On 3 February this year, The Tablet summarised the arguments in Britain about the government's insistence that homosexual people be granted equal access to child adoption agencies, and made some perceptive comments in its editorial:

Faith's place in public life

The proposed "compromise" by the Government over the fate of Catholic adoption agencies is in truth a defeat for the Catholic Church and a victory for those who have been opposing any exemption to the new regulations against homosexual discrimination. [. . . ] One [principle at stake] is that the leadership of the Catholic Church must start to engage with the many Catholics who find the Church's traditional treatment of homosexuality repugnant and indeed homophobic. The language of "gross depravity" -- as in the Catechism -- has to be repudiated. The Catholic case also needs to be more sharply defined as to what is really at stake. As Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor expressed it in an article in the Daily Telegraph this week, the argument is not that homosexual couples could never qualify as good parents for an adopted child -- some have and more will -- but that the new law demands recognition of a fundamental equivalence between homosexual and heterosexual couples and their lifestyles. The proposed law, in short, leaves no room for the many, who could well be in the majority, who believe that the best family setting for raising children is one parent of each sex. Any adoption agency, Catholic or not, that agrees with that principle is about to be driven out of business. That is an alarming proposition.

But more broadly even than this, politicians need to consider whether they are dealing a fatal blow to the policy, now promoted by both main parties, of drawing the religious and voluntary sector deeper into the functioning of the welfare state. Ministers have seen that the voluntary sector has a lot to offer; not just expertise but compassion and dedication beyond the call of duty between the hours of nine and five. But those qualities arise precisely because the motivation comes from deep religious commitment. With that religious commitment comes religious convictions, not all of which are likely to be compatible with a monolithic liberal-progressive orthodoxy. In short, the Government may be beckoning the voluntary agencies on board with one hand, and waving them away with the other. And this will be made worse if the perception grows that even politicians with deep religious convictions are no longer welcome in public life. Religion has long had a place in British public life, although as an influence rather than as a protagonist.

The very same issue of The Tablet mentioned an Australian 'for instance':

An official Catholic welfare agency, Centacare, has been awarded government contracts to operate new family relationship centres across Australia. Frank Quinlan, the executive director of the church-run umbrella agency, Catholic Social Services Australia, welcomed the Government's 24 January announcement that Centacare agencies would be involved in 10 of the 25 new family relationship centres. Mr Quinlan said the centres would provide support for couples before and during marriage and also help separating couples focus on the interests of children through mediation rather than litigation.

But the decision aroused opposition, with the Greens party Senator, Rachel Siewert, questioning the philosophy of some faith-based centres, saying people needed "independent, unbiased advice". She told Melbourne's Age newspaper that the centres were being "set up to fail". It was not always possible or desirable for couples to go into dispute resolution or to share parenting responsibility, she said.

Australian Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd wrote in The Monthly and elsewhere about the relationship between Christian faith and politics. Mr Rudd insists that Christian faith has a proper place in public life, and identifies the core of faith with Jesus' commitment to the marginalised, vulnerable and oppressed. The Church's function is "to give power to the powerless, voice to those who have none, and to point to the great silences in our national discourses where otherwise there are no natural advocates."

Mr Rudd contrasts this view of the Church's role with other approaches current in Australian public life, reflecting on the debate in Australia between neo-liberals and progressives who focus the individual and the community respectively. Mr Rudd identifies the present conservative Government's policies with the neo-liberal view, claiming that it uses Christian faith for right-wing political purposes.

Government Minister Mr Abbott responded in a speech which claimed that Mr. Rudd also uses Christian faith for political purposes by offering a view of Christianity tailored to support Labor policies. Abbott says that Christian voters are concerned with issues of personal morality rather than social questions such as war or labour relations. On social issues, there is no single 'Christian' view.

Writing in Eureka Street (7 Feb 07), Andrew Hamilton said that this debate leaves silent "the ways in which Christian faith sees political life, and so how Christians might evaluate politicians' claims.

They do not explain why Christianity has a personal and social morality of a particular shape, why that morality includes social justice as well as charity, and what space Christian faith allows to conscience.

These questions demand a more complex account of Christian faith than that provided in Mr. Rudd's emphasis on Jesus' practice or in Mr Abbott's emphasis on moral law. Such an account will recognise that God is the main actor. God loves the world and each human being in it, and wants a flourishing world in which the dignity of each person is respected. In a broken world, this means beginning with the most neglected. The life and death of Jesus Christ represent both a beginning of wholeness, and a way of life that expresses it.

