Kerry O'Brien interviewed Rupert Everett on the ABC's flagship 7.30 Report last night (27 Feb 07) particularly about Everett's recent autobiography Red Carpets and other Banana Skins. The full transcript is worth reading. I found the final minute or two the most fascinating.

Kerry O'Brien: Are you the kind of person who works out at age 47 what you want to do with the rest of your life, or will you just take things as they come?

Rupert Everett: I think less would be more for me in terms of doing things. I don't feel very in tune particularly with the world as it is at the moment. Doing things like movies and books and things is great, but I don't know . . . the world of showbusiness, I think, is kind of tragic to be honest nowadays, and it doesn't interest me that much.

Kerry O'Brien: What are the key features of the tragedy?

Rupert Everett: It's just one big asset strip, really. If you're in a successful movie now, you have to come out with a line of panties if you want to keep the trajectory of your career going up and then after the line of panties you have to come out with something else and success is the driving force of everything. It sets some people up as having things and the people that have not are meant to look at it and admire it and want to have it and I don't think it's getting us anywhere and I think, actually, in terms of the world, we're being so entertained, out of our minds, that we are incapable of looking at actually what is happening to us.

So we were talking just before about what Americans are thinking about the war. They're not thinking about the war, they're thinking about Jennifer Lopez's butt or Britney's haircut. They can't think of anything else. They've been blobbed by all these giant conglomerates which, I think, are pretty macabre.

Kerry O'Brien: In Red Carpets you describe a quiet reflective moment when you were making a film in Colombia when you felt, "lost from my own life and, looking back, that was my endless quest; not acting, not fame, not love, just losing myself". Explain that?

Rupert Everett: I think the self, really, our self is an exhausting, anxious, conflicted, aggressive, angry, frightened thing. And we drag along all this baggage from the past everywhere and we're always anxious about what's going to happen next, how are we going to keep going, how are we going to pay this bill, how are we going to keep our children in school whatever it is. I found, very early on, particularly traveling a lot in movies, some of the most peaceful times were when you were just lost somewhere away from everything and everyone and no one really knows you or who you are or where you are and no one in your life knows where you are and there's a feeling of intense peace.

I've ordered the book.



Everett was last night's Chief of Parade in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade and he invited cowboy and author Adam Sutton to join him. Adam, a bushman and accomplished horseman from Cooranbong, NSW, was christenend "the real gay cowboy" in the press a year ago. He is a friend of a actor Heath Ledger who played a gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain. ABC TV's Australian Story made a program on Sutton's life and now he has written a book Say It Out Loud: Journey of a Real Cowboy, which was launched by the Governor of NSW, Marie Bashir, on Thursday.

Yesterday was my birthday. To celebrate, a severe high-precipitation supercell thunderstorm hit our area in central Canberra late at night.

Hail, up 2cm in diameter, fell for about 40 minutes, with a lot of blocked drains and flooding. About 30 cm of hail fell into our courtyard and around our apartment, hammering the doors and windows. Our rose garden was shredded.


There were hail drifts up to one metre deep on roads in the central city. Our street is thickly carpeted with green leaves knocked off the oak trees.

Schools, universities and government departments have been forced to shut, including the Australian National University, near us. The University gym, which James uses, is closed for a week at least.

Bulldozers were used to clear ice in the city centre, causing traffic chaos and very long delays. Numerous roads were closed overnight. The major retail mall was closed until buildings are checked for safety. Bunda Street in the city, near us, was shut this morning as emergency crews cleaned up. Looking at these pictures from the Sydney Morning Herald, it's easy to forget that it's still summer.



Ironically, our water authority was unable to say if any rain fell in the water catchment area because its own building was been flooded.

The birthday celebration ended with something warmer and more comforting -- a visit to one of our favourite eating places, the prize-winning Bollywood Masala Indian restaurant.

This is a message sent to the lgbtanglicans mailing list of Changing Attitude, from Mr Davis Mac-Iyalla, Director of Changing Attitude Nigeria. Davis asks for every possible means of publicity and begs for heklp from whomever can, to help the gay and lesbian people of Nigeria. (The pictures of Davis were taken by Scott Gunn at the recent Anglican Primates' Meeting in Dar es Salaam.)

The BBC has background

Dear Friends,

I don't know if members of this group can do much to help us in Nigeria?

