In response to the Government's proposed ban of same sex marriages, the Labor Party opposition (whose votes are needed to pass the legislation in the Senate) has decided that marriage should remain a union between a man and a woman, but same sex couples are entitled to recognition as de factos. This is its Media statement, Tuesday, 01 June 2004

Labor position on Government Bill
The Labor Party will not oppose the PM's measures to confirm in the Marriage Act the common law understanding that marriage is "a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others." Consistent with this, Labor will also not oppose a prohibition on recognising foreign same sex marriages.
While Labor questions the PM's motives and reasons for bringing on this issue for debate now, and questions whether it is necessary -- Labor does not oppose these parts of the Bill which merely confirm existing law and our previous commitments to keeping marriage as a heterosexual institution.
However Labor does not support the Government's attempts to interfere in adoption issues. Adoption has always been an issue for the States and Territories to determine, as the PM himself acknowledges. It is inconsistent and inappropriate for the PM to try and interfere in this issue simply because some children are being adopted from overseas. Rigorous eligibility standards apply at the State and Territory level and we have confidence that those processes ensure the best interests of the child are paramount.
Labor will move amendments to this Bill and refer the Bill to a Senate Committee for a full exploration of the technical issues that arise and to ensure the broader community has an opportunity to express their views on this Bill.
Labor position on acknowledgement and recognition of same sex couples
More importantly, Labor restates its commitment to remove discriminatory provisions from Commonwealth legislation on the basis of sexuality, following a full audit of existing laws.
This audit will commence immediately once Labor is elected to Government. It will allow issues of substance, such as superannuation, taxation, social security and much more, to be addressed comprehensively.
When complete, this will give same sex couples the rights and recognition of heterosexual de facto couples.

Below is the text of the key parts of the Government's Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 introduced into federal Parliament on 27 May:

[. . .] Each Act that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this Act has effect according to its terms.
Schedule 1 - Amendment of the Marriage Act 1961
1 Subsection 5(1)
Insert:
marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
2 At the end of section 88B
Add:
(4) To avoid doubt, in this Part (including section 88E) marriage has the meaning given by subsection 5(1).
3 After section 88E
Insert:
88EA Certain unions are not marriages
A union solemnised in a foreign country between:
(a) a man and another man; or
(b) a woman and another woman;
must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.
Schedule 2 - Amendment of the Family Law Act 1975
1 After subsection 111C(4)
Insert:
(4A) However, regulations made for the purposes of this section must not facilitate, or provide for, the adoption of a child by 2 persons of the same sex who live together as a couple.
2 At the end of Division 3 of Part XIIIAA
Add:
111CA Certain international adoptions not allowed
A person (including an officer of a State or Territory) must not, for the purposes of:
(a) the Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption signed at The Hague on 29 May 1993; or
(b) a bilateral agreement or arrangement on the adoption of children made between a State or Territory and an overseas jurisdiction;
facilitate, or provide for, the adoption of a child by 2 persons of the same sex who live together as a couple.

This is the Attorney-General's speech introducingthe legislation in the House of representatives:

In introducing this bill it is important to explain the background to it. This bill is necessary because there is significant community concern about the possible erosion of the institution of marriage. The parliament has an opportunity to act quickly to allay these concerns.
The government has consistently reiterated the fundamental importance of the place of marriage in our
society. It is a central and fundamental institution. It is vital to the stability of our society and provides the best environment for the raising of children.
The government has decided to take steps to reinforce the basis of this fundamental institution.
Currently, the Marriage Act 1961 contains no definition of marriage. It does contain a statement of the legal understanding of marriage in the words that Commonwealth authorised marriage celebrants must say before they solemnise a marriage. Section 46 of the Marriage Act deals with that. Those words are: " Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."
The government believes that this is the understanding of marriage held by the vast majority of Australians. It is time that those words form the formal definition of marriage in the Marriage Act. This bill will achieve that result.
Including this definition will remove any lingering concerns people may have that the legal definition of marriage may become eroded by time. A related concern held by many people is that there
are now some countries that permit same-sex couples to marry.
It has been reported that there are a few Australian same-sex couples who may travel overseas to marry in one of these countries on the basis that their marriage will then be recognised under Australian law on their return.
Australian law does, as a matter of general principle, recognise marriages entered into under the laws of another country, with some specific exceptions. It is the Government's view that this does not apply to same-sex marriages.
The amendments to the Marriage Act contained in this bill will make it absolutely clear that Australia will not recognise same-sex marriages entered into under the laws of another country, whatever country that may be.
As a result of the amendments contained in this bill same-sex couples will understand that, if they go overseas to marry, their marriage, even if valid in the country in which it was entered into, will not be recognised as valid in Australia.
The government has reiterated its fundamental opposition to same-sex couples adopting children.
In the view of the majority of Australians, children, including adopted children, should have the opportunity, all other things being equal, to be raised by a mother and a father.
This bill will prevent same-sex couples from adopting children from overseas under international arrangements involving bilateral or multilateral treaties.
The bill does not interfere with adoptions that occur entirely under the law of a foreign country that do not depend on bilateral or multilateral arrangements. These are matters primarily for the country concerned.
In summary, this bill makes clear the Government's commitment to the institution of marriage. It will provide certainty to all Australians about the meaning of marriage into the future.

31 May is World No Tobacco Day. The Tobacco Free Initiative of the World Health Organisation has chosen the theme of tobacco and poverty.

The contribution of tobacco to death and disease is well documented. Less attention is given to the ways in which tobacco increases poverty.
Tobacco is the fourth most common risk factor for disease worldwide. The economic costs of tobacco use are equally devastating. In addition to the high public health costs of treating tobacco-caused diseases, tobacco kills people at the height of their productivity, depriving families of breadwinners and nations of a healthy workforce. Tobacco users are also less productive while they are alive due to increased sickness. A 1994 report estimated that the use of tobacco resulted in an annual global net loss of US$ 200 thousand million, a third of this loss being in developing countries.

I'm afraid I cannot say this site is entirely alcohol free.

