With the last kick of the match, Italy scored a penalty goal, to knock Australia out of the World Cup, 1-0. Were the Socceroos robbed? I have no idea.

Michael Cockerill, as always, gives an interesting summary in the SMH.

But what irritates me about football is the apparent arbitrariness of the results. One questionnable refereeing decision right at the death of a match and it's all over. Not to speak of the ridiculous nonsense that occured in the Holland v. Portugal match, with 16 yellow and 4 red cards issued!

A fascination in South Korea's World Cup campaign has been the depth and breadth of support Korea's people. Enthused by their country's successes in the 2002 World Cup, huge crowds out in Korea's mian cities to watch the match between Korea and Switzerland last night on a giant video screens including 350,000 around Gwanghwamun in downtown Seoul, 150,000 in front of Seoul Plaza and 100,000 in the Busan Asiad Stadium. This picture is from Chosun Ilbo.



Vast apartment complexes and residential streets were lit up all night as people waited for the match and watched other matches. But in the end Korea was crushed 2-0 by Switzerland. Dae Han Min Guk rang through the Hanover stadium and the 'Red Devils' sang. The Koreans had several chances to score but none of them went in. Inability to convert opportunities cost Korea the match.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) has found a way through the ordination-of-homosexuals question.

By a vote of 298-221 (57% to 43%), the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) today approved an "authoritative interpretation" of the church's Constitution that maintains current ordination standards for church officers but gives ordaining bodies greater leeway in applying those standards to individual candidates for ordination.

"Today we saw the Presbyterian process of doing things at its best," said the Rev. Joan Gray, moderator of the 217th General Assembly, at a press conference following the vote. "We saw people working fairly and treating each other justly." . . .

The proposal was one of seven contained in the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church (TTF) that has spent the last four years looking for ways to help the deeply divided denomination stay together despite its differences.

Four other recommendations passed by an overwhelming 87% majority. They "strongly encourage" all Presbyterians to witness to the church's oneness and "to avoid division into separate denominations"; to urge congregations, governing bodies and other groups of Presbyterians to engage in "intensive discernment" in the face of difficult issues; to study the theological reflection section of the TTF report; and to encourage church bodies to "explore the use of alternative forms of discernment and decision-making as a complement to parliamentary procedure.". . .

[I]n what TTF member the Rev. William Stacy Johnson of Princeton Theological Seminary called "a simple and time-tested framework for staying together in times of conflict," the authoritative interpretation harkens back to the Adopting Act of 1729 in stating: "Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office."

The 1729 act allowed ordination candidates to declare a "scruple" against any matter of church doctrine (then the Westminster Confession and Catechism), with the ordaining body determining if the scruple constituted "a departure from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office" and "a failure to adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity."

The authoritative interpretation approved today borrows that language. Supporters of the authoritative interpretation expressed hope it will break the cycle of conflict in the PC(USA), particularly over the gay ordination issue. . . .

Former General Assembly moderator, elder Marj Carpenter of Big Spring, TX, said, "I'm against the ordination of homosexuals, though I love 'em. But we've been fighting in this ditch for 28 years and the ditch is getting deeper." Her voice quavering with emotion, Carpenter continued, "It's starting to affect our mission work, our youth ministry and our evangelism and I'm ready to try something else. Please, let's get on with being the church, taking the gospel into the world and offering them something else other than arguments." . . .

Well said Ms Carpenter.

I need to be careful in commenting about the affairs of another church, observed from the other side of the earth, but I'm inclined to agree with Christopher in his description of the General Convention's passage of B033 as doing "spiritual violence".

It is clear that lgbt folks were repeatedly being asked to take up their crosses by others who were unwilling to join them in the cross they recommended to us. Such is Babylonic unity. That is why I repeatedly said that an honest response to Windsor either had to be a complete repudiation or general moratoria on the consent to all recommended to the episcopate and on all blessings lifestyles-- marriages, monastic vows, unions, by the ordained. I preferred the latter because it could provide space to say we're ready to continue conversation and communion with our sister churches . . .

Christopher is not alone. A number of bishops have made a statement of conscience dissenting from the decision and the manner of its making. Fr John also calls the action violent. Others are deeply troubled and Fr Jake comments that the church has bowed to the "idol of communion" by "embracing bigotry".

Having risen at 4.30am to watch the game, many Australians are happy but sleepy today as the Socceroos go forward to the World Cup round of 16 after a 2-2 draw with Croatia. A goal by Harry Kewell (pictured) in the 79th-minute equalised for Australia. Twice Australia were forced to come from behind.



Super coach Guus Hiddink had gambled wrongly and near disastrously in choosing Kalac as goalkeeper for this game, ahead of the established Mark Schwarzer. Referee Poll lost the plot more than once and booked Croatian Josip Siminic three times before red-carding him after the final whistle.

The spectacle and skill of world-class football is undeniable and exciting. But I find it a frustrating game to watch. The outcome often seems arbitrary to me. A single lucky goal, refereeing error or mistake by a player can make or break the result of an entire tournament. "That's football" they say. Hmm?

The Australian Financial Review, 22 June 2006 reports that the the Howard government is deliberately obtructing the work of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's National Inquiry into Discrimination against People in Same-Sex Relationships: Financial and Work-Related Entitlements and Benefits. The government has instructed federal departments and agencies not to make submissions to the inquiry. The inquiry is an audit of federal, state and territory laws to develop a full list of circumstances in which same-sex couples and their children may be denied financial and/or work-related benefits and entitlements worth tens of thousands of dollars that are available to heterosexual couples.

[A] spokesman for Attorney-General Philip Ruddock told The Australian Financial Review that ministers had discussed the inquiry and collectively agreed to instruct their departments not to make submissions to it, arguing that since it was HREOC's inquiry it should be left to HREOC to do the work, rather than their departments. The instruction to the public service appears to fly in the face of the stated position of Prime Minister John Howard who, despite the federal government's move last week to overturn ACT same-sex union laws, has in the past insisted his government was keen to address any financial discrimination same-sex couples might face.Submissions to the inquiry already published document discrimination on issues such as public service superannuation, housing loans, war veterans pensions, workers' compensation and Medicare benefits, which can cost couples thousands of dollars. The superannuation industry has made a submission to the inquiry highlighting the problems of same-sex couples in super, such as being unable to split their contributions, leaving them exposed to tax payments of 15 per cent on amounts of more than $129,751 which heterosexual couples have not had to pay.
When Mr Howard announced amendments to the Marriage Act in May 2004, he also announced the government would be legislating in the area of superannuation to introduce the concept of financial interdependency. This meant same-sex couples could access the same concessional tax treatment for superannuation death benefits available to heterosexuals instead of facing a 30 per cent tax bill. But a pressing concern among the federal government's own public servants is that the legislation did not apply the law to its own public sector funds.

The Australian Coalition for Equality spokesperson Rod Swift says the gag is yet another piece in the Howard Government's 'Straight Australia Policy'.

The Prime Minister and Cabinet have proven that actions speak louder than words. They make noises that they want to remove discrimination, but act in a deceitful way to hinder investigations into the extent of that very discrimination. . . . Government departments and agencies are acutely aware of the hundreds of laws and regulations that discriminate against same-sex couples. The Howard Government clearly does not want the embarrassment of the exposure of this endemic discrimination.