This morning I got a call from an unknown caller who wanted to find out where I am at the time. I ask him to introduced himself since I don't know him and he said so you are back from your trip and off the phone on me. I called the number back and a woman picked and said it is a public call phone. My surprise is how he did get my number which is very private.

I have been talking with friends and supporters of how to go to a safe place for some time at least.

The bill to ban us in moving fast to become law.

The worst of all is that Archbishop Akinola is the master and brain behind this bill, recently he has been lobbying the presidency to put pressure on the senate and house of representatives to speed up the process in passing the bill.

This evening I have received news from Abuja that the bill is likely to be passed before the end of March. And members of Akinola staff boasting that Changing Attitude Nigeria will soon be illegal and I will be sent to prison. Most of my members are now calling and sending me mails to ask what will become of them if this bill is passed?

This is one question that I don't have the answers to right now, my appeal to everyone is to help use any medium that you can to draw the attention of the world and church leaders to this Nigerian problem.

If tears can change things I think by now I would have changed the situation of the Nigerian LGBT Christians.

If you can dear brothers and sisters please give a last minute call to your bishops or anyone you know that can add their voices to put pressures on the Nigerian government and Archbishop Akinola who is the current president of the Christian Association of Nigeria that is requesting that the bill be passed soon.

Please spread this message if you can.

Thanks
Davis Mac-Iyalla
Changing Attitude Nigeria

The Anglican primates' communiqué following their meeting in Dar es Salaam is (too) long and difficult, satisfies no one, and and seems capable of opposing interpretations. Grateful that unity had been preserved, Inclusive Church and Changing Attitude, for instance, gave a "cautious welcome" to the communiqué, while expressing many doubts and concerns. Thus, the Revd Colin Coward in an email report to Changing Attitude's email list says

The press reports, blogs and posts from the conservative groups are full of distortion and spin, and thanks to a local who has translated Tanzanian Swahili language papers for me, I can tell you they are full of total invention which bears no relation to the truth. The conservatives were devastated by the covenant and the final communique. They were furious, and saying directly to us, 'you won'. And they meant it. Through spinning, they have tried to reclaim some of the ground they lost, and tell a different story for their own constituencies. . . . They achieved none of the goals they set themselves. They have not got the Communion heading down an anti-gay path . . . There is total commitment to the listening process and [Archbishop Aspinall's] report and plans were well received. In private, there was growing acknowledgement that we have to be engaged with and we are a reality in the Communion.

Yes . . . TEC has been asked to do something totally unpalatable to Integrity and all who believe in a fully inclusive church. We and they have work to do, responding by the September 30 deadline. There is work to do on the convenant, but the draft covenant contains almost nothing that the conservatives were demanding and expecting.

The Guardian newspaper, on the other hand, opines (21 Feb 07) that the primates have put unity above integrity, while church unity has been further weaked. The communiqué, it says

hands conservative elements of the Anglican communion much of what they wanted, while testing the patience of progressive members, many in Britain and North America. They must now be considering the point of remaining in an alliance of churches whose existence is a historical accident and whose values are in painful conflict. [Quite so.] The communique, issued on Monday night, reports that tension within the communion is "so deep that the fabric of our common life together has been torn". But it pulls the wounds apart further.
. . .
[O]utsiders might be forgiven for asking what the Anglican communion now stands for, apart from its own continued existence. They might also ask why, in the face of all the challenges facing humankind, not least in Africa, primates spent five days obsessing about their attitude to gay sex.
. . .
Anglicanism is evolving into two forms of protestantism: a scriptural conservatism and a more free-thinking search for modern spiritual guidance. Both have their adherents. Neither pays much attention to Dr Williams. He may not have to struggle to keep them together for much longer.

The recognition given to Presiding Bishop Jefferts Shori was important for the place of women in Anglican ministry. She was seated, celebrated Eucharist elected to the standing committee. There was barely a squeak of opposition. The opposition to women's ordination in the Anglican Communion will continue to battle, but theit war is lost.

Other groups are less sanquine than Inclusive Church and Changing Attitude's representatives. In a statement titled "Primates choose bigotry over baptized" Integrity USA's President said (19 Feb 07)

The primates of the Anglican Communion have utterly failed to recognize the faith, relationships, and vocations of the gay and lesbian baptized.

Let us pray it doesn't take another hundred years for yet-unborn primates to gather for a service of repentance for what the church has done to its gay and lesbian members today, as they repented in Zanzibar yesterday for what it did to those the church failed to embrace as full members of the Body of Christ.