The vision of the world offered in Christian faith is based on God's love for each human being. In this vision, it matters that in our personal lives we act as if each human life is precious. It also matters that our public policies and practices we also respect the value of each human life, beginning with the most neglected. In Christian faith personal morality and social morality are woven together seamlessly. The details of a moral code are fleshed out by asking what is entailed by considering ourselves and all other human beings as equally precious. This is the premise on which, for example, opposition both to abortion and to the Iraq war is based.

Christian faith requires both personal charity and social justice. God wants the world to flourish in a way that benefits each human being, beginning with the weakest. Because institutionalised relationships are normally shaped in part by greed and fear, they form a world in which people are marginalised. To help the world to flourish, then, we need social policies that dealt with these distortions. Personal charity is indispensable, but is not enough.

Mr. Abbott and Mr. Rudd both appeal to the role of conscience. They agree in insisting that politicians must base their decisions on what they see as the common good, irrespective of the position taken by the churches. Mr. Rudd also invokes conscience when considering issues like abortion and embryonic research, while Mr. Abbott does so in respect of issues of war, industrial relations and social morality. The place of conscience in Christian faith is complex. Conscience is the reasoned moral judgment we make about what we should do in particular situations. It is sovereign in the sense that we must do what we believe to be right. Acting conscientiously, however, guarantees that we act rightly. It does not mean that what we did was right or that it expressed what is entailed in the unique value of each human being. If we act in a way that regards the welfare of some human beings as expendable in the interests of others, our decision may be blameless. But it will be inconsistent with Christian faith. The fact that we then justify our decision theoretically does not make our theory a legitimate version of Christian faith. This is true both of both social and personal morality.

Politicians certainly must work within the framework of a secular society. We might also expect that they will commend their personal vision of the good society, and that if they are Christians, that this will be based on a conviction that each human being, beginning with the weakest, is precious. It is good that Mr. Rudd has opened a discussion of the relationship between Christian faith and politics. It will be important that both sides of that relationship are represented accurately in the discussion.

What political advocates should not do, is use 'Christian' arguments to advance views that manifestly offend Gospel principles of justice, liberty and peace. Nor should they ignore common sense or simple logic, merely because some say that to do so is the way of faith.

Speakers at a National Strategic Summit on Marriage, organised at Parliament House last week by the Fatherhood Foundation, urged the Prime Minister to overrule state governments that recognise same-sex relationships: that is a point of view that makes no sense in law, for the Prime Minister does not have such power. The conference also heard a medical doctor say that homosexuality was an addiction that leads to obesity and sexual diseases : that is simply stupid.

Our political leaders debase their offices by attending to such nonsense and our national Parliament is dishonoured by allowing its building to be used for such. I agree with Greens senator Kerry Nettle, who said that the conference had no place at Parliament House, and that hosting it amounted to promoting homophobia and hate. "I don't think it's the role of Parliament House to promote that kind of hatred and hosting that kind of thing," she said.

A mere assertion of faith is no basis for false conversation, political or otherwise.

Usually I prefer to be a low-budget traveler, rather than a luxury-class tourist. But this time James and I were glad to make an exception, for we were both weary after a year that was difficult for each of us for differing reasons. We spent much of our 12 days Phuket holiday doing as little as possible for as long as possible, lazing by the pool, lazing in the pool, trying hard not to eat or drink too much, and buying a few things that we needed anyway--plus one souvenir, a fine porcelain gold and enamel hand painted teapot, which will be well used. It seemed a risk to visit Phuket during the wet monsoonal off-season. At first we wondered whether we had been wise, for there were storms and heavy downpours in the first few days of our stay. Yet, the rain was a refreshing contrast from drought-troubled Australia. The clouds soon cleared and there was sunshine and gentle breezes. Our travel and accommodation package was a bargain compared to high-season prices. In the off-season, hotel staff had more time to provide better, relaxed, service. For little extra, we had an ocean-view room, which we enjoyed greatly.

