little Gootube video that demonstrates just how serious a problem can arise in gay marriage.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lqs_KU-PhTM

So beware people, you've all been warned!

"One of the key issues the GLRL is pushing is that the relationship model any government uses for reforms is based on a de facto, rather than an interdependency one. “They’ve been suggesting an interdependency model which is slightly different to de facto rights because you need to go through an extra burden, an extra hoop to prove you’re in a relationship first before you’re eligible for entitlements,” Khassisieh said.

“We’ve managed to convince quite a few Cabinet ministers that model won’t work and we’re pressing for what heterosexual couples have which is a presumptive de facto model: basically if you live with someone in a committed relationship, unless your relationship is contested between the parties, you’re almost guaranteed to have access to all the entitlements that most married couples have. "
http://sxnews.e-p.net.au/news/write-to-the-prime-minister.html

glad to see that at least those advocating for our rights have the sense to see what a mistake pushing for 'marriage is. the model they are pushing gets over the problems with 'marriage' and couples on welfare. game, set and (nearly) match.

Boy did you miss the point.
What they are doing is fighting off an Australian Christian Lobby push to forever ban us from having any defacto recognition in the future, by slamming us into an "interdependant" status (as has already slipped in with superannuation). That's what it's all about- that one point, nothing more, nothing less, but to fight off the ACL attack that is currently under way- www.acl.org.au
For details on this specific issue from those initiating the attack on our defacto rights, see- http://www.acl.org.au/national/common_display.stw?page=media
So, as you can see it has nothing to do with marriage- it a response to an attack under way to ban future defacto rights & wind back / extinguish existing state defacto rights.

OK, let's be very clear exactly what the point is here. The bill currently being debated before parliament is about glbqt relationship rights. As Warren Entsch said last year, "I'm not interested in promoting gay marriage and I'm not interested in Mardi Gras and all that stuff. I'm only interested in equal treatment under law." The bill was drafted 12 months ago, before any conspiracy by the fundamentalist forces of the right was hatched.
A lot of glbqt seem to be confused about 'gay marriage' which is some kind of faddist, pop culture, Kyle and Jackie O-like concept, and the recognition of our relationship rights. The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Mardi Gras and lots of other groups had been lobbying for gay marriage. Surveys were done asking people if they supported gay marriage. The monosyllabic pre-digested pap that passes for afternoon news media talk about gay marriage. Finally someone seems to have worked out they are pissing up the wrong tree. This country is probably civilised enough to get beyond the fact people are different and we do stand a good chance of all the problems mentioned above being ameliorated and areas of inequality balanced. Ya just won't get 'gay marriage' for the reasons I have mentioned above several times.

Its important that you do understand just what the point is here, bcos if you don't know what to ask for, you'll get nothing. Its about the fundamental issues of human rights, dignity and respect. It would be nice if we could not turn that into a 'gay marriage' circus.

With all the circus surrounding the APEC nob squad, I wonder how many glbqti have also heard that US ex-gay preacher Sy Rodgers is coming out to spread his gospel of homophobia and the joys of 'correction therapy' at Hillsong? Given the current far-right Christian push to ban us from having any defacto recognition, perhaps we should be interested. It's also interesting to note the link between Hillsong and Gloria Jean's Coffee. Many of the Gloria Jean's franchises are owned by Hillsong members, which helps Hillsong because they give 10% of their pre-tax dollars to the church. Hillsong last year had total revenue of $33.5 million, and is exempt from paying any tax. GJ directors Nabi Saleh and Peter Irvine are both long-term members of Sydney’s Hillsong megachurch. Nabi Saleh is an elder who sits on the Hillsong board of directors and has been described by the Business Review Weekly as the “business brains behind Hillsong.” Managing director of Gloria Jean's, Peter Irvine, has said there is no financial link between GJ and the handclappers-for-Jesus. Their Oxford Street store also denied any association. Coffee, tea or epiphany? Gloria be.

We don't want gay marriage, we want Equal Marriage, for Equal taxes paid, just like as enjoyed in Spain, South Africa, & Canada. I don't see why yours & John Howard's view of a "banana republic" of Australia should be any different- what makes us so special that we don't deserve the equal rights being dished out in other countries... a convict mentality or a banana republic mentality?