In press release (20 Feb 07) Oasis California rejected the primates' ban on the authorization of Rites of Blessing of gay and lesbian couples, and on partnered gay or lesbian bishops, as "too high a price to pay for preserving the unity of the Anglican Communion."

Once again, the Episcopal Church is being asked to sacrifice the dignity of lesbian and gay people as the price we must pay to preserve the Anglican Communion. Once again, our answer is: our dignity is not for sale. We will not be 21st century scapegoats sacrificed to preserve unity based on injustice.
. . .
Our challenge as gay and lesbian people is to refuse to be victims. We must claim our baptismal birthright as children of God and continue to be a blessing to the Church and to the world. We are one of the means by which God's unconditional love is revealed in the world. Sharing that love is our calling and our privilege. We must redouble our efforts to extend the progress made toward our full inclusion in the life of the church.

I agree. But I would want always to act in a way that is gracious to all. Our unity in Christ is not a thing of organisational structures such as the Anglican Communion is becoming, but a oneness in the Holy Spirit that comes from our common love of and comittment to Jesus Christ. No more, and definitely no less.

In his latest column in The Guardian (17 Feb 07) Giles Fraser argues that rather than the current row over gay bishops threatening to shatter the Anglican Communion, "almost the opposite is going on."

Sure, there's a crisis at the top. . . . But alongside all this--indeed precisely because of it--there's emerging a new style of confident and unified global Anglicanism brought together by a shared antipathy to liberal values and gay sex. Not only has the present row raised the profile of the communion, it's also brought about an unholy togetherness among conservatives. The only thing that can reunite the factions is something they all hate more than they hate each other. . . . It's textbook scapegoating. . . .

[T]his manufactured crisis is a golden opportunity to create new rules to oust the progressive voice from the church . . . Thus evangelicals have a vested interest in keeping an atmosphere of crisis going as long as possible. The best way to mount a coup is to get everybody panicky and confused -- and then emerge as a strong leader, the only one able to impose order.

The only 'order' necessary is that which comes from obedience to Word and Spirit, not institutional control--and I am not speaking of congregationalism.

There are good theological reasons for the church to see itself as global . . . But there are bad reasons too. For the communion allows bishops of crisis-stricken dioceses to get on a plane and reinvent themselves as players on the world stage. Many parishes see less and less of their bishops as they clock up the air miles.

My bishop, glad to say, is one who flies long distances only when he must, to reduce his environmental impact. He concentrates on the main games . . the proclamation of the Gospel and the preservation of the earth.

In the traditional Church of England, the parish is the unit that matters to most worshippers. And at the level of the parish, the crisis in global Anglicanism is irrelevant.

Well, yes and no. The views and conclusions of archbishops and bishops have a powerful effect on parish life. They decide who may be ordained, who may be married, what may be celebrated openly and what may not.

While bishops and archbishops squabble and plot, the local church gets on with saying its prayers and caring for the needy. These faithful are now being badly let down by their leadership.

What we ask is that the let us get on with it.

Looking for somewhere to go for a break, I thought Mt Buffalo would be good. I went there years ago; its beautiful.

But I discover the resort's website is reduced to a bulletin announcing that proprietors Eddie Sanflippo and Eddie Puhar "have reached the personally painful decision" to cease trading after huge damage in the recent bushfires. They are having "amicable discussions" with parks authorities to see if their business can be rebuilt.



Preservation of the historical buildings, particularly the much loved 1910 Mount Buffalo Chalet was of greatest concern. The famed chalet was saved. But the Cresta Valley Lodge, including a visitor centre, a restaurant and a motel were lost. This is the second time in recent years that much of Mt. Buffalo has been burned.

Amidst all the to-ing and fro-ing of the Primates Conference, well catalogued by Thinking Anglicans and others, regular press briefings are being given by the Archbishop of Brisbane and Primate of Australia, The Most Revd Dr Phillip Aspinall, descibed by Johnathon Petries of The Telegraph as "a moderate, genial gentleman from Brisbane who is no doubt adept at deflecting the perfidious press."

Another commenter, Canon Gary L'Hommedieu, says that Dr Aspinall, reporting the decisons concerning the Episcopal Church "was very smooth. He did not appear to be avoiding sensitive issues or being overly careful in what he did and did not say. He spoke as if the controversy had been defused. He was polished enough to reserve any personal approval. He did his job well as moderator of the press corps."

