Begging the PM for scraps of equality.

Posted on by

Benjamin Riley

A few weeks ago, three same-sex couples were invited into the illustrious residence of our Prime Minister to discuss marriage equality, and were told that same-sex marriage is ‘inevitable‘.

Well, that’s one way of looking at it.

Another might be: a few weeks ago, three carefully selected (read: white, middle-class, long-term and monogamous) same-sex couples were allowed to meet with our atheist PM and her de facto partner because a lobby group spent thousands of dollars for the opportunity at an auction, so they could plead to be let into a religious, heteronormative institution with a history of oppressing women and anyone falling outside a very narrow view of relationships and family, and were told that although she didn’t personally think certain people in society were worth as much as others, other people probably did, and her guests should be grateful that political pressure from the Greens had put her in a position where it might actually be good for her career to say the inevitability of progress would at some point make her views obsolete.

We haven’t written too much about same-sex marriage on Southpaw Slug, and that’s probably for a number of reasons. One is that, for James and I, and for many of the queer people we know, it’s a complicated issue that is oversimplified in the media, even if the reasons for that are understandable. I’m personally against the institution of marriage as a whole, but I recognise that denying marriage to same-sex couples contributes to homophobia in society in general.

Two Southpaw Slug posts from James (on GetUp’s marriage equality campaign ad and Cynthia Nixon’s choice to be gay) get at the heart of the matter: to what extent should we compromise our ideals to further political goals?

Last week’s announcement that both sides of politics will be getting a conscience vote on same-sex marriage in the NSW Parliament was more of the same ‘progress’. Reading the news I should try to be grateful that my ticket to the white wedding I’ve always dreamed of will now be decided by a slightly larger group of mostly rich straight white men than it would have been otherwise.

I get that these things take time. I understand how the political process works. I know you have to play the game

But there’s something infinitely depressing and demeaning about the media circus surrounding a group of people from an oppressed minority begging the Prime Minister for the scraps of a meal that a lot of us don’t even want to be eating, including Gillard herself.

18 thoughts on “Begging the PM for scraps of equality.”

  2. Love this entry…..great stuff Benjamin!!

    Alex Greenwich is using this issue as a segway into politics… Thats the circus there with that lobby group They have played the game exceptionally well.

    Dont compromise AT ALL…that includes you Alex et al.

    What do you expect from the Bogan elite running our country..

    Equality is at stake including the integrity of our tarnished reputation o.s.

    Hugs

    xxxxxx

    Reply ↓

    • I think the issue of political/ethical compromise is a highly complex one, and I’m still not sure where I stand on it. I think Alex and Equal Love do a good job, but maybe you’re right–perhaps they could push a more diverse agenda, Hard to know how people would respond to it.

      Reply ↓

      • http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/04/scottish-conservatives-elect-gay-leader?

        Look at the strategy here in the
        Scottish context..

        I think the libs\ nationals are adopting similar ideas putting people like Tim to appeal to the next generation. Alex and Ali Hogg both have connections in major parties anyway..Alis partner worked for a labour minister.

        Is it ethical..no the question to be asked Ben is it good politics for a decent outcome..
        So far its worked as bills are being legislated by The Greens that one day will become law.

        Reply ↓

        • For some reason the link you posted won’t open for me, but I’d be interested to hear more about what’s happening elsewhere in the world.

          I think it’s also important to understand the ways that legislative and political change intercat with cultural and social change–while I don’t deny that Equal Love and GetUp have done an amazing job at making things happen, we should try to better understand whether the cultural ideas being proliferated by the marriage equality lobby are positive for everyone in queer communities.

          Reply ↓

      • The public has moved on Benjamin…
        Look at the reaction of Magda Szubanski coming out.
        She is adored.Move on from that idea.
        Furthermore i saw a Sky news interview with Dr Phelps Alex
        Greenwich with The A.c.l so outdated with no reasonable arguments that were worthy of respect or intellectual analysis.
        Kerryn Phelps was great as usual and she could push it further

        What a f….wit that man is… please excuse the deragotary word.

        Reply ↓

  3. This demonstrates that the polity has moved on from the old gen political class.

    Penny Wong to some people has been both a hypocrite and a stalwart on this issue.

    Why we are still discussing this in a modern rich and secular country like ours is silly.

    It should have occured ten years ago…sad really.

    Reply ↓

  4. I completely agree with you Ben and I have talked to a lot of friends who think so as well, but Lobbyists have decided this is THE issue in relation to homophobia in government, law and society, and I think hope to use it to pry out reform in general. I feel the same sort of stuff about causes like Kony 2012 and many other issues. The problem is that it ends up being waaaaaay oversimplified and creates completely valid views such as ours. Which opponents then use to destabilise the original issues… Then nothing happens because people can’t decide on exactly how to fix the issue. Rinse and repeat… Not sure how to fix that.

    Reply ↓

    • I know, it’s tricky. But I think the general public could cope with a bit more complexity than what we have currently. I rarely even hear marriage equality debates framed in terms of homophobia more broadly in the media…that could be a start?

      Reply ↓

      • The “General Public” doesn’t consist of the “A.B demographic” that you guys fall into, that is namely in media terms, the bourgeois.

        Lobbyists must have undertaken extensive research to present their case in the manner in which they have done thus far.

        The polity could handle it..maybe that’s the next step in their strategy..who knows?

        Reply ↓

        • The general public consists of everyone–that’s the problem. Of course lobbyists would have done extensive research–that’s also the problem. When that is the only thing driving political and social change, people are going to be excluded (me and any other queers in the rest of the apparent “bourgeois” for example).

          And if they have done extensive research on how Australia would handle certain elements of a “gay agenda”, who are they to set that agenda for all of us? I would want more transparency.

          Reply ↓

      • Gotta run but ill be quick and short this time!

        There is definitely a vacuum there as a result of that lobbying.

        Lobbying be it Gay, Jewish, et al issues, always have transparency factors to deal with and it gets corrupted by self interest..that’s just stating the obvious !

        Reply ↓

Leave a comment