The sea was alive in its many moods and the monsoon winds. Patong is famed for its sunsets as the sun dips below the Andaman Sea to the west. The tropical evenings and early mornings were reminiscent of my two years in Sabah, decades ago. In our resort there were fine gardens, splendid flowers, civil people (guests and staff) and exemplary service. Patong is a contrasting mix of delight and sleaze. The Thais are a justly proud and independent people. This made it all the more saddening to see the touting and swindling directed at the desires of some tourists for sex, booze and trinkets. One cannot walk through the town without being offered a hundred times a massage, a meal or a 'tuk-tuk' taxi. The prices of restaurant meals in our hotel and elsewhere were a nasty surprise and we were glad to find cheaper places to eat at a quarter the price. Patong is expensive compared with much of Thailand. It has a reputation for fine seafood, but fish was much more expensive even than in Australia. We stayed with more humble fare, though it was fun to find a good home-style Italian restaurant managed by a genuine Italian!

Tourists often have little idea of what is going on in the country they visit, especially when they know nothing of the local language, but we were able to pick up a few things. Our visit coincided with the anniversary of the 19 November 2006 military coup in Thailand. The English-language Bangkok Post, for example, was critical of the régime's failure to meet the high hopes that had been held for it. The loyalty and respect that the Thai people have for their monarch is evident everywhere, but it is equally evident that many Thai people are disappointed by its politics and its politicians.

Between dips in the pool, I slowly and prayerfully worked through Basil Pennington's small but enriching book Engaging the world with Merton (1988). I'm still pondering its implications for me. The other thing I did on our holiday was learn to play backgammon--not very well it seems, as so far James has beaten me by about 50 games to 2.

On our recent holiday, James and I splurged on some casual clothes--jeans and shirts mostly, nothing outrageous.

Some time ago I looked at Gianni Versace's book Men Without Ties which includes contributions and photos by other writers and photographers interpreting Versace's vision of male beauty and men's fashion and shows some of his best-known clients wearing his clothes.

I've worn a tie just twice in the past ten years. I loathe them.

When the American edition of Men without ties was published in 1995, Versace was interviewed by Ingrid Sischy (Interview June, 1995)

Ingrid Sischy: . . . In sculpture, when there was a big revolution happening, the pedestal became the symbol of all the past assumptions that had to be rethought. Is the tie, in the context of men's fashion, your equivalent of the pedestal that needs to be smashed?

Gianni Versace: Yes. Actually, I have nothing against individual ties, but I hate what ties mean as a symbol. I hate the restrictions they have come to embody. I hate the fact that they represent a uniform way of understanding men's style, and I hate the rules they stand for. It is so stupid that you can't go in certain restaurants if you're a man and you don't have a tie on. That's insane to me. You see some really horribly dressed people with ties on in such a restaurant, and yet someone who had a beautiful flowered shirt on couldn't get in. Fashion has to be free to express personality and individuality. I don't understand why a man can't go to work wearing a beautiful turtleneck or a beautiful T-shirt. Thank God, all that has started to change, and in many places a man can, and does.

IS: Have you always been bothered by the restrictions that are imposed on men in terms of how they are dressed?

GV: When I was young, I wondered, why do men have to dress all the same? Why do they have this boring uniformity? I always liked people who were out of the crowd, who were individuals, who were free, who had a real sense of style, which means their own sense of style. I believe in style. I believe in people who have something to express, who make statements. That's why in the book there are photos of Picasso and Hemingway and Nijinsky and Cocteau and Robert Mitchum and Nureyev, and for men of today, Elvis, Prince, and Elton. . . . These are people who make statements about their lives via their individual styles of dressing. You can tell the lifestyle of their art, of their living, of their loving.

IS: . . . The best designers are hip to the changes that have gone on with both sexes and have helped them happen. But the fact is that a lot of fashion is still stuck on old Ideas of men and women, and on old ideas of appropriateness.

GV: Fashion can help, but it's the person first who brings about changes. For example, the men's fashion I create has to do with personal desires. It is an expression and branch of myself. But I don't put myself on the stage. I put my "character" up there--the man who is free and who likes to dress in an individual way.

I have greatly enjoyed First Names, a book of poems by Simon West, published by Puncher and Wattmann. Dr West is a specialist in Italian poetry, comparative literature and translation studies at Monash University's School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics. His doctoral thesis È tant' e dritta e simigliante cosa: Translating Guido Cavalcanti was awarded the University of Melbourne Chancellor's Prize 2004.

The poems were reviewed by Barry Hill in the Weekend Australian Review, 26-27 May 2007, p.9. My apologies for being too lazy to write my own review -- I'm not a literary critic, but I do want to recommend these verses.