Nicola Roxon MP, Labor's Shadow Attorney-General said on 22 June 2006 that:

Yet again, John Howard has been caught out saying one thing to the public and another thing to his public servants. This time the issue is discrimination against same sex couples. . . . This arrogant and high-handed move comes just weeks after Mr Howard said he wants to get rid of discrimination. . . . Which one is it? Is he for or against discrimination? HREOC is doing exactly what the Prime Minister wants: looking at this issue on a case-by-case basis. If he were taken at his word, he should be encouraging this inquiry, not obstructing it. The fact is that he can't be taken at his word. In ten long years, his Government has done next to nothing to get rid of discrimination. Same sex couples are still treated differently for the purposes of superannuation, veterans' entitlements, family law, taxation, welfare, Medicare and pharmaceuticals benefits, among other areas. . . . The pigheaded and unreasonable directive not to co-operate with HREOC shows Mr Howard's true colours. He talks the talk on discrimination, but he walks in the opposite direction.

I'm impressed by Bishop Jefferts Schori's homily at the closing eucharist of the Convention. "We children can continue to squabble over the inheritance", she concluded, "Or we can claim our name and heritage as God's beloveds and share that name, beloved, with the whole world."

Among all the comments on the outcomes of the Convention (and there'll be plenty), Christopher's words are especially valuable.

It seems that Convention has chosen fudge in preference to a split. As best I can figure, this is what happened. In the dying hours of the Convention, and following rejection by the House of Deputies of a resolution on 'gay bishops' and blessing of same-sex relationships, outgoing Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold spoke to a joint meeting of Deputies and Bishops to urge the adoption of this resolution (B033)

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report's invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further
Resolved, that this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on the communion.

The bishops then left the Hall of Deputies to consider the resolution. After several attempts to amend the second clause they adopted B033 on a voice vote and delivered the resolution to the House of Deputies.

The Deputies interrupted debate to hear Presiding Bishop Elect Jefferts Schori who asked them to concur in the resolution despite its shortcomings, saying it was the best that could be expected. After several failed amendments the time allotted for debate expired. In a vote by orders and dioceses, the House of Deputies concurred in the resolution (Lay -- Yes: 72, No: 21, Divided: 7; Clerical -- Yes: 75, No: 24, Divided: 4). The resolution is now the official decision of The Episcopal Church.

Was the Convention's decision too great a price to pay? Is Badger right when he says:

The deputies eventually passed the resolution, but not with out tears, a very dear gift to the incoming Presiding Bishop. But I fear, will accomplish nothing. The dying sect will not cease from their drive to establish a separate ecclesiastical entity, and since the language is not 'windsor compliant', it will do nothing to appease the akinolas. It is an expensive gift, bitter to all Gays and Lesbians who live lives of holiness. It will accomplish little. We have sold our reputation for a song.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has responded to thank the Convention for its work, saying

It is not yet clear how far the resolutions passed this week and today represent the adoption by the Episcopal Church of all the proposals set out in the Windsor Report. The wider Communion will therefore need to reflect carefully on the significance of what has been decided before we respond more fully.

All this came after the House of Deputies had rejected a resolution (A161), which was too strong for the liberals and too weak for the conservatives to accept. As Dr Harmon of Titus 1: 9 argues,

The strategy of leaders of the Anglican church at Columbus had been to engineer the moderate middle ground to be Windsor-compliant, marginalising the radical liberals and the orthodox, for the sake of unity. This strategy failed. In the end, the key resolutions were too liberal for the conservatives or too conservative for the liberals.

I like Andrew's comment that:

The good news is that what began to emerge was another kind of center. A center that is not anxious, well focused and firm. This is a center that both listens to the edges and takes what is best from both to move forward. Legislatively, the language here is less is more.

Colin Coward, Director of Changing Attitude, England says:

Resolution B033 seems to represent a change of mind on the part of the House of Deputies at General Convention . . . It has brought time, and it is something of a climb down and a fudge. It will not provide full satisfaction to anyone. Certainly not to Integrity leaders and members, nor to those who believe in direct progress to the full inclusion of LGBT people in the Anglican churches worldwide. Neither will it satisfy those conservatives who desire to create a split and separate themselves from the Episcopal Church at all costs. I don't think it will increase the speed with which the Church splits, and places a difficult ball back in the conservative court. I think it's likely that if dioceses or bishops do want to make a move, there will be further realignments in coming days and weeks. Watch for the announcement from Michael Nazir-Ali, who has nailed his colours dangerously to the mast.

Does it satisfy me? Yes, insofar as no-one is given total satisfaction and the Episcopal Church hasn't abandoned it's commitment to ultimate full inclusion, and it doesn't mean that the Church of England can escape from our desire and determination to work for full inclusion here. For me, it also means that LGBT people in other parts of the Communion, Nigeria and other African Provinces in particular, remain in communion with us. We can continue to extend our networks, Changing Attitude and Integrity, to provide encouragement and support and help work for justice for LGBT people in every Province and country of the Communion.

The rejected resolution would have said that The Episcopal Church

regrets the extent to which we have, by action and inaction, contributed to strains on communion and caused deep offense to many faithful Anglican Christians as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union. Accordingly, we are obliged to urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to refrain from the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion; and be it further

Resolved that this General Convention not proceed to develop or authorize Rites for the Blessing of same-sex unions at this time, thereby concurring with the Windsor Report in its exhortation to bishops of the Anglican Communion to honor the Primates' Pastoral Letter of May 2003; and be it further

Resolved that this General Convention affirm the need to maintain a breadth of responses to situations of pastoral care for gay and lesbian Christians in this Church.

Resolved that this General Convention apologize to those gay and lesbian Episcopalians and their supporters hurt by these decisions.

The furore in the Deputies, an overcrowded program, and a chaotic legislative process, led to there being much important unfinished business. Quite a number of resolutions passed the Bishops but were not considered by the Deputies before time ran out. Integrity USA mentions some of interest to it.

However the Deputies concurred with resolution A166 from the House of Bishops supporting the process of developing an Anglican Covenant:

Resolved . . . That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, as a demonstration of our commitment to mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Anglican Communion, support the process of the development of an Anglican Covenant that underscores our unity in faith, order, and common life in the service of God's mission; and be it further

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention direct the International Concerns Standing Committee of the Executive Council and the Episcopal Church's members of the Anglican Consultative Council to follow the development processes of an Anglican Covenant in the Communion, and report regularly to the Executive Council as well as to the 76th General Convention; and be it further

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention report these actions supporting the Anglican Covenant development process, noting such missiological and theological resources as the Standing Commission on World Mission and the House of Bishops' Theology Committee to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates, and the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion; and that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church report the same to the Primates of the churches of the Anglican Communion.

The Convention has also adopted resolution A159, a commitment to interdependence in the Anglican Communion.

Resolved, . . . That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm that The Episcopal Church is in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer; and be it further

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention join with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the primates, and the Anglican Consultative Council in making a commitment to the vision of interdependent life in Christ, characterized by forbearance, trust, and respect, and commend the Windsor Report and process as a means of deepening our understanding of that commitment; and be it further

Resolved, That as an expression of interdependence, the Presiding officers of both Houses work in partnership with the churches of the Anglican Communion to explore ways by which there might be inter-Anglican consultation and participation on Standing Commissions of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church.

The House of Deputies of The Episcopal Church has passed the following resolution (A160) by a large majority and sent it to the House of Bishops for concurrence.