Perhaps the Australian Primate has been chosen as spokesman precisely because Australia had little to say on the issues dividing the Communion.

The Primates have decided not to formall censure the Americans and thus far have not spoken of schism (though they remain unghappy about the TEC's stance on rites of blessing for same sex unions). The dominant attitude was one of "gratitude" for the "substantially positive response of The Episcopal Church, to the Windsor Report," said Archbishop Aspinall at a press briefing. Despite gloom and doom leading up to the meeting, none of the primates questioned the inclusion of archbishops Jefferts Schori and John Sentamu in the gathering. Some, however, are deeply unhappy at what they regard as a 'fudge' by the Primates.

Dr Aspinall said a number of ideas to address tensions in worldwide Anglicanism had been raised, including the idea of "alternative primatial oversight" or a parallel Church, but nothing had been agreed and the primates would discuss them further today. Some have said that the Primates must now find a way of helping conservatives who feel that homosexuality is sinful and un-biblical.

I agree with Bob Williams, the US Episcopal church's director of communications, who is quoted as saying that "Anglicans around the world are ready for a way forward, so that we can focus on more important things such as poverty, hunger and preventable disease and being Christ's hands in the world" . . . and, I would say, the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

It is astonishing that, as it admitted yesterday Australia's Treasury department has no detailed assessment of the economic impact of climate change, and considers there to be no urgent need to do so. The executive director of Treasury's macroeconomic group said, "It would be fair to say that, to date, the environmental greenhouse issues haven't been in a sense sufficiently large as to have an obvious macro-economic impact. Obviously this is an issue of potential relevance in the future, but hitherto it hasn't been something which has been a large feature of macroeconomic development."

The Stern report found that the cost of doing nothing to stop global warming would staggering, but action to cut greenhouse gas emissions now was likely to cost only 1% of global GDP each year. Asked for their views on the Stern report, Treasury officials said they considered it to be "wide-ranging and informative." But any attempts to make long-term projections were "extremely complicated and require numerous assumptions and choices regarding methodology".

I had supposed it to be the job of Treasury officials to overcomes such obstacles. Equally to the point, it the task of Government to ensure they have the resources they need to do so. Once agains, the Howard Government is caught with it pants down.

The Archbishop of Sydney, the Most Rev. Dr Peter Jensen, has written a gracious and challenging piece in the Sydney Morning Herald in the lead up to the primates meeting in Tanzania ("Church must confront this clash of convictions", 13 Feb 07.) An extract:

In a world of division, great international movements such as churches are precious reminders that we all belong to the same human race. Through them, people from around the world care for each other in practical and effective ways. Christians are world citizens. Unity matters.

On the other hand, the church is not infinitely flexible. It cannot be, if it is to be true to its calling. It has a task to bear witness to the truth that is in Jesus Christ. There are boundaries to that truth, and hence boundaries to the Christian fellowship.

Christians sometimes have to decide that the truth of some major issue does not permit them to have unity with each other in the same way as before. We must be welcoming, but we cannot embrace indifference about doctrine and hope to survive.

Dr Jensen is right. The question, of course as always, is "What is truth?" or, better, "What is wise?"

Dr Jensen then sketches the issues in dispute, commenting that,

This has made life very awkward for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. He has some immensely hard decisions to make involving questions of relationship. Who still belongs to the Anglican Communion?

To some Anglicans, Dr Jensen says, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schiori of the United States

represents a church which has broken the boundaries needed to hold the communion together. Whether the American convictions prove to be prophetic and true, or wilful and badly mistaken, they have chosen to follow them to the end. They cannot be surprised that this will cause turbulence in the communion. They had more than sufficient warning over the years.

Already Anglicans are not as welcoming of each other as we have been in the past. In a world where truth is often regarded as no more than opinion, this is a struggle over important matters of principle. The Americans have clearly voted for the truth of their convictions over unity, although they would like both. The same thing applies to those who are opposed to them.

From time to time I have disagreed strongly with Dr Jensen's views. But I utterly agree with him when he concludes

But this is not without hope. We are seeing not a mere power struggle but the clash of deeply held convictions. It is not unchristian to have serious disagreement over truth. But here is a biblical command for us all: speak the truth with love.

Can Anglicans continue to witness to the truth and also love those with whom we differ so significantly? If so, perhaps one day we will see unity restored. The Dar es Salaam meetings may well clarify the way ahead for Anglicans.