Already it is four months since my parish decided to defer an application to licence me as a lay minister, because I have a same-sex partner. Yesterday, on Pentecost Sunday, the two us decided to begin a 'sabbatical'. This is some of the letter we wrote to our pastor.

We have so much appreciated your kindness and ministry. A number of times you have asked us how we are travelling. At first we thought we were going reasonably well, but it has become harder, not easier. Most Sundays, we leave church upset and ill at ease. After prayerful thought, we think there are a number of reasons.

Try as we might, we are finding it hard to see our part in the parish's vision for new things. Each time we hear (very good) teaching on talents and gifts, we also hear an unspoken statement that our talents and gifts may grow fully only if we hide our love for each other. We also find it hard to receive ministry from those who have threatened division because of us. These and other things make each week's visit to church tiring and upsetting. We love the people of St.---'s family very much, but we need a break.

This morning, we each separately felt an inner witness that this was our last service at St.---'s, at least for a while. We felt confirmed in our decision to take two or three months away, and perhaps to attend one or two parishes nearer our home for a while.

We plan to quieten ourselves, to pray, and to seek God's direction for our future church life. We may well be back in a couple of months, but we need God's direction and peace. Certainly we will keep in touch.

We love you deeply and sincerely and pray for your utmost joy and peace in Christ. Your love for us has been a precious blessing.

I am much encouraged by a prayer of Henri Nouwen for the day after Pentecost:

Dear Lord, I pray that you will let your Spirit do his restoring work in me, even though I myself do not experience his presence directly. I would like to suddenly feel a strong wind, to see fiery tongues, to speak foreign languages, and to be so full of your Spirit that I could do nothing but announce the Good News to all who want to hear me. But this expresses more impatience than faith, more desire for the spectacular than quiet hope, more impulsiveness than deep and persistent love. You are sending your Spirit, Lord, I know. Even after a few months here I have sensed your work in my soul, a very quiet ongoing work. My experiences of darkness, guilt, and despair have lost their intensity, my moments of restlessness and fatigue occur less frequently, and in the midst of all my distractions I notice that my inner eye turns to you more easily than before. No dramatic changes are present, but yet I am aware of movements far beyond my own comprehension.

I thank you, Lord, for the gift of your Spirit. May the weeks to come strengthen and deepen the Spirit's presence in me.

Henri J. M. Nouwen. A cry for mercy: prayers from the Genesee. Orbis, Maryknoll, 1991, p. 65. Meanwhile, the Revd Dr Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham writes in The Guardian of 29 May:

What Christians will be praying for this Pentecostal weekend, in asking God for a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit, will not simply be a further dose of quiet spiritual refreshment, nor yet a new wave of dramatic supernatural phenomena, but the discernment and courage to speak the truth about Jesus - and thereby about the world.

The Council of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada has agreed that the following resolutions be placed before the General Synod now meeting. We can but pray that trhe Spirit of God will help them to find resolution in peace and unity.

Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
Be it resolved that this General Synod:
(1) Affirm that even in the face of deeply held convictions about whether the blessing of committed same-sex unions is contrary to the doctrine and teaching of the Anglican Church of Canada, we recognize that through our baptism we are members one of another in Christ Jesus, and we commit ourselves to strive for that communion into which Christ continually calls us;
(2) Affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions;
(3) Affirm the crucial value of continued respectful dialogue and study of biblical, theological, liturgical, pastoral and social aspects of human sexuality; and call upon all bishops, clergy and lay leaders to be instrumental in seeing that dialogue and study continue;
(4) Affirm the principle of respect for the way in which the dialogue and study may be taking place, or might take place, in indigenous and various other communities within our church in a manner consistent with their cultures and traditions; and
(5) Affirm that the Anglican Church is a church for all the baptized and is committed to taking such actions as are necessary to maintain and serve our fellowship and unity in Christ, including provision of adequate episcopal oversight and pastoral care for all, regardless of the perspective from which they view the blessing of committed same sex relationships.

Resources regarding Same Sex Unions
Be it resolved that this General Synod requests the Faith Worship and Ministry Committee in the next triennium to assist the church in implementing the resolution on same sex unions and to prepare resources for the church to use in addressing issues relating human sexuality, including the blessing of same-sex unions and the changing definition of marriage in society.

The draft law has not been published yet, but there seem to be problems with the Government's superannuation proposal. Same-sex partners will still not be fully certain that they can inherit each other's pensions. In her Press Release (C046/04, 27 May 2004), the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, Senator Helen Coonan, said:

This is a family friendly proposal which recognises that adult family members who reside together and offer each other mutual support may not receive the same treatment as spouses or dependent children upon the death of a partner or family member. . . . Tax-free superannuation death benefits can currently be paid to spouses, children under 18 and those who can establish financial dependency on the deceased (for example, children over 18 who are dependent and remain at home). There has been some concern that some interdependent adult relationships may not fall within the current definition of financial dependency. This measure will provide members of interdependent relationships with greater certainty over the payment of superannuation death benefits. An interdependent relationship is one of continuing mutual commitment to financial and emotional support between two people who reside together. The definition will also include a person with a disability who may live in an institution but is nevertheless interdependent with the deceased. For example, two elderly sisters who reside together and are interdependent will be able to receive each other's superannuation benefits tax free. Similarly, an adult child who resides with and cares for an elderly parent will be eligible for tax-free superannuation benefits upon the death of the parent. In addition, same-sex couples who reside together and are interdependent but who may not be recognised under the current rules will be eligible to receive superannuation benefits tax free upon the death of their partner.