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, that the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, mindful of "the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ" (Windsor Report, paragraph 134), express its regret for breaching the proper constraintsstraining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another.

The word "straining" was substituted for the words "breaching the proper constraints" in the committee draft. Father Jake says that:

this may seem like a minor change, but the discussion that led up to it was quite revealing. The amendment was offered because it was argued that 'breaching' was too severe of a term to use to describe our current situation. Some parts of the communion are angry with one another. We're having a family argument. What the deputies would not accept was the premise that there is a serious 'breach' in the relationship.

Exactly so.

The minority opposing the resolution were divided between those thinking it too strong and those thinking it too weak. Thus, for example, Father John comments "Even though I voted for the amendment, I voted against the final resolution. I could not in good conscience ask forgiveness for something I don't believe was wrong. Still, the amendment was an improvement . . . it gets rid of the language of "constraints" that implies the Windsor Report has an authority that it does not have . . . and it is still disengenuous." If I were there, I would also have voted against the resolution. Our American sisters and brothers have little to apologise for but obedience to the command to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with God (Micah 6.8).

I am praying as the Convention considers resolution A161 calling upon dioceses and the General Convention to refrain from consecrating openly gay or lesbian parterned clergy as bishops and the General Convention not to authorize rites for blessing same-sex unions.

In an ACNielsen/Age poll, 45% of those polled supported ACT laws allowing gay civil unions, while 34% opposed them. (What happened to the remaining 21%? -- that's a lot of 'don't knows'.) There have beeen a lot of informal phone-in and on-line 'polls' on this topic lately, but they have little credibility. This poll used good statistical methods and is definitely credible.

The younger the respondents, the more supported the ACT laws, with 56% of people aged 18-39 in favour, compared with 48% of people aged 40-54 and 29% of people aged 55+. Labor voters were much more likely to support the laws (55%) than voters supporting the liberal-national Howard government (30%).

A poll by Nine's Sunday program on 18 June asked "Should same-sex couples have exactly the same legal rights as heterosexual couples?" -- 59% of respondents said "Yes" and 41% said "No".

Today the Senate rejected, by 32 votes to 30, a move to overturn the federal government's disallowance of the Australian Capital Territory's Civil Unions Act 2006, which is now effectively dead. Government Senators from around the nation had today "shamefully and explicitly" endorsed second-class citizenship for ACT's people, by failing to support its right to legislate for civil unions, Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said. However, he congratulated ACT Liberal Senator Gary Humphries for crossing the floor on the issue, to vote with the Greens, the Democrats and Labor, all of whom should be congratulated for their stance.

Today, Mr Humphries stands alone as the only Coalition Senator prepared to stand up for the ACT's rights. But when his colleagues, elected representatives from around the country, had a historic opportunity to defend and uphold the very principles of democracy that brought them into the Senate Chamber in the first place, they squibbed. They abandoned 320,000 of their fellow Australians and they rubber-stamped the Prime Minister's own disgraceful disenfranchisement of the people of the ACT, rendering the rights of Canberrans second-class rights, the democratic entitlements of Canberrans second-class entitlements.

Mr Stanhope said he was deeply disappointed that the Senate had failed so wholly to comprehend the gravity of what it was doing and he questioned whether coalition Senators would have been so cavalier with the principles of democracy if the issue at stake had not involved a minority group.

If the Federal Government had taken aim at a majority interest, instead of the interest of Australia's gay and lesbian communities, would Coalition Senators have been so complacent about their vote? And what will they do next time, when the issue is one of greater personal relevance to them and their perceived constituencies? By then, of course, it will be too late. The precedent will have been established. The ACT's capacity to make laws in its own interest and according to its own conscience will have been forever eroded.

Credit where its due: Senator for the ACT Gary Humphries is the first (and, thus far, only) Liberal senator to have voted against the Howard Government in its 10-year history. "It's a big step to take," Senator Humphries told the Canberra Times. "I've been a member of two parliaments representing the Liberal Party for 17 years and I've never before crossed the floor." This shot from the front page of the Canberra Times shows him voting by sitting, glum and alone, on what for him is the 'wrong' side of the Senate chamber, behind two of the Greens, Senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle.

The over-riding of the territory's capacity to make its own laws had been "the biggest consideration" for the former ACT Chief Minister.

I am deeply unhappy about the decision that's been made. I spent 14 years of my life as a member of the ACT Legislative Assembly, where the Liberal Party entrusted me with the task of bedding down what was initially a fairly unpopular concept [territory self-government]. The thing that I told the citizens of the ACT time and again over those 14 years was that as a community we were mature enough and well educated enough to sit down and make decisions for ourselves about the things that were important to us. I think in those circumstances any step which takes away from the ACT the capacity to executive decisions based on the democratic process is a very serious and a very regrettable step . . . It's not easy to buck the consensus of the Government, but it is certainly a matter that I've given very serious consideration to and I fully understand the implications.

I found Mr Humphries open-minded and inclusive as ACT Chief Minister in his relationships with local gay and lesbian groups. But he was a little disingenous when he said in the Senate today that he thought the federal Liberal government had done much for gay and lesbian people.

"No Virginia, elder abuse is not when Grandpa swore at you."

Stories of horrific sexual assault of the elderly shocked even the most hardened social workers when its prevalence, the violence associated with it and the difficulties of prosecution were detailed at an Australian Association of Gerontology symposium in Sydney yesterday. . . . International studies showed that sexual predators gravitated towards the aged because of their vulnerability and the difficulties victims had in providing reliable evidence. (SMH 16 June 2006)

15 June 2006, is the 1st annual World Elder Abuse Awareness Day sponsored by the International Network for the Prevention for Elder Abuse (INPEA). The day is in support of the United Nations International Plan of Action which recognizes the significance of elder abuse as a public health and human rights issue. It promotes better understanding of abuse and neglect of older persons. There are activities around the world to raise awareness of the cultural, social, economic and demographic processes affecting elder abuse and neglect.



Abuse and neglect of older persons is largely under-recognized or treated as an unspoken problem. No community or country in the world is immune from this costly public health and human rights concern. The International Network for the Prevention for Elder Abuse (INPEA) was founded in 1997 and is dedicated to global dissemination of information as part of its commitment to world-wide prevention of elder abuse. Acknowledging the diversity of culture, background, and life style of the world population, INPEA aims to increase ability, through international collaboration, to recognize and respond to the mistreatment of older people in whatever setting it occurs, so that the latter years of life will be free from abuse, neglect and exploitation.

The United Nations is addressing elder abuse through UN Programme on Ageing, for example in the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing agreed at the Second World Assembly on Ageing in 2002. The first World Elder Abuse Awareness Day Global Symposium is being held on 15 June at the UN Headquarters in New York.

In Australia seminars are being held on 15 June in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide to mark International Elder Abuse Awareness Day. A Model Policy to assist aged care services to prevent and responding to the abuse of older people will be launched at the Sydney seminar, organised by the Australian Association of Gerontology, and has been published on the website of the Benevolent Society.