The challenge "to witness to the truth and also love those with whom we differ" is one for Dr Jensen and the people of his Diocese of Sydney as it is for those of us who differ from him on topics such as homosexuality and women's ministry.

My employer, a large government agency, has a "Count's Vampire Shield" -- an interdivisional contest to enourage blood donations by workplace teams in work time. But we are reminded, "Please don't forget to check your eligibility to give blood first. Not everyone is able to donate for a variety of reasons. "

It's a good idea to encourage people to give blood. However, I am upset by the bloody-minded way in which the Red Cross does not allow a man to donate blood if his partner is a man.

The Red Cross asks the following questions about sexual activity:

• Have you ever thought you could be infected with HIV or have AIDS?
• In the last 12 months have you engaged in sexual activity with someone who you think might answer yes to any of the questions on the use of drugs, partner with HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HTLV, or treatment with clotting factors?
• Since your last donation or in the last 12 months have you had sexual activity with a new partner who currently lives or has previously lived overseas?
• Within the past 12 months have you:
  • Been a male or female sex worker (eg received payment for sex in money, gifts or drugs?)
  • Engaged in sex with a male or female sex worker?

These are reasonable questions. Of course both heterosexual and homosexual people should be excluded if they have had many recent partners, for example. But a donor who is in a monogamous same sex-relationship may well pose no risk at all to the blood supply.

It is irrelevant and prejudical to also ask, as the Red Cross does:

• In the last 12 months have you:
  • Had male to male sex?
  • Had sexual activity with a male who you think might be bisexual?

My employer's policies to encourage respect for all in the workplace are superb. It should also support blood donation. But I am disappointed that it does not express concern at the prejudicial nature of the criteria for blood donor eligibility.

---

A few months ago, I wrote to the National Blood Authority about the Red Cross policy. The Authority's Deputy General Manager replied,

The National Blood Authority (NBA) administers the arrangements between Australian Governments and the ARCBS and has just signed a new contract with the ARCBS for three years. The NBA's arrangements with the ARCBS are structured around ARCBS meeting state and territory requirements for the supply of blood, blood products and services. The ARCBS is responsible and accountable for how it delivers those outputs and the collection of blood to meet the needs of the Australian community. Accordingly the ARCBS is responsible for ensuring that each unit of product meets the highest quality and safety standards and conforms to the Therapeutic Goods Administration and state/territory legislative requirements.

The ARCBS has a Donor Product and Safety Committee which provides advice on surveillance and evaluation of risk which may have implications for the safety of a blood product. This advice is regularly reviewed and modified from time to time and is only based on risk factors and not on any individual's sexual preferences.

That is not really an answer.

In October the Red Cross appealed for urgent donations. This time I wrote a short letter to newspapers, which was published by the Sydney Morning Herald (25 Oct), the Age (26 Oct) and the Canberra Times (25 Oct). My letter said:

The Australian Red Cross Blood Service is again urgently appealing for donors, with supplies down to 36 hours. I am willing to donate. I'm healthy. I don't sleep around -- I'm in a monogamous relationship. But the Red Cross doesn't want my blood because I'm male and my partner is male. Does this make sense?

The Age published this reply from Dr Robert Hetzel, CEO of the Australian Red Cross Blood Service.

In light of the media appeal by the Red Cross Blood Service. this week, two correspondents, Jackie Allen and Brian McKinlay (Letters, October 25), have raised questions about why they are deferred from giving blood.

We estimate that 40 to 50 per cent of Australians are eligible to give blood, but only 33 per cent of the population do so. At the same time, demand for blood and blood products by the Australian hospital system is increasing steadily.

If a small proportion of those who are eligible to give blood, and who do not presently do so, were to become regular donors, then national appeals would be necessary only in an instance of genuine national emergency.

Decisions on donor deferrals are made on the basis of expert epidemiological advice. The donor selection criteria are also considered by state and territory health departments, in conjunction with federal health and regulatory agencies.
[...]
In terms of the issues raised by Mr McKinlay, the deferral policy is related to sexual activity and not sexual preference. Individuals are deferred, for 12 months if they have engaged sexual activity; male-to-male sex is one of these activities.

Ensuring Australia has one of the safest blood supplies in the world is the primary concern of the blood service and all decisions to allow or defer individuals from giving blood are made on this basis.

Again, not really an answer.