Lyrical poet tuned to earth and sky

One way to think about this astonishingly finished and coherent little book is as an installation meant to demonstrate various moments with language. Here in one part of the room, is the moment when a glance between a man and a woman defeats words. Here is the moment between strangers where what you thought was a mutual introduction turns out to be a play of words. And here is where there seems to be "nothing in a name", or where the mind disperses "the way a herd of goats spreads over the side of a hill--slowly and through the clatter of bells".

These are fugitive moments; the mind can darken. But in the middle of the room is an item called Mushrooms, which is the title of Simon West's opening poem. As the mushrooms "outgrow the dark grounds of their birth to join at last the light of day", the poet reflects:

The soft-fleshed name, mushroom,
of humus and moss, tugged at me
as if it had something to say,
as if it too could be prodded and wielded by the tongue, turned over to expose an underbelly's hidden treasure of gills.

And the bloom of meaning when thought breaks from such pods, then spreads outward
like the scattering of spawn?
Shhh … This tissuey fruit is all syllable, is already
bowing to the moisture of earth.
Mushrooms fulfil their word, and then some.

What you have here is an exactly observed image made with the sound of things, and which has metaphoric power. The mushrooms themselves offer pleasure enough, as do palms, rosellas, starlings, persimmons and clouds, to name some of the things that objectify the titles of other poems in the book. West's graphic power is wonderful, so that you feel, in all of his language moments, of this world.

In fact, you can also step into the book as a set of moods and landscapes beginning and lingering in northern Italy before transporting you to the Mornington Peninsula, the Australian Alps, and as far as the Australian desert (via a reflection on a painting by Mick Namarari Tjapaltjarri). The unifying tone is nostalgic, yearning, and quickly latch on to a fertile moment:

A bee deflowers a flower, collecting
pollen like a count of first names,
while man, screened by the fuzz of his own bee-talk,
looks on in envy at a labourer willed by love,
and whose thoughts perhaps lie with her tiny portion of the queen ...
(A Bee)

All the book tells us about West is that in 2004 he held an Australian Young Poets Fellowship, and "was born in 1974 in Melbourne, where he currently teaches Italian".

Yet the reference to teaching Italian is pregnant. His poems invoke the mouthing of words, love affairs with vowels, a sense of the foreign word well digested. The mood of his Italian landscapes reminds me of the modem Italian poet Eugenio Montale, just as his two poems after Guido Cavalcanti, along with the imagist lyrics that follow, call up the figure of Ezra Pound, that passionate disciple of Italy.

A critic cited on the back cover describes West as "a laureate of darkness and a lyrical quester of light". True enough. But better to say that West is a poet beset by the roots and the reach of language. His poems seek the source of speech--the humus of the tongue, we might say, as their mushroomy bed--as much as they celebrate the way our words echo in starlight.

That, I think, is the joy of this book. You read it and feel that here is a poet absolutely attuned to both earth and sky, and who has--all of a sudden in a first book--worked out poems that make the great connections.

West is short-listed for the NSW Premier's Award for poetry.

A friend shared this poem with me recently, "Those Winter Sundays", written in 1962 by Robert E. Hayden (1913-1980). It speaks strongly to me of the love and care of my own father when I was a child, helping me to overcome the damage caused by polio. Every evening at bedtime, for years on end, he would place my damaged leg into its split, wrap it in woollen coverings and assure me that all would be well.

I don't recall thanking him. I was too young to understand his love, but I knew that he cared, and now understand that he loved -- and at age 83 still loves, even as middle age challenges me once again with symptoms that he, my mother, and I struggled against, fifty years ago.

Sundays too my father got up early
And put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.

I'd wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he'd call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house,

Speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love's austere and lonely offices?

Harley Dennett of the Sydney Star Observer writes (27 Sep) that, following the favourable and near-unanimous recommendations of an inter-party Senate Committee, John Howard's Cabinet may this week reconsider its position on same-sex law reform. However, no action can be expected before the election.

Sources inside the Liberal Party told SSO a key member of Cabinet now supported the reforms. It follows the Government last week stalling a last-ditch effort by Labor, Democrats and Greens to pass the equality reforms. Publicly, Liberals are saying no commitment or policy will be offered before the election.