"A second advertisement calling for equal rights for same-sex couples will be printed in The Australian on Monday 1 October.
An earlier PFLAG advertisement from heterosexuals who supported legal equality for lesbian or gay couples appeared in the newspaper on Monday 13 August.
“We are particularly asking those in long-term same-sex relationships or individual lesbians and gays if they would like to donate at least $55.”
The names of those who donate will appear on the advertisement, if desired.
The first advertisement cost $6,000 and PFLAG would aim for the same amount again.
Donations must be received by Monday 17 September. For more information, or to donate, contact Shelley at pflagbris@hotmail.com.
http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=6936

Over $2,500 has been raised already according to tonights newsletter from PFLAG. Lets get this in the paper on the heels of the election.
Current Draft ad content-
"Same-sex partners who are committed to each other deserve leaders who are committed to them Mr Howard and Mr Rudd,
You say you oppose discrimination against same-sex couples, but Australian law disadvantages these couples more than the laws of any other western country.
We demand you publicly commit to a timetable for ending discrimination.
A message from gay and lesbian Australians and our parents, families and friends."

If it comes down to a choice of Family First or The Greens grabbing the balance of power in the senate, I'll be voting the Greens. A direct primary vote for either of the two major parties is a wasted vote in a balance of power Family First/Greens tug of war scenario. I am telling all my extended family to strategically vote for the Greens in this particular election for this very reason.

As there is no legal requirement for married heterosexuals to proceate, I think the argument that marriage is about the perpetuation of humanity is very flawed. After all, infertile hetero's are not disallowed marriage. It's also a good point that homosexuals contribute as much as heterosexuals to the funding for private and public family coverage even when they have no access to it. Most of the religious arguments are based in homophobia and have no weight for me, except that the power that the church has over the state in this country obviously affects our chance of recognition. I see the idea of marriage as ideally being pre-political and non-religious. The idea of government involvement in marriage at all only indicates the politics that are played with what should be a very basic human right. The Howard government effectively uses the denial of our rights to place a wedge in the electorate and to win the vote of the far right. The articles of hate crime legislation could easily be applied to this government in its banning of gay marriage. After all the arguments, marriage between two people is simply defined by their love for each other.

My argument is that in this country, right now, the full recognition of same sex marriage rights is very unlikely for reasons I have outlined ad infinitum above, and if g+l couples want equality in all the other 58 areas under the law, that is where the focus of our lobbying should lie, rather than on gay weddings. Because it is possible, under the law, to have equity with heterosexual couples in secular areas like insurance, tax breaks, health costs, inheritance, Medicare, superannuation, the PBS, visitation in hospitals, prisons etc etc....asnd that is what you are sacrificing when you keep rabbitting on about 'gay marriage.

What you say is completely acceptable until you mention the howard government.
Howard is probably more for our rights than the rudd labor party.It has hardly been a wedge when kevin backs the government all the way.
The greens however have the right idea but are totally whacko on other policies and do not have the right attitude to control government.
As for superanuation surely regardless of sexuality etc a person has the right to leave money they have earned to whom they choose?

'a person has the right to leave money they have earned to whom they choose?' except the law says the next of kin inherits. the mom etc can take everything and the ltr gets nothing.
howard doesn't believe you HAVE any rights, honey. wise up.

'wedge politics' means beating up a divisive issue to gain votes from the great ignorant bigotted masses.

$2,500


All gays wonder why we dont have equality when $2,500 is all thats raised on such an important issue.
Cmon guys do without the excess for one night and put the money towards something we benefit for longer than a night.

but how is it a wedge if both parties are fully supporting it? how are "the great bigotted masses" votes going to then benefit one side more than the other?
there is no wedge in unity

"As for superanuation surely regardless of sexuality etc a person has the right to leave money they have earned to whom they choose?"

- Yes, before you retire, (as third class citizens, under "interdependant" status)
- No after you retire (when you are at your most vunerable, your own hard earned same sex money is snatched away, as only defacto couples can pass on post-retirement superannuation funds to each other)

The greedy superannuation funds are choosing to quote the 2004 Lib/Labor continuing marriage ban as an excuse to not let you do what you want with your money after retirement.
They are clamping down on letting you take a lump sum, & forcing you to take it as a pension on retirement, but your own money goes down the drain (into the pockets of the super funds), if you are in a same sex relationship & one partner dies. That is a fact- ring your work super hotline & ask them what happens to your money AFTER you retire, when you are most vunerable.
If you were straight, your defacto or spouse would still continue to receive your pension, but for same sex couples the superannuation funds land a goldmine by pocketing the lot themselves, with gay money & gay blood, sweat & tears on their hands, of money earned by a gay person they are snatching away into their own pockets.

Hello- marriage is a secular institution in this country (despite a media blitz by Howard & supporters to the contrary that even gays are now starting to believe). So, those 58 laws would ALL be equalized in one fell swoop by granting equality to marriage (and of course as a given defacto access would automatically be thrown in). That is all that is required is to change ONE law, that would make those other 58 inequalities disappear in one go- rather than aiming low & trying to change each of the 58 laws one at a time over the next 300 years.