Same-sex relationships will still not be equal to opposite-sex relationships in access to superannuation death benefits. We may have to prove 'financial dependence' or 'interdependence' (often difficult), though this is not required for same-sex couples. A 'must reside together' requirement may also be applied unequally and may be made an absolute requirement for same-sex partners. I will not be leaving my superannuation in a pension fund unless I can be absolutely certain that James would inherit it should I die first.The Government will still exclude same-sex couples from superannuation and taxation benefits other than inheritance. Contributions to superannuation for an opposite-sex low income spouse qualify for a tax rebate; same-sex couples will still not be eligible. Splitting of superannuation contributions (allowing couples to equalise funds held in superannuation and provide a higher tax-free income in retirement) will not be available to same-sex couples.Meanwhile in a Press release on the Government's marriage and adoptions proposals, Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, announced that "the Government would act to protect the institution of marriage by legislating within the limits of its responsibility, to ensure that same sex relationships cannot be equated with marriage."

Marriage is a central and fundamental institution in our society. It is vital to the stability of our society and provides the best environment for the raising of children. The Government has decided to take steps to reinforce the fundamental basis of the institution of marriage to reflect these views.
Currently, the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 contains no actual definition of marriage. The Government believes that the vast majority of Australians would agree that marriage is the union of a man and a woman - to the exclusion of all others - voluntarily entered into for life. The Government has decided it is time these words should appear in the formal definition of marriage in the Marriage Act and will amend the Act to achieve this result.
I understand that some Australian same-sex couples are considering travelling overseas to marry under the laws in these countries in the hope that their marriage will then be recognised under Australian law on their return. The Government will amend the Marriage Act to make it absolutely clear that Australia will not recognise same-sex marriages entered into under the laws of any other country.
In addition, the Government will legislate under the Family Law Act to make it clear that adoptions by same sex couples, of children from overseas under either bi-lateral or multi-lateral arrangements, will not be recognised in Australia. The Government is fundamentally opposed to same sex couples adopting children.
In the view of the vast majority of Australians, children have the right, all other things being equal, to have the opportunity to be raised by a mother and a father. The Government will, to the extent of its direct area of responsibility under the external affairs power, legislate to prevent adoptions by same sex couples under international arrangements being recognised in Australia. By these actions the Government is making clear its commitment to the institution of marriage.

Press coverage shows that a significant minority of Government MPs and Senators are unhappy with the proposed ban on same-sex marriage. Leading political commentators, such as Michelle Grattan of The Age say that the Government is playing dangerous 'wedge politic' that may rebound against it.There is division within Labor ranks, too, and the the Labor federal opposition continues to dilly-dally. It spokesperson said recently it would support the Government's moves, but later said that this would be a decision for the party Caucus.Nicola Roxon, Labor Shadow Attorney-General wrote on 30 April this rather feeble response to an e-mailed enquiry:

Consistent with our view that all Australians are entitled to live their lives free from discrimination, Labor recognises that changes to the law are required to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexuality and gender identity. Currently federal laws in a range of areas such as taxation, immigration, superannuation, industrial relations and health do not provide adequate recognition of the diversity of genuine caring relationships in our community. Labor commits to removing these injustices when elected to Government.
This will be achieved in the first instance by undertaking a comprehensive audit of all federal legislation, and be followed by the introduction of legislative amendments to the appropriate Acts of Parliament. Our priority will be to ensure that the gay and lesbian community are able to live their lives without discrimination or violence, and can make free choices about all issues affecting their lives including things like their finances, care arrangements and accommodation.
Labor has already made clear that will not be seeking to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. A number of judgments in the High Court have cast doubt on the constitutional basis for this, and we do not believe this issue should be used to delay implementation of the other important initiatives.
The Prime Minister's recent pronouncement that he is considering changes to the Marriage Act has attracted a great deal of media attention, however until we see the full detail of his proposal the Labor Party cannot determine a final position. If in fact this idea becomes proposed legislation, we will consider it in the same way we consider all Government Bills.
While there are some gay couples who see this as a threshold issue, it is not apparent that there is a consensus in the gay and lesbian community over the desirability of advocating for such a reform.
A society in which all people are valued, and discrimination is not tolerated, is the sort of society that Labor aspires to for all Australians. This is the goal we will be working toward in our future policy development and at the next Federal election.

The uncertainty of his federal Labor colleagues has not prevented the Australian Capital Territory's Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope from strong criticism on 26 May of the federal plans on marriage and adoption. He welcomed the move by the Commonwealth to allow same sex couples to inherit their partners' superannuation but said it was a long overdue reform that would be overshadowed by the other erosions of human rights.

This amendment is both unnecessary and divisive and flies in the face of developments in the US, Canada and New Zealand. But it carries more serious implications for the ACT in that openly defies our recent legislation designed to both protect human rights and remove discrimination against gay and lesbian people. Most of the western world is moving, or has already moved, to protect human rights and many nations and jurisdictions are deliberately developing human rights cultures. We in the ACT recently passed the Human Rights Act - Australia's first Bill of Rights - and legislation to remove discrimination against gay and lesbian people and same sex couples. It is regrettable that at the same time as we, and other jurisdictions, are moving to increasingly recognise and protect human rights and to remove discrimination, the Commonwealth is introducing legislation which is discriminatory on its face. It is even harder to comprehend that the Commonwealth is actually proceeding with such undue haste to introduce legislation that will entrench discrimination on the basis of sexuality. To head so far and so fast in the opposite direction to the ACT, and other progressive western nations such as Canada, New Zealand and the UK, can only be viewed as a cynical act of wedge politics on behalf of a Coalition Government struggling in the polls and suffering as a result of a mean spirited budget and the tragic and messy consequences of its role in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

A letter from Independent Senator Meg Lees says:

I am at a loss to understand what the Government hopes to achieve from this extremely divisive proposal. I believe that their justification is that this will strengthen the institution of marriage. I would have thought that restricting access to the benefits of such arrangements would only have had the opposite effect.

Surely embracing diversity, and not shunning difference, is a better way of strengthening our community?

I am also puzzled as to the timing of this move, coming as it does so close to a Federal Election. I also find it interesting that US President Bush recently indicated that he will be instigating a similar move in the USA. I have to ask whether Mr Bush's moves have motivated Mr Howard's, and I would hope that this is not the case.