On the motion of Greens Senator, Kerry Nettle, the Australian Senate resolved today:

That the Senate--
(a) notes that:
     (i) Thursday, 15 June 2006 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day aimed at promoting a better understanding of abuse and neglect of older persons,
     (ii) the United Nations International Plan of Action on Ageing recognises the significance of elder abuse as a public health and human rights issue,
     (iii) no community or country in the world, including Australia, is immune from this costly public health and human rights crisis, and
     (iv) Australia's seniors are valued members of society and it is our collective responsibility to ensure they live safely and with dignity; and
(b) calls on the Government to support initiatives that will ensure:
     (i) the safety of elder Australians in their homes, in aged care facilities, and in the wider community, and
     (ii) that elder Australians have access to adequate food, housing standards and medical care.

Links:
Australia's Elder Abuse Prevention Association.
The Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse.

There is much comment in the press about the Howard government's disllowance of the ACT's civil union laws, much of it tediously repetitive. But senior journalist Laurie Oakes's observations in The Bulletin are interesting and provocative. Some extracts:

Union bashing

. . . Howard is engaging in a bit of subtle gay bashing -- or, to put it more kindly, blowing the dog whistle again -- to exploit prejudice for political gain. But that can't be right. We have the PM's word on it. The federal government's stand, he says, has nothing at all to do with discrimination against homosexuals.

In Howard's own party room, there is some concern over his attitude. "He's out of touch," says a prominent Liberal backbencher. "He's got his knickers in a knot, when most Australians are thinking, 'Get over it!' The PM's stuck in the past on this." According to another of Howard's own MPs: "If he believes this is a wedge issue to use against the Labor Party, he's miscued." Howard seems to be taking his political lead on this -- as he does on the Iraq issue -- from George W. Bush, who has just tried unsuccessfully to have Congress approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

But in the US even the retiring Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, said last week that the Catholic Church could live with civil unions. So why can't Howard? Because -- or so he tells colleagues -- he believes the ACT's legislation amounts to gay marriage by stealth. The ACT's chief minister, Jon Stanhope, announced the plan to legislate for civil unions before last facing the voters -- which is more than Howard bothered to do with his radical reshaping of industrial laws. But the PM is not impressed by the fact that Stanhope has a mandate. . . .

Just in case anyone imagines Howard is acting on the basis of sincere conviction rather than playing political games, a bit of background is called for. When the first draft of Stanhope's legislation was produced, the federal government threw up its hands and said it conflicted with the Marriage Act, which defines marriage as "the union of a man and a woman". Unless the ACT government amended the proposed civil unions law, Howard said, it would be disallowed. Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock was instructed to write to the Stanhope government explaining which aspects of the legislation were unacceptable. This Ruddock duly did, nominating four areas where he said the legislation would have to be amended. But he did not specify how it should be changed, and there's the rub.

Ruddock originally intended to set out details of the changes that would make the legislation acceptable. When the PM's office got wind of this, however, the attorney-general was jumped on and told to write only in the most general terms. The reason, as I understand it, was that -- for tactical reasons -- Howard wanted to retain maximum flexibility. "If we'd laid out our requirements and Stanhope did what we asked, we'd be bound to accept his legislation, a federal government source told me. So the ACT government had to guess at what the feds would accept. Even though all four sections identified as problem areas by Ruddock were amended, Howard was able to dismiss the changes as not going far enough. One federal Liberal MP -- in private conversation with colleagues -- has described what Howard and Ruddock did as "a sting operation".

The only section of the amended ACT legislation that Howard has publicly singled out as objectionable reads: "A civil union is different to a marriage but is to be treated for all purposes under territory law in the same way as marriage." That seems to me to say no more than that partners in a civil union should not be discriminated against under the law. . . .

My information is that Howard wants the ACT's civil unions law watered down to something like the model that operates in Tasmania -- basically, a registration system. The ACT legislation provides for ceremonies at which people entering into civil unions make declarations before civil union celebrants. It is this ceremonial aspect which gets up the nose of the PM and his cabinet allies. If Stanhope had changed his legislation to something close to the Tasmanian template, Howard would have copped it. This, I suspect, was what Ruddock was not allowed to say in his letter. . . .

Postscript: Shortly after 1pm on 15 June, the Senate voted 30-32 to negative a motion to disallow the Governor-General's decision disallowing the ACT law. Thus the Governor-General's decision, made on the advice of the Howard government, has been upheld by the Senate and the ACT Civil Unions Act 2006 remains repealed.

In a meeting of the Executive Council this morning, the Governor-General accepted a recommendation by the Howard government that he disallow the Australian Capital Territory's Civil Unions Act 2006. The disallowance takes effect at midnight today, follwing its entry this afternoon in the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments.

No civil unions had been celebrated under the law.

Earlier today, the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly, Mr Wayne Berry, called on the Governor-General to deliver an Address from the Assembly. However, in a subsequent press release, the Governor-General stated that his role is merely "to receive the Address from the Assembly and then refer it to the Australian Government for consideration" and that he has "no constitutional authority to intervene personally on any matter of policy where there may be a difference between the ACT Legislative Assembly and the Australian Government." "In the matters relating to the Civil Unions Act 2006" the Governor-General states, he "therefore has no authority to act independently."

Postscript: Shortly after 1pm on 15 June, the Senate voted 30-32 to negative a motion to disallow the Governor-General's decision disallowing the ACT law. Thus the Governor-General's decision, made on the advice of the Howard government, has been upheld by the Senate and the ACT Civil Unions Act 2006 stays repealed.





The matter now moves to the federal Parliament, where the decision of the Governor-General may in turn be disallowed by a majority of either house of Parliament. If this were to occur, it would most likely be in the Senate, where the government's majority is smaller than in the House. The opposition can at least force a vote on the matter, as a proposed dissallowance takes effect automatically unless it is voted down or withdrawn within 15 sitting days. Government Senators are being urged to cross the floor and over-ride the doissallowance, but I am sceptical.

Meanwhile, ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell has attacked the Governor-General's decision, calling it arrogant and undemocratic. He said the issue of same sex unions will not go away and he will continue to push for legal recognition for gay couples. "We will pursue all options to provide for equality under the law for people in same sex relationships." Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says the ACT Government can propose further amendments to the legislation in the future, if it wants to revisit the issue. But he says the legislation as it stands goes beyond the territory's powers. "There are issues that remain the responsibility of the Commonwealth and marriage is one of those."

The ACT's Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Helen Watchirs, says the Governor-General's decision marks a disappointing day for democracy. "I think the move towards better recognition of same-sex partnerships was very positive," she said. "We didn't go as far as civil marriage, as other countries like Canada and Spain have done recently. But we were getting through to get some recognition so that these people aren't treated as second-class citizens and prejudice against them is not reinforced by our legislature."

The formal Explanatory Statement published by the government in the Register says:

Issued by the Authority of the Attorney-General, for the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads

Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 -- Instrument of Disallowance

Subsection 35(2) of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (the ACT Self-Government Act) provides that the Governor-General may, by written instrument, disallow an enactment made by the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory (the ACT Assembly) within 6 months after it is made. An enactment is made when it is notified in the Australian Capital Territory Legislation Register.

The ACT Assembly passed the Civil Unions Act 2006 (ACT) on 11 May 2006. It was notified in the Australian Capital Territory Legislation Register on 19 May 2006. The Civil Unions Act 2006 (ACT) would have enabled two people, whether of the same or opposite sexes, to enter into a civil union.

The disallowance of the Civil Unions Act 2006 (ACT) supports the fundamental institution of marriage.  The Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) makes it clear that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life. This is the definition of marriage inserted into the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) by the Parliament in the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 (Cth). The unique status of marriage is undermined by any measures that elevate other relationships to the same or similar level of public recognition and legal status.