Granting access to secular civil marriage, to bring us in line with other civilised western countries, would fix all inequality immediately. And hey- don't forget, as well are marriage being secular here in Australia, many people don't realise that there are also religions & churches that WANT to perform religious same sex weddings. Talk about reverse discrimination & freedom of religion. The 4million strong Uniting Church in Canada perform same sex weddings every week all across the country.

Yes- a vote for Labor will be a wasted vote. All the action, focus & emphasis will be in the mammoth battle for the balance of the power in the senate between Family First & The Greens, as to who will have the new Labor government under their thumb in having ultimate say & control in the senate. A vote for Family First or The Greens will be a vote that will count, whereas a vote for Labor will be a wasted vote in this secario outlined above.

The point is, if you're in a gay relationship then when it comes to super there is NOTHING to inherit, but if you're in a straight marriage or de facto relationship then there is something to inherit.

The gay couple has paid as much into the superfund as the straight couple, but when one of the gay persons dies, suddenly the money disappears. It evaporates. There is nothing for mummy or your partner to inherit.

Do you see what we're fighting about now?

Indeed, Professor, it's almost as if marriage is a means test for welfare and super, n'est pas? And we have exactly $2,500 worth of concern about our rights.

So this disrimination applies to single gay men/women and single heterosexuals. After retiring and they die their super contributions are swallowed up by the super funds instead of any residual being passed onto their estates.

Something else to think about?

Not really- the pension for life is paid to your partner apon your death at a half rate for the rest of thier lives. (as long as you are in a hetero relationship).
Single people are treated equally, gay or straight. It's only same sex couples that are actually discriminated against.

The wise choice here would be to vote liberals to the upper house.The libs like it or not are the only party to have sound economic management unlike labor whom will(as proven by state partys too)just keep raising taxes.
Labor will burden us more by taking more tax out of the pink dollar.

No, I said single people gay or straight (not in any relationship) will be disadvantaged as well. Before retirement if one dies the super money is passed to the estate. If a single person retires and takes a pension (which is the only choice these days) and say dies one year later the residual of that persons super is swallowed up by the super funds and not passed onto the estate? So we need these people on board to fight for their rights too.....

Did anyone else buy the bullsh#t story of kevin rudd in a strip club?
Obviously it came from his own party to bolster his image as one of the boys and shrug off his "pixie" title.
Do we really believe a man whom goes out of his way to reinforce his hetrosexuality will be sympathetic to gay rights?

there's a whole heap of info on this subject here, if ur interested:
"This chapter focuses on discrimination against same-sex couples and their families in the context of access to the Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) Safety Nets."
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/samesex/report/Ch_11.html

meantime, there's a very moving letter published on the sx forum that puts quite a different spin on our arguments. I'm sure the writer won't mind me reproducing it here,

written by Matt McQueen , 06 September, 2007

As a newly out member of the gay community of Sydney at the age of 21, I would have to say the process of accepting my sexuality, not only personaly but for my family to was quite a challenging time. I am sure all gay men have their own story of coming out, some good and some not so good.
I moved from Wollongong to Sydney for mainly study committments, but also for the acceptance of being gay.
I rencently had a friend (Mat) from back home in Wollongong come out to me. I helped him through the process of coming out to the family. That is when it all went wrong. Mat only 17 years of age went to school like any other day, the morning after he came out to his family. Mats father that day, cleared out his sons room and burnt every single beloning that Mat had, every photo and item of clothing.

My fiend came home that day in complete horror. With no where else to turn but a refuge, Mat didn't see the week out.

Unfortunately my dear friend Mathew committed suicide after being completley rejected by the very people that should have been supporting him.

I write this to only make one point. In recent times, all i ever read in the gay papers are reporting on civil rights between long standing relationships. I believe that this issue has become the focus of all media attention of late. I believe that with the evolving society of acceptance of homosexuality, my generation are "coming out" earlier with little or no support, particularly in regional areas.
I am not trying to make the equality righte debate less important than it is (as i know i may benefit one day from the awareness it is raising about inequality of gay unions), but i find it very discomforting that it appears the only focus on gay issues.
I think more needs to be done in ensuring the younger gay generation are not forgotten

Matt, Paddington

No- not really. You "purchase" a pension for life, that is meant to be enough for two people to live off, & is paid for the rest of both thier lives no matter what (unless they're not straight). With single people, they would probably only "purchase" a part pension for only one person to live off & spend/invest the money somewhere else, that could be passed on. Where the inequality & discrimination comes into it, is where a same sex couple purchases a full pension for two people to live off, thinking they will both live off it which is fine while they are both alive- but if the partner who had the higher income dies first, then the other partner is left completely high & dry, compared to a straigth couple, where the surving partner gets half of the maximum two-person-pension for life, paid to them at a half rate for the rest of thier life.