The Howard Government has publicly linked this move with another proposal, the decision to allow same-sex couples (and other couples not defined under the Act who are in a dependent relationship) the freedom to pass their superannuation benefits to their nominated partners. At present superannuation benefits are subject to taxation on the death of one of the partners in such an arrangement, unlike that which occurs in the case of a married couple, where no such taxation is levied on superannuation.

I understand that, fortunately, these two measures will not be linked in the one piece of legislation and so I can oppose the first and support the second.

I know that the superannuation change is something that has been sought for a long time, and as such will be very much welcomed by many people.

Enough, already. Time for me to think about something else.

The move by the Government to grant people in same-sex relationships equal access to superannuation will not extend to other similar entitlements, such as veterans' benefits, as Mr Organ found out when he asked this question in Parliament yesterday:

Thursday, 27 May 2004
Mr ORGAN: Is the Prime Minister aware of the United Nations Human Rights Committee's finding of 18 September 2003 in the Edward Young case that Australia is in breach of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by refusing to recognise that Mr Young is entitled to a veterans' affairs pension due to the war service in Borneo during World War II of his deceased same-sex partner of 38 years? Why does the Prime Minister think that gay, lesbian, transgender and intersex Australians should be treated differently and actively discriminated against?
Mr HOWARD: In answer to the honourable member for Cunningham, I am aware of that finding. It has been the longstanding policy of governments of both persuasions to pay a veterans' affairs entitlement according to criteria which apply in relation to relationships in the rest of the community - namely, married or de facto relationships as commonly understood. It has not been the disposition of governments of both persuasions over the years to change that. . . .

Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says:

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

In Case No. 941/2000: Young v. Australia, the UN Human Rights Committee found that Australia had breached Article 26.

This case concerned an Australian man who applied for a pension on the basis of being a dependent of a war veteran. He was refused as he was not considered a "member of a couple" within the meaning of the pertinent legislation. He complained that the State party's refusal, on the basis of him being of the same sex as his partner, that is, due to his sexual orientation, to provide him with a pension benefit violated his right to equal treatment before the law and was contrary to article 26. As the State party had provided no arguments on how a distinction between same-sex partners, who are excluded from pension benefits under law, and unmarried heterosexual partners, who are granted such benefits, is reasonable and objective, the Committee found a violation of article 26.

News reports now say that Australia's (federal) superannuation laws will be changed to allow members of a gay couple to nominate their partners as a superannuation beneficiary. What is really interesting is whether the government will extend these reforms to superannuation for its own employees (including James and me!). This would make sense even from the Government's conservative perspective, as it wants to encourage superannuants to take their money as a pension, not to cash it out and invest it elsewhere as a lump sum. Apparently some politicians from both sides of politics have welcomed the proposal.
This cartoon from The Age 18 Sep 2003 might hopefully be now outdated? Meanwhile . . .

EQUAL RIGHTS NETWORK Media Statement, 27.5.04
GAY MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION BAN A DESPERATE ATTEMPT AT WEDGE POLITICS
The Equal Rights Network, a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender lobby group, has slammed the Howard's proposal to ban the recognition of foreign same-sex marriages and inter-country adoptions by same-sex couples as a "desperate attempt at wedge politics".
Spokespeople for the Equal Rights Network, Matthew Loader and Somali Cerise said it is disgraceful that the government is choosing to waste taxpayers money on an unnecessary debate when there is blatant discrimination against same sex couples in many other areas of law.
"The Howard Government is clearly using homophobia to divert attention of the Australian public from more serious issues that should be concerning the government. Howard is using equality as a political
football to create a crisis where one does not exist," said Ms Cerise.
The Equal Rights Network welcomed the government's proposed changes to superannuation legislation but described them as "long overdue".
"It is a case of give with one hand and take away with the other,' said Mr Loader. 'We want full equality. We shouldn't have to get that equality by trading away our other rights because it suits the
government's political tactics."
According to Mr Loader the government has known about discrimination faced by gay and lesbian couples under superannuation legislation since 1995, but has taken no action to address it.
"The fact that they have suddenly decided to act upon superannuation now, just before a federal election, seems opportunistic," said Mr Loader. "There has been private member's legislation in parliament supported by Labor, Democrats and the Greens since 1998 on this issue and the Howard government has refused to act."

Extract from the Massachusetts Declaration of Religious Support For the Freedom of Same-Gender Couples to Marry

The most fundamental human right, after the necessities of food, clothing and shelter, is the right to affection and the supportive love of other human beings. We become most fully human when we love another person. We can grow in our capacity to be human -- to be loving -- in a family unit.

. . . Throughout history, tyrants have known that by denying the right of oppressed peoples to form and nurture families, they can kill the spirit of those peoples. . . . Denial of the status of marriage, to those who would freely accept its responsibilities, creates legal and economic inequities in addition to its social injustice. We feel called to protest and oppose this type of injustice.

As religious people, clergy, and leaders, we are mandated to stand for justice in our common civic life. We oppose appeals to sacred texts and religious traditions for the purpose of denying legal equity to same-gender couples. As concerned citizens, we affirm the liberty of adults of the same gender to love and marry. We insist that no one, especially the state, may either coerce people into marriage, or bar two consenting adults of the same gender from forming the family unit that lets them be more fully loving, thus more fully human. We respect the fact that debate and discussion continue in many of our religious communities as to the theological and liturgical issues involved. However, we draw on our many faith traditions to arrive at a common conviction: we are resolved that the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitments of civil marriage. . . .

According to new reports the Australian Government will prevent possible Australian recognition of overseas same-sex marriages by changing the Marriage Act 1961 to define marriage as between a man and a woman. (Marriage is controlled by federal law in Australia). Sadly, the Labor Opposition has indicated it will support the Government's changes, guaranteeing passage through the Senate. There is no formal definition of marriage either in the Marriage Act 1961 or the Family Law Act 1975, and it has simply been assumed that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Three same-sex couples are seeking court recognition of their Canadian marriages under the foreign marriage recognition provisions in the Marriage Act, which give effect to chapter II of the Hague 1978 Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages. It is unusual in Australia to back-date laws. Thus there may be a small window of time during which there would be recognised foreign same-sex marriages, before the Australian law is changed.Meanwhile, lawyer and distinguished former newspaper editor Crispin Hull has argued that to ban same-sex marriages may not be valid under the Australian constitution. The federal parliament's power to make laws about marriage is conferred by the Constitition and its scope could be contested in the courts.

