Rodney Croome: Marriage builds bridges
One overlooked feature of the marriage equality debate is the level of co-operation it has fostered in the LGBTI community.
Groups and individuals who were once suspicious or openly hostile now sit shoulder to shoulder pressing the case for reform.
I’ve seen Green, Labor and Liberal-aligned gays sink their differences in the pursuit of a common cause.
I’ve seen gays and lesbians make way for bisexual, transgender and intersex people to tell their stories about discrimination, including in marriage.
I’ve seen advocates from groups that have been treading on each other’s toes for decades work constructively together for the first time.
I’ve seen new links of respect and friendship made between states and between regions within states.
Of course there’s still disagreement, discrimination and disrespect.
But if you need any more evidence that the marriage equality campaign has brought us together, just look at the equivalent campaign in the US.
The rivalry and distrust between different interest groups within the LGBTI community has threatened to derail the issue.
They have caused such damage that pro-equality leaders like New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, have had to step in and knock people’s heads together.
There’s different reasons the Australian marriage campaign has built bridges (as marriage should).
Part of it is political. While opposition to marriage equality has little popular appeal, it has its hands firmly around the throats of our national leaders.
In the face of this frustrating but brittle obstacle, solidarity is the obvious response.
Part of it is personal. Leaders of the Australian movement, like Alex Greenwich and Shelley Argent, are charismatic figures who inspire trust and loyalty in others.
I guess this means the unity brought by marriage will probably fade.
Once reform is achieved and the campaign’s leaders move on, it’s all too possible that the old divisions may return.
But at least those of us who lived through this moment in history know that cooperation is possible.
If and when divisions re-emerge, we can look back and say this doesn’t have to happen – we have worked together before and we can again.
About the Author
Rodney Croome
Rodney Croome is the Campaign Co-ordinator of the Tasmanian gay and Lesbian Rights Group and the National Convener of Australian Marriage Equality. Visit his blog at rodneycroome.id.au.
Comments (25)
If anyone wants to take this debate further, please check out this new publication "To The Exclusion of All Others: Queers Questioning Gay Marriage", and consider submitting.
http://totheexclusionofallothers.com/2012/04/10/call-for-papers-poems-stories-critiques-etc/
I'm sorry, but when it comes to Trans issues regarding marriage, this is ignorant nonsense. Last year in New York trans issues were (to use the words of some of my friends over there) "were thrown under the bus" when ONLY same-sex marriage was added to the marriage act, whereas ON THE SAME DAY THAT WAS PASSED legislation that would give trans people basic rights there were rejected. Yes, a trans person could get married under the act, but as change of gender isn't recognised in that state, it would mean that a trans woman could get married as a man, and a trans man as a woman.
The legislations pending in Australia are better than that in that they define marriage as between two people, they don't just add (as the NY legislation did) same-sex marriages. But even so neither legislation addresses other issues which are NOT discussed in public (instead we get Marriage Equality presented ONLY as Same-sex marriage in the media). Some Australian states do not give gender recognition (the changing of birth certificates et cetera to a reassigned gender) to trans persons who are married until they divorce. In the medical profession it's still common practice not to refer people to surgery if they are still married.
But by having both the media and (pretty much most) supporters still focussed on "same sex marriage" it makes it appear to be a Gay and Lesbian issue only.
Despite AME claiming queer marriage would boost the local economy, its leading spokesperson, Alex Greenwich, has chosen to take his pink wedding dollars overseas.
So judging from above the
Marriage campaign may not be as "uniting" as the original article suggests?
I think it could have been....
I have to agree with Sally this whole campaign has been a very "erasy" experience for some. This article is not representative of the truth. It sugar coats deeper issues that thus far have been ignored and sidelined.
Jason, AME's submission to the Marriage Enquiry Amendment Bill was nothing short of a disgrace. They had no right to pass judgement on polyamorous relationships. Don't forget, AME also supports religious organisations continuing to discriminate against us once equality laws are passed.