The Civil Unions Act 2006 (ACT) created a statutory scheme for the recognition of relationships which bore a marked similarity to the Commonwealth's scheme for the regulation of marriage. This legislation appeared to undermine marriage, attempted to circumvent the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), and may have created ambiguity between civil unions and marriages.

The ACT Assembly made an Address to the Governor-General on 8 June 2006. Notwithstanding statements made in that Address, the power of the Governor-General to disallow an enactment under section 35 of the Act is at large and is not constrained by the policy considerations set out in that Address. The ACT Self-Government Act specifies no conditions that need to be satisfied before the power to disallow an enactment may be exercised.

The disallowance instrument is a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. The instrument commenced on the day after it was registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. The instrument has the same effect as a repeal of the Civil Unions Act 2006 (ACT).

Gloomy reviews (23% at Rotten Tomatoes, 2.5 stars from At the Movies) persuaded James and I not to bother with the movie, The Da Vinci code. But there's been so much fuss, I felt duty-bound to read this battered public library paperback copy.

The grand hypothesis of the novel is that the church has ruthlessly suppressed the femininity that should be at the heart of a genuine Christianity. Setting aside the bogus 'history' of the novel, I'm in sympathy with a feminist theological critique of contemporary church belief and practice.

But even from an "alternative" prespective there is more than enough information to thoroughly debunk author Dan Brown's speculations. Bishop N.T. Wright has an has an excellent article in Response 26(2) Summer 2005, publsihed by Seattle Pacific University:

One of the fascinating questions about the book is, why is it so popular? It can't just be because it's a page-turner; there are plenty of those around. Where does it fit in to our culture? In what way is it saying things that so many people are so eager to hear? Granted that many readers can see how fantastic its conspiracy theories are, why do they still want to believe, or at least be open to, some of the more extreme and bizarre of its claims? I believe the book does indeed represent a quintessential statement of where a significant part of our culture, not least here in North America but also in the UK, passionately wants to be. It is for this reason, not simply because the book is well known or because it perpetuates some currently popular but ultimately silly ideas about Jesus, that I want in this . . . presentation to work down through some of the surface noise of the book to the issues at the heart of it all.

Yet, in the end, the book is a fiction. The book is a novel. It's not historical fiction. Despite rave reviews and huge sales, to me the book is a failure even as simply a mystery thriller. The characters are flat and underdeveloped, so that all that drives the book and makes it a page-turner is the unravelling of the mystery of the location of the 'Holy Grail'. But this cannot be anything but unresolved at the anti-climactic end of the story. There's pages of description that add nothing to the story but to slow it down. The writing is uneconomical and dull. Pages and pages are devoted to speeches filling in the fictitious historical background that plays no part in solving the central mystery of this one-plot wank.

The Age enhances its reputation as a respected newspaper in this sensible Editorial, "Same-sex unions a matter of human rights" (12 Jun 06).

The last time the Federal Parliament overturned a territory law was in 1997 when it voted on the Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation. A conscience vote was allowed, liberating parliamentarians from the restrictions of party politics. The Age believes that the Howard Government should reconsider its decision to quash ACT laws giving homosexual couples access to civil unions. But if the matter is to go before Parliament, then MPs should at least be given the freedom to decide for themselves how they will vote on it.

It is already apparent that some politicians on the Government benches are uncomfortable with the Coalition's interference in the ACT's legislation. ACT Liberal Senator Gary Humphries, a former territory chief minister, said he was considering crossing the floor to oppose the Howard Government. Senator Humphries was concerned with the Federal Government's decision to intervene in the ACT's affairs and also disapproved of the lack of consultation. "I personally find it very difficult to be confronted with this decision without having had the chance to discuss it in detail with the various ministers before it was actually put to cabinet," he said. It is safe to assume that Senator Humphries is not alone with his misgivings. Liberal backbencher Warren Entsch has plans to introduce a private member's bill recognising same-sex de facto relationships for the purposes of taxation, superannuation, Medicare, veterans' affairs and social security. The bill, which has the cautious support of Treasurer Peter Costello, tackles the various ways in which the law discriminates against homosexual couples. This important topic is also the subject of an inquiry by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

It is this newspaper's opinion that the subject of recognising civil unions between gay couples is more rightly seen as a human rights matter rather than a political one (a view shared by those ACT couples who wish to affirm their rights at a civil union ceremony in the ACT even though they know the union may be short-lived -- in the eyes of the law at least). By interfering in the ACT's laws, the Government has chosen to politicise the issue, doubtless because it believes there is some advantage in doing so. Its actions mirror the political manoeuvres of the Bush Administration, which recently failed in its attempt to introduce a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. By deciding to place the prospect of short-term political gain ahead of principle, the Government is seeking to capitalise on an outdated prejudice that nevertheless continues to cause a great deal of suffering among people in long-term, loving relationships. Thankfully, it is a prejudice that many in the community have overcome -- as The Age reported on Saturday, the growing number of openly gay people respected for their achievements in public life is an encouraging sign that homosexuality is on its way to becoming an unremarkable fact of life.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government's actions have set back this cause, while Labor's muddled response does not advance it. In 2004, the ALP backed the Federal Marriage Act, which explicitly stated that marriage was the union of men and women to the exclusion of all others -- a matter more properly decided by the church than by politicians. Last week, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said the ACT laws did not contravene the Federal Marriage Act and that Labor therefore would not support the Coalition's intervention, a response that makes a nice legal distinction but which dodges the larger ethical questions. In Victoria, the State Government has removed many of the legal obstacles faced by homosexual couples, but Premier Steve Bracks says he has no plans to allow same-sex civil unions, whereas Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu says he is "comfortable" with the idea. Political allegiance is no indicator of where an MP will stand on this issue, which is why the Government should declare it to be a matter of conscience. By intervening in the ACT's laws, the Coalition has declared the issue of civil unions to be one of national importance. Why not then allow the nation's MPs to make a free choice when they cast their vote?

Yesterday, Trinity Sunday, was marked by sung Eucharist, for which I sung Psalm 29 in this lovely setting by Rosalie Bonighton. This was my second outing as cantor, so I think I'm in the groove now!


1. Ascribe to the Lord you po | wers of heaven, | ascribe to the Lord glo | ry and strength.
2. Ascribe to the Lord the honour due | to his name; | worship the Lord in the beau | ty of holiness. . . .
9. The Lord sits enthroned a | bove the water flood; | the Lord sits enthroned as king for | evermore.
10. The Lord shall give strength | to his people; | the Lord shall give his people the bles | sing of peace.

One of the joys of singing in church is to be accompanied by Colin Forbes playing our Hill, Norman and Beard 'Continuo' organ. It was manufactured in 1964 and installed in 1967 by the Australian subsidiary of English organ builders Wm. Hill & Son and Norman & Beard Ltd. In operation in Melbourne from 1927 to 1974, when the parent company was wound up, Hill, Norman & Beard (Australia) Ltd fulfilled many orders, including the prestigious new organ for Melbourne Town Hall. Its order books are in the custody of the University of Melbourne Archives. The St. Philip's organ is recorded as job no. ACT719.