On 24 May, Michael Organ MP, the Australian Greens' only Member in the Australian House of Representatives (they also have two Senators) has introduced a private member's bill "to ensure people in same sex relationships receive the same rights as people in heterosexual relationships in all areas of the law."On his website, Mr Organ has displayed the Greens' policy on human rights for people of any sexuality and gender identity, as well as an 'action kit' for supporters of the proposal.The bill will probably never again see the light of day, as the major parties (Labor and Liberal) will plead that it is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires, in effect, that proposals requiring any expenditure be sponsored by the Government.Below are the key provisions of what would be called the Same Sex Relationships (Ensuring Equality) Act 2004. The Bill is radically simple and powerful. Mr Organ and the Greens must be congratulated.

3 Object of the Act
The object of this Act is to eliminate all forms of discrimination on the basis of sexuality.

4 Application
(1) This Act applies to all external Territories.
(2) This Act binds the Crown in all of its capacities.
(3) This Act is intended to override any law of the Commonwealth that is in conflict with this Act.
(4) This Act excludes or limits the concurrent operation of any law of a State or a Territory in accordance with section 109 of the Australian Constitution.

Note section 109 of the Australian Constitution states: "When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid."

5 Discrimination on the basis of sexuality to be unlawful
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on a person's sexuality which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the enjoyment or exercise, of the person's public or private life.
(2) To avoid doubt this Act makes any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on a person's sexuality as it relates to;
(a) Marriage;
(b) Adoption;
(c) Superannuation;
(d) Employment Entitlements;
(e) Access to reproductive or health services;
(f) The lawful age of consent to sexual activity;
unlawful.

This is Mr Organ's speech introducing the Bill, from House of Representatives Hansard. Because it is a 'First Reading' statement, it is required to be short.

I welcome the opportunity to present a bill for an act to ensure people in same sex relationships receive the same rights as people in heterosexual relationships in all areas of the law.
This simple, though powerful, bill delivers on a longstanding Greens policy - a policy which opposes all discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The Same Sex Relationships (Ensuring Equality) Bill 2004 relies upon section 109 of the Constitution to override all laws, both federal and state, that are clearly homophobic or discriminatory.
Specifically, this bill makes it unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on a person's sexuality which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the enjoyment or exercise of the person's public or private life.
To avoid doubt, this bill makes unlawful any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on a person's sexuality as it relates to: Marriage, adoption, superannuation, employment entitlements, access to reproductive or health services, and the lawful age of consent to sexual activity.
There is clearly no place for discrimination based on sexual orientation in our society.
This bill is timely for the public eye is once again upon this place over travel entitlements and the issue of personal relationships.
Hypocrisy and double standards are being exposed to the wider community.
There is no doubt, for example, that it is inequitable that the long-term same sex life partners of federal parliamentarians are denied access to spouse travel.
The rules need to be changed, and above all same sex life partner relationships in our society need to be recognised.
We have the present situation where same sex partners in our armed forces are actively discriminated against in areas such as housing, yet other federal government bodies such as the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade do not discriminate.
I have been informed of lifelong partners being refused access to superannuation entitlements and pensions.
The discrimination is widespread.
Australia is a modern, diverse society.
Relationships are also diverse.
We, as federal parliamentarians, must recognise that diversity and reflect it in this place.
We must ensure that legislation made by this parliament does not discriminate against ordinary Australians.
That is our obligation, our civic duty.
And there is no As a Catholic I abhor discrimination.
I also respect the institution of marriage.
And I see no conflict between my beliefs, the message of love for our fellow human beings which I received from my Catholic upbringing, and the bill before us.
I strongly believe that we should respect the right of individuals to a loving, lifelong relationship - whether they be heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian or transgender - regardless of their sexuality.
A relationship based on love and commitment.
For that is what this bill is all about - removing discrimination against those who may happen to fall in love, make a commitment to each other and decide to live in a relationship which in the past has been legally defined as marriage but which, in Australia in 2004, is much more diverse.
There is no doubt that this is a contentious issue in the community.
However, this bill is a piece of legislation arising out of compassion for our fellow Australians - Australians who are being unfairly discriminated against.
We must remove that discrimination.
It is the right thing to do.
Sure, there are those in the community who do not agree with same sex relationships.
There are also those in the gay, lesbian and transgender community who do not believe in marriage - just as there are in the heterosexual community.
But there are thousands of Australians who are suffering and being discriminated against, as I speak, because of the present outmoded and discriminatory laws.
You do not wait to ask slaves if they want to be free, Mr Deputy Speaker; you free them!
The times are changing, and more and more Australians are questioning the existence of discriminatory laws.
As a recent article in Tertangala, the University of Wollongong student magazine, pointed out: Take a look at the common laws we follow. It is illegal to murder, steal, rape, commit fraud and so on. Ask yourself why they're illegal. The answer is simple. It is illegal to take life, steal, and violate other peoples' body in any way, because someone becomes a victim. We have these laws so that people do not become a victim. Ask yourself this, who is the victim of a gay marriage?
Who, indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker?
As federal parliamentarians we must continue to fight to remove racism, sexism, homophobia and other prejudices from our laws.
This bill goes part of the way to achieving this.
I therefore commend it to the House.

Canberra, though Australia's national capital, is oft maligned by residents of the larger state capitals. Therefore even non-sports fans like myself take some perverse pride when a Canberra team wins a national or international championship, as did the Brumbies last weekend, defeating the New Zealand-based Canterbury Crusaders in the Rugby Super 12 grand final.