Na, I back Sally on this one.
Ruth, I'm a little confused. How is equal couple-marriage a legal prerequisite for recognising polyamorous relationships? I read Luke's link, "polyamory".
Equal couple-marriage is known to be a legal prerequisite for the recognition of poly relationships between people, /all/ of whom are freely consenting.
It seems more than a little foolish to me to throw away the support of poly communities in a desire to present as less 'icky' than some other people, and just plain nasty besides.
Thanks Sally. You're absolutely right. Identifying as "heterosexual" is but one option. Needless to say, none of us can marry (I do hope Rodney's reading all of this!)
Stuart
I need to clarify something here. Trans people can be any sexual orientation. So where a trans person (say with an "M" on their birth certificate) is an a relationship with an "F" person their "largely heterosexual" relaionship is allowable for marriage. However, any F and F or M and M situations, including where one or both people are trans - they can't marry.
Clearly, the government is failing to recognise diversity in relationships. Two-partner relationships are only one model. Also, transgender people should be recognised as heterosexual.
Yes I have a good friend in a 'V' relationship and they have had a lot of problems with health insurance (the live in the US) and hence he is not covered by his partners cover which leaves him in a terrible situation as he is HIV+ :(
Intriguing!
Luke
Re poly, a good start as to what poly is comes from the Polyamory Australia site (as just one example)
http://polyamory.org.au/intro
I would say like anyone, poly peeps want equality, dignity and respect.
I think a good start would be to find some way to get polyamory included in State/territory/Federal Equal opportunity laws. If I can offer a moment of dry humour, I've asked 10 different lawyers as to if/how poly ppl are covered and got 20 different answers!
I know one person in a "V" i.e. A in a relationship with B, A with C but not B and C was told by a lawyer he was clearly in 2 de facto relationships at common law.
I acknowledge that poly is right at the edge of new ground legally. I acknoweldge (spot the person who works as an accountant here) that we would need to get down to nitty-grittys so there was a win-win situation financially e.g. no unfairness for poly people but no disadvantage to government re tax issues etc. I firmyl believe it could all be worked out in time.
In the meantime, I urge everyone to at least be positive in general terms to polyamory. I have just read AMe's submission to the House of Representatives enquiry and am aghast at 2 paragraphs.
submission 30 p57 -60, In particular:
"Marriage has also been about uniting two families as well as two partners. It is harder to imagine polyamorous relationships uniting families and creating kinship in the same way."
"It is hard to see how a lifelong and exclusive union can exist as we add more people – each with their own distinct needs, aspirations, fear and insecurities – to a particular relationship. There are doubtless examples of faithful and committed multiple partners. But in general, stability and durability are far easier to achieve between two partners."
I cannot believe AME is using the same language used by fundies for years against gays and lesbians against poly people.
This is not George Orwell's "Animal Farm" where some people are more equal than others. Human rights and equality are about everyone, not gains for some at the expense of others. Equal means equal!!
Luke
The trans one is easy see
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=spla%2Fbill+marriage%2Fresponses.htm and TransGender Victoria's response at #20
The submission had a good response from Parliamentary staff who had not been previously aware of the issues it had raised. I also thank other trans and allied peeps who submitteed along these lines.
In short, it means marriage "regardless of one letter in a box on a birth certificate."
Love the idea of AIM, Sally!
In Victor Marsh's fantastic collection, "Speak Now: Australian Perspectives on Same-Sex Marriage" (2011, Melbourne, Clouds of Magellan Publishing), a few of us take up the issues and positionings of bi and poly individuals and relationships within and bordering the opposite-sex and same-sex 'couple citizenship" binary, as Sethorun Raj writes.