Curiously, until I read this from NASA, I hadn't thought about eclipses of the moon caused by Earth. The next is on 3 March 2007 but we will not see it in Eastern Australia.
But we may get to see the eclipse of 28 August if there are no mid-winter clouds.	(NASA illustrations)

"Life is too short to get too flustered."
-- the Most Reverend Katherine Jefferts Schiori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church

"If there is no solution, there is no problem."
-- James Kim

"Gay rights akin to Mexican stand-off." Editorial, Canberra Times(8 Feb 07)

Attorney-General Simon Corbell has been a model of reasonableness and restraint since being told by federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock that the Commonwealth will not support the territory's Civil Partnerships Bill. But he still managed to inject a note of indignation at Ruddock's "high-handed and arrogant" actions this being the second time the Commonwealth has rejected ACT Government legislation that seeks to give same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples.

Claiming the latest Bill had not even been debated in the [ACT] Assembly, Corbell said the Commonwealth's unwillingness to discuss the matter showed it was not interested in working towards a compromise that might recognise the right of a democratically elected body to enact an election promise to end the legal discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.

Corbell's carefully calibrated response owes much to the fact that Ruddock's letter was expected. When the Civil Partnerships Bill was tabled in the Legislative Assembly in December, the opponents of the civil union laws quickly denounced it as a warmed-over version of the legislation that had been disallowed by Governor-General Michael Jeffery just five months after objections by John Howard and others that it equated civil unions with marriage.

The new Bill removed references to marriage and replaced the term "civil union" with "civil partnership" as well as striking out the word "celebrants" and replacing it with "notaries", but the Catholic Archbishop for Canberra and Goulburn, Mark Coleridge, warned that a mere "change of labelling" would not be acceptable to the Christian community, while the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, Jim Wallace, said the legislation still had the intention of "mimicking marriage". That the Federal Government might have agreed with these assessments is not surprising, since it legislated in 2004 to define a marriage as a union between a man and a woman with the sole intention of banning same-sex marriage. At the time, the Prime Minister vowed the new definition would not be subject to change by the courts.

Despite the Federal Government having cloaked the rejection of the Civil Union Act in moral terms, many Canberrans saw it as an act of political bastardry and a cynical attempt to curry favour with Christian conservatives. That sentiment was strengthened by suggestions that the Act was little different to Tasmania's Relationships Act in seeking to give same-sex couples the same rights as married couples. Despite this, the Relationships Act has not been subject to the same scrutiny as the ACT legislation.

Beyond accusations that the will of the ACT majority was being subverted, there was little voters, or the ACT Government, could do then and now. The Commonwealth has the legal and constitutional power to force changes to territory legislation, and it has never feared a voter backlash in what is a solid Labor-voting enclave. Canberra-bashing is a hardy perennial in Australia, and this Government has not hesitated to wag its finger at the ACT, especially if it believes that this will boost its conservative moral credentials elsewhere.

When Ruddock rejected the Civil Union Act last year, calling it "a cynical attempt to undermine the institution of marriage and circumvent the Commonwealth Marriage Act" he suggested that compromise was possible provided he was consulted. It seems the invitation was not taken up perhaps because the ACT Government wasn't prepared to address Ruddock's main concerns. Instead, it has settled on changes that owed more to semantics than substance. Not that Ruddock has provided much guidance, either, according to Corbell. The fact that a federal election is due in October or November might explain why Ruddock has ignored letters from Corbell seeking clarification of the issues and seized the opportunity to again present his credentials as the true guardian of the sanctity of marriage.

Corbell will argue that ending the legal discrimination against Canberra's gay and lesbian couples is too important a promise to be derailed by Ruddock's lack of cooperation, but he too is guilty of pushing the envelope for political rather than community gain.

Rather than admitting that the Commonwealth held the whip hand after last year's setback, and adjusting his tactics accordingly, Corbell appears to have lost patience with Ruddock's apparent intransigence and tabled a Bill he must have known would fail to pass scrutiny. The result is something akin to a Mexican stand-off, with only the election of a [Labor] Federal Government likely to provide a circuit-breaker. Federal Labor is equally committed to preserving the sanctity of marriage, but has a long-standing commitment not to interfere in the legislative programs of the states and territories.

If that is indeed the only option left, then it is a poor result for the ACT's gay and lesbian couples. In the rush for the political high ground, they have been left to lament the fact that they still do not enjoy all the legal rights other Australians take for granted.