It's time to tell some of my own story.About a year ago my parish minister and I decided to ask our Bishop to licence me as a Lay Minister in Public Worship. The parish leadership happily supported the idea. My purpose was to serve the priest and the Parish by applying my experience and theological training. I love the 'house of God' and wanted to serve more in liturgy, worship, prayer and the like. I had been more engaged in public ministry in our parish than any one except the priest. I was delighted and humbled by the enthusiasm of many of the parish folks in welcoming the announcement of the proposed application for a licence.However, a couple of parish members contacted our Bishop, because of concerns about my relationship with my partner. A few others spoke with the minister. The proposal remained in suspense for weeks as the leadership tried prayerfully to decide how to respond. There were some difficult conversations. Those who had contacted the Bishop said they would maintain their objection and possibly leave the parish if I were licensed as a lay minister.The parish minister and churchwardens met with the Bishop to seek his views. Previously, the Bishop and had said that there are matters of greater importance to the Gospel than sexuality and that his stance was one of prayerful listening. He now also said that while the New Testament condemns relationships that are abusive (e.g. of young people), unfaithful or the like, he does not believe the Bible opposes committed, consensual, genuinely loving relationships. So he was willing to licence me as a lay minister. As well, the parish leadership has repeatedly affirmed my partner and I in our roles in the parish.The parish minister went out of his way to give us love and pastoral care and to pray with us and for us. But he did not feel able to bring the whole parish with him to an understanding of people in same sex relationships grounded in the reality of the people concerned. So the Bishop agreed that I be asked to withdraw the application for a licence. It was proposed that the Parish undertake some study and discussion concerning sexuality and the faith and I was asked to continue participation in public ministry as I had done up till then. I was saddened that my proposal for growth in service had at first taken up with alacrity, but then had to be set aside. I was disappointed that to licence me as a lay minister was seen as potentially divisive. I agreed not to withdraw the application but to defer it the time being, but there has been no action since.There is no 'right' to minister. Whether and how gifts and abilities are taken up and used is for church leadership and, hopefully, the Holy Spirit to direct. An applicant must be a person of 'good repute' (though not all of Jesus' disciples were such!). But one's sexual orientation is utterly irrelevant to fitness for Christian service. My partner and I would never do anything to bring into question the reputation of the gospel or church. But I am troubled at what all this says about the attitude of the church to the development of lay ministry generally, and what it says to gay and lesbian people about their place in the church. Licensed lay ministry is among the more humble of the formally endorsed ministries in the Church. What if I had aspired to serve in an ordained ministry or other leadership or teaching role?I had said that if the licensing did not go ahead for reasons to do with my acceptability, that it would be difficult to continue with activities related to the proposed licence. The joy I had experienced in leading liturgy and prayer has gone for the present. I can't see myself leading peacefully and well while my participation remains unacceptable to some and potentially divisive. So I am no longer available for leadership roles in public worship.I take my theological studies to be a vocation. But I have also long believed it also to be part of my small role to be a 'servant of the servants of God' in worship, liturgy, prayer, the building up of God's house, and the support of its leadership - a deacon-like role. This I have been doing for thirty years, hopefully with increasing wisdom and certainly with increasing skill. This is now in abeyance.I have no confidence that more discussion will lead to settled conclusions about sexuality and church life. And after half a lifetime of prayer and study concerning sexuality and the church, I have become rather weary of having to constantly explain and justify my very nature as a person. It is far better prayerfully to seek a conviction in the Spirit as to where Christlikeness and justice lie, together with the empowerment of the Spirit to act accordingly. The old description of theology as 'faith seeking understanding' applies here. If we can discern in faith what we believe is life giving and true and state it boldly, by the grace of God the debate and arguments will fall into place. That, of course, is a leadership challenge.Though we deeply appreciate the care shown to us by parish friends, we have felt bruised and are trying to work out what happens next. Of course we need to pray and to listen. Maybe its time to move to a different parish nearby. We are fortunate that we live in city where there are many parishes near our home. Not an easy thing after (in my case) 15 years in the same place. But we are finding it hard to identify any more with the entirely excellent vision of our present parish. We are not part of it any more, for every time we get involved, our acceptability is always a question in the background. We need to find somewhere where we can wholeheartedly contribute, at first by simply being the people that we are - two men who love God with all their being and wish to worship and work together "in spirit and in truth."

Post script: (April 2005) James and I have now settled in a new parish, where I am a licensed lay minister.

Debate in the international Anglican Communion about ordination of and ministry by gay and lesbian people lumbers on.The 'Primates of the Global South' of the Anglican Communion, met on 15 and 16 April and have reiterated their "unequivocal opposition" to the decision of the Episcopal Church of the USA to consecrate Bishop Gene Robinson. They call on the Lambeth Commission recently appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to include in its Report a specific call to ECUSA to repent and "to revoke and rescind its decision and action". Should ECUSA not comply they call for "appropriate disciplinary action", including the suspension and ultimate expulsion of ECUSA. They argue for similar discipline against the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada for its blessing of same sex unions.The Primates of the South ask the Commission "to give urgent consideration to the renewal of mutual accountability and the harmonization of constitutions and canons of the various Provinces in the Communion." They decalre that "As Primates of the Global South, we are of one mind that these measures are essential to preserve our Communion in true union and to avoid the tragic realignment which would otherwise be inevitable." (ACNS 3829 19 May 2004).In a separate open letter to the Archbishop Robin Eames, Chairman of the Lambeth Commission, Archbishop Drexel Gomes of the West Indies wrote that he feels that a call for restraint made by Archibishop Eames, "appeared to be addressed only to those who take objection to recent developments. Surely, in this grave situation, all sides need to give space for the Commission's work. There is no small feeling amongst conservative members of the Communion that they are being asked to show restraint whilst the liberal agenda moves ahead . . . "To this, Archbishop Eames replied, ". . . you are quite right: in asking for the Communion to hold back from precipitate action, the Primates were asking for space for the Commission's work by all sides to this debate. . . . consideration will have to be given to events across the Communion which seem to take further controversial positions on the issue of ministry by and to homosexual persons. It makes it more difficult for conservatives on this issue to hold back from strong reaction if they are faced with what can be seen as continuing provocation."(ACNS 3828 18 May 2004)Liberal advocates of change cannot readily compromise without betraying principles of liberation, freedom and equality essential to the Gospel. The Conservatives are unable to compromise because of deep-rooted cultural feelings and what they believe to be a correct approach to the centrality of Scripture. Separation of the various national provinces of the international Anglican Communion seems likely. Not necessarily a great evil, in my view.However, a separation into conservative and liberal camps would be a headache for the Anglican Church in Australia. Through its Archbishop, the Diocese of Sydney has strongly aligned itself with the African and Asian conservatives. Other parts of the Australian church would prefer association with more liberal fellow churches.The only sane choice is complete autonomy for each province, without formal affiliations. But isn't that what we are supposed to have now?Meanwhile the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, Njongonkulu Ndungane, offers a voice of sanity and calm.