It is a single manual pipe organ of 56 notes and four stops -- Stopped Diapason 8 ft., Prestant 4 ft., Doublet 2 ft. and Larigot 1-1/3 ft. It is recorded in the Supplement to historic organs of New South Wales, by Graeme D. Rushworth and on the website of the Organ Historical Trust of New South Wales.

Colin says he loves the organ dearly -- it's very suitable for a small church which has fine acoustics; but it would be better with a pedal bass and will soon be due for renovation.

With apologies to Mike Luckovich of the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Rabbi Mark S. Glickman, of Congregation Kol Shalom on Bainbridge Island, Washington reads Leviticus with love and humour in "Scripture misread by those who oppose gay-rights legislation", The Seattle Times, 10 Jun 06.

I'm usually content to leave it to Christians to decide what Christianity says about contemporary issues. However, many Americans -- Christians, Jews and others -- derive their views on this particular issue from a misinterpretation of Jewish scripture, and, as a student and teacher of Torah, I feel compelled to throw in my own two shekels.

There are several passages from Jewish and Christian scripture that are often at the center of religious debates regarding homosexuality. Foremost among them tend to be two passages from the book of Leviticus. The first, Leviticus 18:22, says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abhorrence." The second, Leviticus 20:13, echoes that prohibition and adds that those who break it are subject to capital punishment.

That's it. The laws of the Jewish Bible devote only two lines to homosexual behavior. Sadly, over the centuries countless readers of these texts have based vast condemnations of homosexuals and homosexuality on these two brief passages, ignoring the greater lessons of love and compassion that Torah teaches. Additionally, a close look at what these two verses actually say will reveal that many who draw conclusions from them are reading the texts incorrectly.

First, note that the verses say nothing about lesbianism. Indeed, though Jewish law (mistakenly, I believe) prohibits both male and female homosexual relations, its prohibition of lesbianism isn't nearly as strong as its prohibition of male homosexuality -- and the rabbis of antiquity had to turn to post-biblical literature in order to justify their prohibition of women having sex with other women.

Second, it is important to remember that the biblical world had no concept of "gay people." The Bible categorizes people in many other ways, of course -- by tribe, nation, gender, age, etc. -- but nowhere does it discuss gay people, as such. Thus, these two passages were most likely intended for straight people -- straight men shouldn't lie with other men. In other words, in a biblical world devoid of any conception of "sexual orientation," these passages seem to prohibit not homosexuality, but promiscuity.

Finally, even if we do read the passages in question as being about homosexuality, it is important for us to realize that the texts don't actually prohibit it.

Men, the Bible says, may not lie with other men as they would with women -- evidently, when a man wants to lie with a man, he needs to figure out some other way to do so! A literal reading of the text allows for a lot of leeway. Leviticus never prohibits romantic relationships between two men, nor does it prohibit men showing one another physical affection. And provided this affection is different from male-female affection, it seems to allow it to be of a sexual nature, as well.

Maybe the Bible's deeper truth here is that homosexual relationships can indeed be good and sacred and noble in ways that heterosexuals could never imagine. Maybe the Bible was really trying to teach that there are different ways for people to connect with one another, that to presume to know how everyone else should have sex is an act of wanton disrespect, and therefore a great sin.

Reflecting upon these matters, I realize that . . . I don't know for sure what God thinks about this issue. But what I've learned over the years has made me believe that God calls upon us to treat all human beings with dignity; that God has created us each the way we are for a reason; and that in this world of broken families and unfulfilled commitments, God values stable, loving and committed relationships between people of all kinds, even between those of the same sex.

The current hoo-hah about The Da Vinci Code has stimulated me to learn something about Leonardo. This is his St. John the Baptist c.1513-1516, from the Louvre. To our eyes, it's a little err ... odd. It's queer.

Art teacher Shelley Esaak writes that it's typical of Florentine pictures of young men at the time. "Leonardo was not alone in this perceived artistic gender-bending. He was his own man, but he was also a product of his time. . . . The Florentine School had a long tradition of often depicting young males as sweet, pretty, rather effeminate persons. Why? Well, it was simply how it was done. It was tradition, and at least partly so because young men were frequently objects of desire - outright lust, if you will - of some, usually older, Florentine men. Yes, pedophilia, as we now describe it. . . . Leonardo was sticking to tradition: Biblical . . . Florentine (young men were often love objects) and the Florentine School (young men were often painted as "pretty")."

Which brings me to the question I ask myself: "How much of our representation of Biblical figures, especially Jesus, is merely an artifact of our own time and culture?"

Following the federal government's decision to ask the Governor-General to disallow the ACT's Civil Unions Act 2006, the Territory's assembly has taken the unprecedented step of voting to deliver a formal address to the Governor-General, imploring him not to disallow the legislation. The ACT Self-Government Act, which contains the power to disallow ACT laws, also allows the Governor-General to request amendments. The Assembly wants the Governor-General request amendments. Nonetheless, he is likely to follow convention and abide by the advice of the Prime Minister.

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell says it would be more constructive for the Commonwealth to recommend amendments to the legislation. "Rather than this vague assertion that it offends the institution of marriage. I mean there's no real way we can respond to that, but if they can give us real detail and proposed amendments that will satisfy their concerns, we stand ready to consider those, and consider them seriously. Tell us exactly which clauses and which provisions of our Act they are unhappy with how they believe those could be changed, and recommend those amendments through the Governor-General to the Legislative Assembly."

The Assembly's address emphasises that the ACT is a body politic with a plenary grant of power. ACT parliamentarians have a mandate to carry out their publicly-made pre-election commitments. The ACT disagrees with the Commonwealth contention that its law trespasses on a legitimate area of Commonwealth power (marriage). The ACT stands ready to consider amending the Act, were the Governor-General to make recommendations "to resolve any outstanding ambiguities".

The address says, "This is an exceptional request, which will inevitably form the basis for future precedent, not just in relation to the ACT, but in relation to self-governing territories and other polities, including the Commonwealth itself. It is submitted that the power to disallow does not exist at large, but is constrained by ordinary convention in relation to Crown consideration of new legislation."

During the assembly debate, Education Minister Andrew Barr described the proponents of disallowance as evil. "What is it about supporting loving, caring relationships that they oppose?" he asked. "What is it about Anthony and I living next door to all of you in this community? What is it about our relationship that undermines you?" Turning to the ACT Liberal Opposition, Mr Barr asked, "Don't they believe in our democracy any more? Have you lost your spine? If that's the case, if the Liberal Party supports this federal intervention in the territory they should resign from this place now. Go."

The ACT Assembly will shorten the notice period for civil unions from a month to a week to allow couples to have their relationships formally recognised before any federal disallowance. The ACT's Registrar-General has published the necessary forms, although civil union celebrants are yet to be appointed. (I cannot become one as my bishop has directed that no church lay minister may be a civil marriage or civil union celebrant.)

The federal Senate can overturn the Governor-General's disallowance, but this would require three government senators to vote with the opposition. Liberal Senator for the ACT, Gary Humphries, may do this, but I doubt that any others will join him.

If the ACT law doesn't survive, any civil unions celebrated under it will be nullified, as if they had never existed. James and I are wondering whether its worth the trouble and expense to make what may turn out to be merely a political protest. We are confident of our union, civil ceremony or no. We have evidenced it publicly by wearing identical rings, in three colors of gold (the picture shows mine). A Christian ceremony would be indeed a blessing. But we appreciate the legal benefits and protections that civil unions would provide, should the ACT government's courageous efforts ultimately bear fruit.