Maria
xxx
Sally...Nice response. We should talk sometime. Can you please explain so readers can understand what 'Marriage Equality' would look like for the poly community? ie. What it is they (or you) would suggest? I have been talking about these ideas with my students and it is interesting hearing their views. I would love for you to expand on 'poly' or 'trans' marriage equality so we can help enlighten more people to the issue....(ps i am sure lots of people reading this do not even know what poly is...so perhaps explain that too?)
chat soon...
PS See
AIM (All Inclusive Marriage)
http://www.facebook.com/events/356511261079798/#!/groups/298527466900097/
Rodney was a late convert to queer marriage. For a long time he campaigned for registrations, only because they were introduced in Tasmania, his home state.
(from me as an individual, no “hats” on.)
“I’ve seen gays and lesbians make way for bisexual, transgender and intersex people to tell their stories about discrimination, including in marriage.”
I won’t speak for intersex as I don’t believe in speaking for others without their permission. As someone who identifies as bi, trans - and polyamorous - I can and will speak.
I’ve barely seen gays and lesbians “make way” for bi, poly and trans in the marriage debate. I’ve seen bi, poly and trans repeatedly treated as slippery slope material that’s “too weird” i.e. doesn’t assimilate into picket fence land easily enough. I’ve seen any other “queer or similar” issue than marriage struggle to get any traction in both pink and mainstream media. Goddess knows many of us have tried...
In my opinion, whatever bi, poly and trans have achieved, has been despite (emphasise) the marriage debate, not because of the marriage debate.
I also ask people to visit the Australian Marriage Equality site.
I did a search of the site for transgender and only came up with one trans specific reference - a condescending article from The Advocate. As per the comments underneath the original advocate article, it has been rightly torn to pieces.
I did a search of the site for bisexual and there is no bisexual specific reference at all.
I did a search of the site for polyamory and there is no reference full stop.
In light of these 3 searches, I can hardly see how this is “making way” I would think that even if AME doesn’t want to speak for poly, at least put a link to reputable poly sites e.g. polyvic and polyamoryaustralia so people can get more information that truly represents poly – and similar for bi and trans.
For the record, I support equal marriage, on the grounds of equality and ending discrimination and in particular ending “forced trans divorce.
I note also that this particular point has given “light-bulb’ moments to a range of people, even conservatives like Bill Heffernan! If it helps the cause, I think it makes sense to push it hard.
I will be at the Melbourne rally tomorrow organised by Equal Love - who have been good on diversity - with Bi Alliance and PolyVic. I’m going as a stance for FULL marriage equality. I urge people in Melbourne and elsewhere to stick their beaks in the faces of media, especially mainstream media and talk bi and poly. I urge people to carry signs saying something like “we’re just as equal” or “our support is just as equal.”
And why have I posted this? Because I’m feeling really over half-arsed equality, including the debate about marriage equality. I think it’s time to do it right – for everyone!
I'd change Tony's mind. I'd go nude!
This is true. I remember debating with Rodney in the mid-90s that marriage equality was about us redefining a traditional hetero institution not mimicking it. It was my view then and now that marriage reform is necessary if our communities are to progress towards full acceptance and equality.
Thankfully Rodney's views have changed because few can match the energy and focus he has brought to bear on moving this issue, and the community forward.
But if we are to take Sally's view then maybe Rodney was right after all, and if so, we might do well to remember his initial reservations.
Whether its regarded as acceptable or not, it strikes me that AME's focus has always been on same sex marriage rather than the wider equal marriage agenda. I guess this is a product of the interests of those who have led its establishment and done its hard work - good people who like Sally would not presume to speak on behalf of others.
However.... AME has only been able to organize and gain profile as the most influential and visible community mouthpiece because of its relative privilege. On that basis alone I think it has a duty to do everything it respectfully can to ensure other voices are heard, even *if* it doesn't presume to speak on their behalf.
Why don't they just pay someone thousands of dollars to have lunch with Abbott? That sure changed Julia's stance on gay marriage.
shudder
Rodney, that was just lovely. However, it will take a bit more than star-gazing to convince Tony Abbott.