As the Church of the Province in Southern Africa, we are committed to partnership in the Anglican Communion and to deepening the bonds of affection which bind us together. We are committed to ongoing discussion on human sexuality as requested by the Lambeth Conference. We give our full support to the Archbishop of Canterbury's commission on the crisis that is affecting us as the Anglican Communion.

. . . We recognise the depth of pain that has been caused through the consecration of an actively gay person to the position of bishop and we understand the reaction felt by many of the people, especially members of the Anglican Church in Africa. As the Church we are called to understand more deeply the very complex issues surrounding human sexuality, and to admit that our understanding of these issues is evolving. It is necessary that we acknowledge that the Church is the Body of Christ and that we are called to minister to all its members even when we may not agree with their choices. In Africa, we have the wisdom of the philosophy that claims we become ourselves through other people. In times of conflict and disagreement it is vital that we apply this lesson to our conduct. As we seek answers to questions of human sexuality and in other areas of conflict it is important that we remember that as the Church we are called to be a family. This relationship means that while we may have differences we need to work together to find solutions through dialogue, prayer and an ever greater understanding of each other.

(ACNS 3827 18 May 2004)

The Australia Institute is an independent public policy research centre located in Canberra. Its work reflects concern at "the impact on Australian society of the priority given to a narrow definition of economic efficiency over community, environmental and ethical considerations in public and private decision making." "Unconstrained by ideologies of the past", the Institute says on its website, its purpose " is to help create a vision of a more just, sustainable and peaceful Australian society and to develop and promote that vision in a pragmatic and effective way." "Private markets", the Institute says, "while effective at encouraging efficiency in many circumstances, frequently fail to reflect adequately the ethical, social and environmental priorities of the community. Governments must provide the appropriate institutional framework in which private markets operate so as to ensure that they contribute to justice, equity and sustainability as well as efficiency. Market outcomes are not value free and the Institute reasserts the place of ethics in making public and private decisions." On 17 May 2004, The Australia Institute published a paper Public attitudes to discrimination in public schools. by D Wilkinson, A MacIntosh and C Hamilton. It highlights the exemptions enjoyed by religious institutions and private schools from the anti-discrimination provisions of Australian law. These make it possible for a private school to refuse to hire any gay or lesbian person and to expel a gay or lesbian student.Yet the Institute reports survey results showing that 89% of parents disagree that private schools should be able to expel students because they are gay.

Most heartening for me, among the many stories flowing from Massachusetts recognition of same-sex marriages, are the reports, e.g. here and here of church leaders performing and blessing same-sex marriages - including the Rector of Episcopal Christ Church, Cambridge, Mass. Celebrations included an 'Interfaith prayer service to celebrate the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses and to bless couples who are planning to marry', held by the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry.

20 May 2004 is the 2nd anniversary of the independence of the brave and tiny nation of East Timor (Timor Leste). Australia's policy on East Timor has a chequered and not always honourable history (see The Timor Gap, Wonosobo and the fate of Portuguese Timor (PDF) by Robert J. King, from Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society 88(1), June 2002.) More recently, however, Australia has been generous with aid, and the role of our Army in East Timor has been valuable, appreciated and important. (Unlike in Iraq.)
(Cartoon used by permission: Nicholson of The Australian newspaper: www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au.)

But our Government is mean in its dealings with East Timor over the shared maritime boundary and the oil reserves beneath it, delaying negotiations and refusing international arbitration. The East Timorese Prime Minister's Timor Sea Office has an interesting site on the question. See also the East Timor Action Network

Winter is upon us, with sub-zero cold. But no frost as the air is too dry. Our March/April rainfall was the lowest on record: only 4.4 millimetres of rain in March compared with the average of 52.5 mm. Even in winter we still have drought and a bushfire in the national park. Government restrictions on the use of water continue. So Canberra is looking and looking for rain. My office window faces west (where most of the weather comes from). My workmates were standing round my desk looking hopefully at the dark clouds late yesterday, but no luck. And a favourite diversion these days is to study the local weather radar.

Australians and Danes seemed glad of a reason to celebrate - and why not? The Danish capital was awash with Australian and Danish flags and the goodwill seemed very real. James and I know full well that distance and culture seem no barrier to friendship! Because of its abundant export of apples, Tasmania is known as the 'Apple Isle'. So one radio humourist said this morning that perhaps the most fitting symbol of this marriage is found not in royal pageantry, but the humble apple danish. ... Speaking of links across the globe (as I wasn't, really), the personalised world travel map seen on blogs everywhere serves only to illustrate the limits of our wanderings, James and I. Someday we hope to make it to North America! The beginning of our seventh year together was our own reason to celebrate, with picnic lunch by the lake and dinner at home. Autumn is very late this year after a long summer, and we still have drought. But at last the park trees are gold, red and brown.

Thanks to Anglicans Online for a link to a "The Reformation Continues", a University Sermon preached by the Reverend Dr Giles Fraser, Chair of Inclusive Church.net, in the University Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Oxford, on 2 May 2004. For Martin Luther, Fraser says, "service to a God who demanded human beings earn His love had become service to a heartless despot, impossible to please". Luther "blew apart the theological establishment", exposing such an understanding of Christianity as "inherently abusive".