Sala has devised a way of graphically representing the links in a website. Some of the most interesting results are displayed on flickr. The not too much graph is below. The key is: blue for links, red for tables, green for the div tag, violet for images, yellow for forms, orange for linebreaks and blockquotes, black for the HTML tag, the root node, and grey for all other tags. It looks pretty, but does it mean anything? I suspect not!

Changing Attitude Australia, Inc. will be launched at a gathering at 3pm-5pm, Sunday 25 June 2006, 3-pm at St John's Anglican Church, Bentleigh (corner of Tucker and Centre Roads).

Dr Peter Sherlock will speak on Sexuality and the Anglican Church of Australia--where to from here?

Changing Attitude Australia is a new organisation dedicated to promoting the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the life of the Anglican Church. Changing Attitude aims to move forward the debate about sexuality in the Anglican Church of Australia and beyond by:

• raising awareness
• providing education
• introducing our experience; and
• building relationships.

In the medium term, Changing Attitude Australia aims to:

• move forward the listening process in the Australian church;
• provide speakers and resources for parishes;
• create a nation-wide network of members for mutual support; and
• bring the gospel to those on the margins of society.

Changing Attitude Australia welcomes as members everyone who supports these aims.

Changing Attitude began in England and has brother/sister organisations and networks in Wales, Scotland, other European countries, New Zealand, USA, Canada, Brazil, Nigeria and Uganda.

Peter Sherlock has an MA from the University of Melbourne and a DPhil from the University of Oxford. He is an ARC Postdoctoral Fellow in history at the University of Melbourne. He is an active member of the Diocese of Melbourne and the Parish of St. Peter's, Eastern Hill.

The launch will include a brief General Meeting of Members to elect office-bearers. Contact by email at changingattitude@yahoo.com.au

Changing Attitude Australia is yet to be launched, but I like this statement of belief from Changing Attitude Scotland as a summary of what we might be on about:

We believe that:

• there is integrity in being both Christian and gay, lesbian or bisexual;
• gay, lesbian and bisexual people are called by God to express their sexuality in loving, faithful and committed relationships;
• same-sex orientation is a God-given reality for a large minority of people, not a sin or a sickness;
• as the positive contribution of the gay community towards society becomes clearer, the church's mission to this expanding group becomes urgent;
• gay people's lives offer evidence of the fruit of the Spirit;
• our present experience requires a re-evaluation of scripture and tradition;
• to be gay, lesbian or bisexual is not limited to sexual activity or sexual identity but encompasses every dimension of life;
• prejudice against gay people in the church is as unacceptable as racism or prejudice against women;
• the church should stop colluding with cultural repression and discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual people in all parts of the world.

"How can same-sex unions possibly be a threat to marriage?" by Andrew Lynch Andrew Lynch is senior lecturer in the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, Univerity of New South Wales, The Age, 7 June 2006.

Gay marriage is a topic that is not going away any time soon. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is holding an inquiry to chart the extent to which same-sex couples are disadvantaged under Australian law. There is no doubt that such couples get a raw deal compared with their heterosexual friends who are married or in de facto relationships. The difficult question is how we should fix this.

The HREOC inquiry is looking at the operation of Commonwealth, state and territory laws that discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. It is particularly interested in hearing from such people about cases in which they have missed out on financial and work-related entitlements because they are in a relationship with a person of the same gender.

Although the inquiry is just gathering steam, there are countless ways in which same-sex couples lose out under the law. Just some of the areas include the taxation system, social security benefits and worker's compensation. An example arises when a member of a same-sex relationship dies without a will. In some states, the deceased's partner will not be able to inherit as they are not a spouse nor are they able to claim as a de facto partner.
It is not really clear how much of this discrimination is the result of a definite policy or just a failure to update legislation in line with growing community acceptance of same-sex relationships. While it is rare these days to find laws that talk about "husbands" and "wives", many statutes still use gender- specific language when discussing couples, be they married or de facto. The effect, however, is to exclude people whose partner is of the same sex.

We might think then that the solution to whatever the HREOC inquiry turns up is a simple one. Instances of discrimination against same-sex couples could be eliminated by statutory amendment on a case-by-case basis. But even taking this step would not amount to true equality in the recognition of same-sex relationships. It might, at best, put those couples on the same footing as other de facto relationships.

While these days the position of heterosexual de facto couples approximates that of married couples, the two are not simply equivalent under the law. Apart from any specific benefits denied to the former, the paramount distinction is that people in a de facto relationship still have to prove their relationship when they are seeking to enforce legal entitlements. To return to the earlier example, if a de facto partner wishes to receive his or her partner's estate on their death, there is a list of factors the courts use to decide if their relationship meets the bar. These include evidence as to where the couple lived, their sex life, their level of financial dependence and even how household duties were shared.

But while heterosexuals can avoid these disabilities by affirming their relationship for legal purposes through marriage, this is not an option for same-sex couples. Even wide-ranging statutory change that puts same-sex relationships on a par with de facto relationships fails to guarantee true and complete equality.

Gay and lesbian relationships will be on a level footing with heterosexual ones only when same-sex couples are able to make a similar choice about having their relationship recognised under the law and to enjoy the consequences which flow from that.

This need not mean including same-sex unions within the definition of marriage. For one thing, that might be constitutionally impossible given that when the Commonwealth was given power over marriage in 1900 it was undoubtedly understood as limited to the union of a man and woman.

The Australian Capital Territory's Civil Unions Act shows how we might achieve equity for same-sex couples. A civil union is to be treated as a marriage for all purposes under ACT law, but it expressly states that "a civil union is not a marriage". This aims to avoid any inconsistency with the federal Marriage Act. While the Attorney-General seemed placated by those efforts, the Commonwealth yesterday indicated that it sees the ACT's law as usurping its power over marriage. The act will be quashed from August 1.

It is tempting to think the ACT law introduces gay marriage but that it dare not speak its name. However, it seems to strike the middle ground of respecting the traditional and constitutional definition of "marriage", while ensuring that same-sex couples are able to have their union recognised as exclusive under the law.

Even people with qualms about same-sex couples as parents should be able to appreciate that there can be no justification for the many instances of financial disadvantage experienced by these members of our community. The solution is to provide a means of legally recognising such relationships and then extending to those people the same benefits that apply to married couples.

This will remove the discrimination HREOC is cataloguing. If doing so threatens the institution of marriage then it is a weak institution indeed.

The conservative Australian federal government announced today that it will legislate to to overturn the Australian Capital Territory's Civil Unions Act 2006. Federal Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock, says that the ACT law treats civil unions as though they were marriages, in contravention of the federal Marriage Act.

Though not given to strong and emotional political statements, I find myself exceedingly angry at the Howard Government's outrageously undemocratic and sickeningly disappointing decision. This is the first time that the federal parliament will be asked to overturn an ACT law, which is possible only because the ACT is not a state, but a federal territory.

"We have decided to defend the fundamental institution of marriage against the laws that were passed here in the Australian Capital Territory", Mr Ruddock said. "The (federal) Marriage Act makes it clear that marriage is a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. That definition reflects the traditional understanding and was supported bipartisanly in 2004. The ACT's Civil Unions Act creates a statutory scheme in recognition of relationships which bear a striking resemblance to the Commonwealth's regulation of marriage." Mr Ruddock says the ACT Government did not take on board all the Commonwealth's suggested changes to the bill.