"Across the nation, 4 per cent of de facto couples are of the same gender, but in NSW that figure is 5.4 per cent (while in Canberra it is 5.3 per cent, in Victoria 4.5 per cent and in Tasmania 2.6 per cent).
Australia has 25,606 couples who were prepared to say on the census form they were living as same-sex de factos, of whom 10,109 were in NSW. Compared with 1996, this was up from 10,214 nationally and 4635 in NSW."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/were-richer-but-lonelier-as-oldstyle-family-fades/2007/06/27/1182623992614.html

Unfortunately though, in most of the official Census reports/tables on their website, each report states that it "includes same sex couples", meaning there is no separate listing for them in most of the Census reports available to the general public on thier website. Maybe the ABS/Census could pass on thier raw data to say the Human Rights & Equal Opportinity Commission to properly collate & break the information down by Suburbs etc, and itemise the same sex couples with children.

"I have never heard of an aboriginal being rejected by family/society ..."

I don't think you meant to say this, but Aboriginals are regularly discriminated against by parts of Australian society.

Please explain how de-facto rights avoid the problems of couples on welfare.

Geez, I've been away from this wall for 2 weeks and this stupid "but same sex couples will lose their homosexual privilege in centrelink payments" argument is still going on. More time spent getting the federal government to raise ALL pensions is a much better use of time and energy!

my point was we are more likely to be discriminated due to being gay than aboriginal and being gay is not as simple as skin colour.

Hi All,
This is our last week for donations, presently the tally for donations stands at $3600 and we need $6000.
If you can inspire or encourage others please do so. We need names in at the latest by the end of this coming weekend. This will give Andy our whiz at these things time to get the advert organised and off to the PR people.
Additionally, I need to get it organised because I am off to India on the 23rd Sept. I will get Gail the Brisbane Secretary to just finish off whatever may need to be done. But, hopefully that won't be much.
For friends who may be interested our bank a/c is PFLAG Brisbane Inc. Bank of Qld. bsb 124-001 a/c 2023-8607 or post cheque to PO Box 1372 Eagle Farm 4009 and we do have paypal for those who understand computers on our website www.pflagbrisbane.org.au
Plus I need their names and amount donated plus a note saying they are happy to have their name printed or prefer to remain anon.
Let's hope we can make a difference.
Shelley
0409-363-335
pflagbris@hotmail.com

with centrelink a gay couple if they recieved de-facto recognition how much would they lose?
$30- a fortnight or more?
lets get some accurate figures to see what we are actually dealing with

***why not lobby for all people to be independant ie one mans pension and one womans pension not combined as a defacto is still not a real marriage

one of the partner's pensions would be reduced by $100 a week.

From HIV Futures 5: October 2006 "28.3% of PLWHA are living below the poverty line. Just under one quarter of respondents have a partner with whom
they share financial resources and this protects some from extreme economic hardship. Very few respondents who
are earning an income from paid employment reported incomes below the poverty line whereas around half of
those on government benefits are living in poverty."
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/hiv-futures/HIV%20Futures%205%20Report.pdf

"***why not lobby for all people to be independant ie one mans pension and one womans pension not combined as a defacto is still not a real marriage"? is something like what I have been saying for a year now, that a model for same sex relationship equity can be achieved that protects the disadvantaged. There are many precedents, for example, the SASS subsidy for private rental is only available to HIV+ people. The response I receive is that 'we can'tt have equality for some and not for all,' 'why should gays get something hetero's don't?' etc etc. acon tells me that poz peeps should be allowed a 'transition period' to adapt to being even poorer. But then again, I remember the battle poz peeps had 4 years ago to keep their SASS when acon wanted that phased out too.

I guess the most promising response was from shadow Attorney-General, Joe Ludwig, who supports a transition period of 4, 6 or 8 years (this will be probably be determined by how best to soften the disadvantage experienced by same-sex couples with children).

Shayne, a transition period still means that gay couples will be equal to hetero couples when it comes to centrelink payments. If you are satisfied with this as an outcome then I am happy as it resolves this argument that has been doing the rounds of the blog sites and still managed to go round and round in circles.

"Yes- a vote for Labor will be a wasted vote. All the action, focus & emphasis will be in the mammoth battle for the balance of the power in the senate between Family First & The Greens, as to who will have the new Labor government under their thumb in having ultimate say & control in the senate. A vote for Family First or The Greens will be a vote that will count, whereas a vote for Labor will be a wasted vote in this secario"

Labor is set for an landslide election victory, based on a "Two Party Preferred System".
What does "Two Party Preferred System" mean??? It means that we operate under a system in Australia where only two main parties can form government- where all the votes for minor parties are then allocated against one of the two major parties, through Preferences. Those minor parties then get a say in policy o