Parallels with arguments that are now transforming the political geography of Anglicanism are remarkable. For the debate about homosexuality is a great deal more than a debate about sex. It's a debate about the nature of God's love for human beings that has much in common with debates that drove the Reformation. For the message the Church has given to gay Christians is the message Luther came to see as inherently abusive: God does not love you as you are - you need to be completely and fundamentally - and perhaps even impossibly - different before He will love you.

. . . Luther's theological breakthrough was to describe a wholly non-abusive God . . . God's love is experienced as grace, freely given: not as a demand that in order to be loved human beings must first become something impossibly different to what they already are.

Following Luther, generations of evangelicals described the huge joy of being released from the burden of impossible expectations. . . . The sense of finally facing the truth, the sense of admitting it to others, the sense of being accepted as one is, the sense of being released from the burden of impossible condemnation: being saved is an experience emotionally identical to coming out of the closet.

. . . The irony, of course, is that it is evangelicals who have so spectacularly lost the best insights of their own tradition. Where are the latter day Wilberforces or Shaftsburys? These were men who fought against tradition and, a narrow interpretation of scripture, in order to bring about liberation - most significantly, perhaps, the liberation of slaves.

. . . those who argue for change are not foisting a politically correct agenda onto a reluctant ancient text. The issue is not about the nature of what it is to be gay or black or a woman: the issue is what it is to be God. And the one thing we know about God is that He seeks to call us out of darkness into light, to call us out of pain into joy, to call us out of deceit into truth, to call us out of oppression into freedom. In short, the Gospel is good news.

. . . This is why there can be no compromise with those who wish to force gay Christians back into the closet, or who wish to drive them out of the closet thus to drive them out of the church. When Jeffrey John refused to hide within the ecclesiastic closet - thus sparking off global apoplexy amongst conservatives - his crime was to tell the truth. And the truth has changed things - truth has that effect. Jeffrey's silent courage as a gay Christian suggests to me that there is some deep connection between the lyrics of one gay anthem: "I am what I am, and what I am, needs no excuses" and Martin Luther's: "Here I stand, I can do no other."

It is an example that more and more will follow. . . . Let the Reformation continue.

Simon Sarmiento comments that "The full text of the sermon is conveniently found at www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/000600.html " Thanks Simon.

This is not the first time Giles Fraser has been provocative on this issue, evidence this piece in The Guardian

Just just been playing the CD of Concert for George.
This song, sung by Billy Preston, stirred up a few feelings.Isn't it a pity
Isn't it a shame
How we break each other's hearts
And cause each other pain
How we take each other's love
Without thinking any more
Forgetting to give back
Isn't it a pity
Somethings take so long
And how do I explain?
Not too many people
See we're all the same
And because of all the tears
Our eyes can't hope to see
The beauty that surrounds us
Isn't it a pity
Isn't it a shame

The Concert for George was shown on my local TV recently. I hadn't realised that George Harrison was such a prolific songwriter. The CD of the concert has 20 singles on it. A poignant figure on stage was George's son Dhani, strumming along while his Dad's friends (and his) rocked through a night of nostalgia. To my mind it wasn't so much a concert for George (who is, after all, sadly gone) but a concert for Dhani.George Harrison was much interested in spirituality. My sweet Lord, I really want to see you . . . Hallelujah . . . Hari Khrisha . . . Hari Rama . . . quite similar praises, except that, with the Jerusalem crowds, who cried "Hallelujah", we also say "Blessed is the one (Jesus) who comes in the name of the Lord!" The irony, of course, is they were soon to cry, "Crucify him!"

A friend gave James the recipe for this cake and James has adapted it and made a it a speciality. It's easy to do and in great demand when we go to out to supper. Yes, it is supposed to be green!Ingredients:
250g self raising flour
100g butter or (preferably) light vegetable oil
190g sugar
2 eggs
15ml honey
60ml milk
about 30g nuts, e.g. chopped walnut, peanuts, pine nuts
about 30g dried fruit, e.g. chopped dried dates
quarter teaspoon of salt
a small amount of very finely chopped ginger, to taste
a few drops of pandamus extract, to tasteYou will also need:
a 10inch (26cm) bamboo steamer with cover;
large lotus leaves for steaming.
Method:
Soak the lotus leaves in cold water while you are preparing the mixture.
Mix the flour, butter/oil, sugar and eggs in a blender, adding the eggs slowly. Mix well.
Add the remaining ingredients and stir in well with wooden spoon or similar.
Line the steamer with lotus leaves - trim with scissors so the steamer cover will fit.
Pour the mixture into the leaf-lined steamer and cover with bamboo steamer cover.
Decorate with a few extra nuts, such as almond slivers or pine nuts.
Place over rapidly boiling water to steam - a large, covered, soup pot is ideal. Don't immerse the cake in the water! Check the water level occasionally so it doesn't boil dry.
Steam for 35-45 minutes. Check with skewer.
Leave the cake in the lotus leaves until serving.

Australia is signatory to international human rights agreements prohibiting discrimination against Australian gay men and lesbians.

2.1 Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. . . .

26. All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 2.1 and 26.

Yet there is widespread legal discrimination in Australia and current law gives only limited protection.The Labor Party government of the Australian Capital Territory, where I live, has eliminated discriminatory Territory laws, but federal law remains a barrier to equality and justice. There has been some progress in the recognition of same-sex relationships in immigration. But there is systematic failure to recognise same-sex relationships in superannuation and compensation, employee entitlements, marriage and family law (which are federal matters in Australia), taxation, social security; and insurance. Federal anti-discrimination and workplace-relations laws also give little protection against discrimination in employment, especially non-government employment.Reports by the federal Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission stress the need for change but as in other things, the Commission has been ignored by the present conservative Government. The Australian Labor Party makes up all the State and Territory governments and has been active in changing their laws. But as the federal opposition, the Labor Party has been inconsistent in its response to the needs of gay and lesbian people for equity and fairness.