Mr Ruddock said the Federal Government had given the ACT Government advice about its concerns, but it was deliberately ignored. "They didn't pick up those measures and I think that was a deliberate decision on their part. This issue could have been dealt with in a way that was not deliberately as confrontational as it was."

However, Section 5 of the ACT Act clearly says that civil unions aren't marriages. The Territory's laws simply give partners in civil only give civil unions similar treatment to married people, under Territory law only.

Mr Ruddock said if the ACT Government wanted to re-draft the laws, it could approach the Federal Government for advice. I hope the A.C.T. Government will keeping talking withe the federal government, though I doubt that Mr Stanhope, the ACT Chief Minister, would want to go grovelling to the conservatives for "advice".

In his "Lives of moral leadership" (New York: Randon House, 2000, p. xiv) Pulitzer-winning author Robert Coles describes moral leaders as "people whose acts, ideals and ordeals, ideas and thoughts, whose affirmed visible commitments, have in one way or another had meaning and worth to others, have enabled others to see their own aspirations and dreams brought to life."

In this decision, the Howard government represses the aspirations and dreams of many and fails singularly in moral leadership.

At St. Philip's today, we celebrated Pentecost with a service including music in the Taizé style -- the first time I had experienced it. It was joyful, but peaceful. There is water, a candle symbolising fire, and a wind chime. (Pictures by our Deacon, the Revd Linda Anchell)

This image of the dove and tongues of fire is from the 3 June edition of the The Tablet, which has an article on Pentecost by James Alison. He shows how "Luke's tableau of Pentecost, sketched out for us in Acts 2, is an extraordinarily deft compilation of scriptural fulfilments."

[O]f course, the gathering together of all the nations and languages in Jerusalem reflects the beginning of the undoing of Babel, where tongues became confused as a punishment for the pride of those who would have made one language which would have controlled the whole earth. Here God undoes the confusion without imposing a single language, but enables the single truth to be spread throughout all the nations of the earth, thus permitting for the first time a non-controlling unity of all humans. It is the same truth in all translations, none "purer" than the other, for we are all secondary cultures. Back even beyond this, the Spirit which comes down is the same Spirit as that which hovered over the earth. It is the Creator who is erupting into his people.

Those gathered in Jersusalem for the feast were from many lands, yet they were together as worshippers of the one true God -- a diversity echoed in this rainbow image from the Jerusalem Open House.

The Jerusalem Open House LGBTQ Community Center (JOH) is a grassroots, activist organization of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people. Since 1997, it has worked to make Jersusalem a place where all are free to seek self-fulfillment. Its greatest challenge is a tradition of conformist heterosexism that continues to be enforced by almost all Israeli social institutions, especially in Jerusalem, a city of traditional values and deeply rooted religious commitments. The JOH provides services to build the community and act as a catalyst of LGBTQ fellowship and culture. It also advocates social change on issues of concern to its constituents, taking action to promote the values of tolerance and pluralism in Jerusalem.

To celebrate Pentecost, we all wore red to church. I had to hunt to find a red shirt -- they're not in fashion and I don't usually wear red. All the red colors reminded me of my visit to Korea at the time of the 2002 World Cup, when the street were full of people wearing red tee shirts and chanting "Dae Han Min Guk" in support of the Korean national team, the fans of which are called the "Red Devils". It might have been fun to wear a "Devils" shirt to church! I couldn't even find a World Cup shirt in Korean colours -- not many Korean fans in Canberra, it seems. Even James and I will support Australia, of course. Nike's retro designs for the official team outfits are rather dull. The Australian players didn't seem too thrilled with theirs. So long as they can play as least as well as the team beloved of the "Red Devils"!

Mr Warren Entsch, Liberal (i.e. conservative) federal Member of Parliament for the north Queensland seat of Leichardt, is proposing a Private Member's Bill to abolish federal legal inequities against people in interdependent and same-sex unions. It would allow same-sex couples access to the Medicare Safety-Net, taxation offsets, and superannuation contributions splitting (amongst other things). Australian supporters of the legislation are encouraged to sign an electronic petition on Mr Entsch's website

Mr Entsch has written an open letter to his fellow Government MPs, experssing "alarm" at the extent of the discrimination that exists in Federal Government legislation for those individuals living in interdependent relationships." He says that, "This discrimination has a real and negative impact on these people's lives and their relationships." The letter includes a summary list of the many forms of discrimination that still exist against same-sex couple under federal legislation.

I don't watch a lot of TV, but Inspector Rex is a regular weekly escape, as he always gets his man (or woman) "with canine cunning . . . and a ham roll". (Actually Extrawurst, apparently.) The Viennese setting is often interesting and Rex is always entertaining. But in seasons 4 to 7, he's in danger of losing star billing to good looking Gedeon Burkhard who plays Rex's human companion, Austrian homicide cop, Alexander Brandtner. One of Burkhard's ambitions is to play James Bond. He'd fit the job, methinks . . . imagine James Bond with an Austrian accent.

16th June is the last day for submissions to a national enquiry by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Same-Sex: Same Entitlements -- Discrimination against People in Same-Sex Relationships: Financial and Work-Related Entitlements and Benefits. "The Inquiry intends to conduct an audit of Commonwealth, State and Territory laws in order to develop a full list of circumstances in which same-sex couples may be denied financial and work-related benefits and entitlements that heterosexual couples enjoy. The Inquiry will also be collecting individual stories about the impact of such laws on people in same-sex couples, and any children of same-sex couples. The Inquiry will make recommendations to the Federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, and Federal Parliament as to how to address any discrimination."

I sent in a short submission. Of course the Commission is well aware of the issue I mention. But it asked for " personal stories"! The Commission does good work. But I am sceptical of any result, as the Howard Government often ignores the Commission. On questions of same-sex equality, it's simply not listening or, at least, has very selective hearing. This is what I said (edited slightly):

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission.

My long-term same-sex partner and I are both members of the Australian Public Service. On joining the APS, we were each required to become members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (the PSS). Of itself, that is no bad thing.

My salary is higher that of my partner and I want to provide security for him should I die before he does. However, unlike other couples, we are unable to provide security to each other through superannuation death benefits, as the legislated definition of "eligible spouse" for the PSS excludes a person of the same sex -- even though opposite-sex de facto partners are eligible.

My partner and I hold all our debts and assets in common -- house, mortgage, car, bank accounts, furniture, insurance, etc. Superannuation is the only asset of importance that we cannot share.

Changes to Commonwealth legislation have allowed members of some same sex couples to nominate their partners to receive superannuation death benefits, and have extended tax free status for superannuation benefits to same sex couples.

However, the changes excluded Australian Government employees. This is an extraordinary and hurtful discrimination by the Australian Government against its own employees. Am I any less committed to my partner than a member of a de facto opposite-sex couple or a person employed in the private sector?

Future changes to superannuation law may make it possible for Australian Government employees to move to other schemes that permit payment of benefits to same-sex couples. But the financial cost of this to mature age couples could well be considerable. On retirement, we could take our PSS benefits as lump sums and invest them in other ways but, again, the whole-of-life financial loss would be considerable.

The Government has long promised to address this anomaly but has failed to do so. Yet it now claims to have removed discrimination against gay and lesbian people! I cannot tell whether its motives are financial, political, or both -- or whether it simply doesn't care.