Professor Terence Tao was one of those shortlisted for the most recent Australian of the Year award. I think he would also a strong contender for a title as cleverest living Australian. Recently at the age of 31, with more than 80 published papers,he was awarded the Fields Medal considered the mathematics equivalent of a Nobel Prize.

Tao was in 1975 in Adelaide, South Australia. He attended university at the age of nine and was three times the youngest participant to date in the International Mathematical Olympiads. He received his bachelor's and master's degrees (at the age of 17) from Flinders University and a doctorate from Princeton at 20. He joined the UCLA faculty that year and was a full professor of mathematics at 24.

Tao works in the field of harmonic analysis, which is related to many recent technological advances. "Car radios," he says by way of example, "are much clearer now and have less interference as a result of advances in harmonic analysis. It's also why cell phones continue to get smaller and better."

New Scientist syas that Tao is known as one of the most powerful mathematical minds on the planet with major proofs in areas as diverse as number theory and the mathematics behind relativity and quantum mechanics. It quotes Charles Fefferman, a mathematician at Princeton University and a Fields Medallist himself, who says that Tao often works by assembling world class teams to work on problems and manages to bring the best out of each collaborator. "That's a rare ability," he notes. Such is Tao's reputation that mathematicians now compete to interest him in their problems, and he is becoming a kind of Mr Fix-it for frustrated researchers. "If you're stuck on a problem, then one way out is to interest Terence Tao," says Fefferman.

I'm well into the Mensa category, but if ever I find myself having too high an opinion of my own intelligence, I need only to think of Terence Tao.

Liberal Senator Gary Humphries has supported the ACT Government's Civil Partnerships Bill, disagreeing with federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock who says that if the Bill is passed by the ACT Assembly it will be disallowed by the Commonwealth, as with the former civil union law.

Senator Humphries says he is disappointed the issue of civil unions has become a political football. "The losers in this process are the ACT community, whose right to legislate in an area that the states can legislate in would seem to be compromised by this decision," he said. Thus the Senator's support for the legislation is because of his advocacy of autonomy for the Territory, rather than rights for same-sex couples. Nevertheless, Humphries has been a consistent supporter of human rights, including those of gays and lesbians.

Gary Humphries was the first Liberal senator to vote against the Howard Government in its 10 years in office, when in 2006 he joined the non-government parties to oppose the federal government's disallowance of the ACT's previous civil unions law. The Civil Union Act 2006 is the only is the only ACT law to have been by the Commonwealth.

Meanwhile, the ACT Government has all but given up the battle, saying it has no chance of getting its legislation through while the Howard government is in power and that it will leave the Civil partnerships Bill 'on the table' of the Assembly. Mandy Sharplin, from gay and lesbian lobby group Good Process, says the Territory should continue its push to legally recognise same-sex couples. "I believe that the Labor Government needs to do some more community consultation. The community needs to take a step back and think where to go from here. Obviously we like the Bill as it stands, so if they're willing to leave it on the table until the next election, we would look at that."

Attorney-General Ruddock has made clear the blatantly predudical reasons for the federal government's rejection of the ACT's most recent attempt to legislate for same-sex civil partnerships. They are not worthy of celebration. This from today's Age, (by Kenneth Nguyen, 8 Feb 07)

Gay partnerships should not be celebrated with formal ceremonies, federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says. Explaining the Federal Government's decision to block the ACT's latest gay partnerships bill, Mr Ruddock told ABC radio that its first objection was that "it involves a formal ceremony". "What it's doing is equating (gay partnerships) with marriage," he said yesterday.

The Civil Partnerships Bill -- which the Government has threatened to disallow if it is passed by the ACT -- makes no references to "ceremonies", but would require couples to make a declaration before a civil partnership notary and a witness. Responding to Mr Ruddock's comments, ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the ACT's bill did not impose any requirement for a ceremony. That would be an individual choice, he said. Mr Corbell also said the requirement that civil partnership declarations be made before a civil partnership notary was akin to the requirement that statutory declarations be made before an authorised person.

Mr Ruddock said marriage was a "cultural institution" that provided a basis on which children might be conceived and brought up and provided with proper support.

Mr Ruddock is wilfully misinterpreting the ACT's intentions. The ACT is not proposing same-sex marriages. In any case it does not have the power to do so, as marriage is a federal matter.

Mr Ruddock also cited concerns that the ACT bill would allow people aged 16 or 17 to enter civil partnerships if they obtained consent from the Children's Court and parents or guardians. I must admit to some concern on this matter myself.

"We are entering the 'Oh Shit' era of global warming." -- Rolling Stone, 3 Nov 05
	Seriously folks, global warming is really, really, scary. Meanwhile here's a worthy suggestion by Dave Walker of cartoonChurch.com. It's ridiculous that we should care whether clothes are creased or not . . . but we do. It's worth thinking about why. I would not want to work for any employer who would not hire me if my shirt were wrinkled.
	After all, the crumpled look is fashionable. You could say it's globally cool.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has informed the ACT that the Commonwealth would recommend that the Governor-General disallow the Australian Capital Territory's Civil Partnerships Bill 2006 in its current form. In a letter to the ACT Attorney-General, Mr Simon Corbell, Mr Ruddock said that while changes had been made, there remained significant similarities between the Civil Partnerships Bill and the ACT's Civil Unions Act 2006 disallowed last year. "The revised bill has not removed the concerns that the Commonwealth had about the Civil Unions Act," Mr Ruddock said. "It remains the Government's opinion that the Civil Partnerships Bill would still in its amended form be likely to undermine the institution of marriage."

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell says that Mr Ruddock had refused to discuss the Bill with him before making his "high-handed and arrogant" decision.

We haven't even passed it yet. It hasn't been enacted or debated by the assembly. This is the height of arrogance. A complete lack of willingness to engage in any sort of intellectual dialogue. I have had no formal or informal correspondence from the Commonwealth and I have written to Mr Ruddock twice, the second letter as late as today, indicating I am willing to discuss the matter with him.

Mr Corbell says the Civil Partnerships Bill had been the result of six months' work aimed at addressing the Federal Government's concerns that the disallowed Civil Unions Act 2006 had impeded on marriage.

We removed all references to marriage and to celebrants and removed any reference to the term 'union' . . . the Commonwealth's previous objections were issues very much around language. We believed we had taken significant steps to try and address their concerns, but clearly the Commonwealth is not interested in any compromise or discussion on the matter. There are absolutely no grounds to overturn this legislation. They haven't even given the assembly the courtesy of debating it.

We will consider our options to leave the legislation lying on the table and not debate or pass it, and to instead await the outcome of the next federal election, when hopefully a more sympathetic Labor Government will allow the ACT to enact a law that could be enacted in a state.

Greens senator Bob Brown said Mr Ruddock's move was aimed purely at instilling vote-winning fear in the community. "This is plain prejudice. It cuts straight through the Australian ideal of a fair go." Senator Brown says the rejection of the Bill is "very nasty discrimination both against the ACT and against same sex partners" and that Ruddock has not adequately explained his position. "It's as silly as it is outrageous and it's discriminatory but this is the level of politics that is coming from the Liberals and it's very sad that it's backed up by the Liberals in the ACT."

ACT Greens MLA Dr Deb Foskey has Ruddock's announcement as a political game.

The day that politicians see the first emails in a right wing campaign against this Bill conducted by religious extremists - even before the legislation is debated in the Assembly - the Federal Government nails its flag to the mast of expediency.

This is an election year. And it seems that the Federal Government is now dependent on the unquestioning support of anti-homosexual fundamentalists who claim to be the voice of Christianity in Australian politics.

While loud, this is a very small minority, and Christians I know well have very different values to these. This is a question of who the Federal Government listens to, and it prefers the distorted view of homophobes to human rights advocates. We have seen that view that extremists of all faiths have more in common with each other than with people who are more moderate or accepting.

It is unfortunate that the hopes and aspirations of gays and lesbians in the ACT are being held hostage to the narrow and self serving political approach of the Federal Government which, it appears, even objects to same sex couples having ceremonies to formalise their relationships.

The Australian Coalition for Equality has accused Mr Ruddock of frustrating the ACT Government by not assisting them to craft a civil partnership bill acceptable to the Federal Government. It says the latest action is simply another example of John Howard's 'Straight Australia Policy'.

If Mr Ruddock is sincere about claims that this second bill may also undermine marriage, he should work with the ACT Government to alter its bill. Mr Ruddock continues to claim the Federal Government has concerns about the ACT legislation, but does little to help the ACT avoid those alleged concerns. He has a responsibility to ensure he tells the ACT Government in precise terms what his problems are with the bill. The ACT's legislation would only extend equality under Territory law. Same-sex couples are granted equal status to married couples under State law in Tasmania and WA. Only in the territories does the federal Government have powers to interfere.