"We'd be interested in a conscience vote to try get some rights for same-sex couples, certainly superannuation, but after the election. It's all over red rover now," Liberal backbencher Dr Mal Washer told SSO. Washer was part of a voluntary cross-party ad hoc committee that recommended the Democrats' Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Bill be enacted as a matter of urgency. The report also recommended anti-discrimination protections for gay and lesbian people and greater federal recognition of state-based relationship registries.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission stated that the bill would have implemented the substance of the recommendations of its Same sex: same entitlements report made earlier this year, following and extensive enquiry (to which James and I gave evidence).

Human Rights Commissioner, Graeme Innes AM, told the Senate that "The only good thing about the blatant nature of the discrimination against same-sex couples is that it is easily fixed. Since the discrimination is directly attributable to the way the laws define who qualifies as a person's partner; the solution is to amend those definitions so that a same-sex partner is included." Yet the Prime Minister continues to describe the issue as too complex for there to be timely action.

Dennett's report continues:

Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce was the only dissenter, though he [even he!] did support Commonwealth superannuation reforms.

MP Mal Washer warned lobbyists to accept and build on the support for limited financial reforms and leave the remaining recommendations, like parenting rights, for another term. "One step at a time, otherwise you blur the issue and sometimes you try to do too much at once and you don't get anything," Washer said.

Democrats leader Lyn Allison, who led the committee, said she was pleased with the consensus on superannuation. "I know it's slow, and gay and lesbian people are frustrated and annoyed, and we are too, but we're in a better position than we were 10 or two years ago and it's moving in the right direction," she said.

Justice Minister David Johnson said if equity was given to one profession of public servants [judges] in same-sex relationships, all same-sex couples would want the same. "The Government is not saying no. We are considering this. It seems we are going down this path. It is not going to happen tonight; it is not going to happen in the immediate term," he told Parliament.

ComSuper Action Committee spokesman John Challis, 79, said, "At 78 years old, I'm not very impressed by the Government's leisurely approach to this issue."

Harley Dennett reported on the ComSuper Action Committee in 24 May 07 edition of SSO. The concerns expressed by this group are exactly those James and I set out in our submissions and oral evidence to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's recent Same-se same entitlements enquiry and report. I was skeptical then than anything would come from the report and I am sad to say that I was right.

Tired of the Howard government's delays in fixing inequality in federal superannuation schemes, one elderly same-sex couple has come forward to remind politicians that the issue isn't academic. For John Challis and his partner Arthur Cheeseman, 79 and 75 years old respectively, the issue is quite serious. Challis worked for the ABC until 1988 and the pair now rely on his Comsuper pension.

"I'm worried about what will happen to my partner when I die," Challis said. "My partner and I have lived together for 40 years. While we were both still working, in order that I could put extra money into superannuation, we lived mostly on his wages. So the pension is part of his investment also." Challis said he and Cheeseman had prepared as best they could, by lodging a statutory declaration with the Comsuper board upon retirement, and financially planning for the possibility Challis might die before the reforms are complete. "That's a real day-to-day financial consequence of financial discrimination. We've had to tie up a considerable amount of capital so he has enough income when the residual pension ceases, meaning when I die," Challis said.

Challis's concern about his partner's wellbeing is as much about the personal cost as the financial. "My partner suffers from macula degeneration in his eyes. In four or five years he is likely to be blind. It would be far more comfortable for him to receive a regular income from a residual pension than manage a series of investments. "I just want make sure my partner is secure. The only other solution is to make sure I outlive him."

. . . [R]eforms have gotten nowhere in the three years since Senator Coonan gave the commitment on behalf of the government," he said. Letters from government ministers have repeated the same line that reforms cannot proceed because of "technical matters and budgetary considerations that must be fully examined".

Three years of this line hasn't made Challis believe it. "I put in a freedom of information request for the cost estimates, but they won't release the actuary's report. It cost me $150 for them to say the report couldn't be released because it was out of date and it wouldn't be in the public interest." Challis is also unimpressed by minor amendments included in the budget to allow current federal public servants to opt out and find an alternative private scheme with interdependency options. "It's not just problematic, it's an insult--the Comsuper scheme is indexed and guaranteed," he said. "Even after 40 years, my partner is still denied a pension that a de facto heterosexual person would receive after just a short period of living together."

Challis has started a pressure group Comsuper Action Committee to make politicians understand the real implications for some couples. Comsuper Action Committee can be contacted on (02) 9358 1710 or email challsan@bigpond.net.au.

In May 2007 Senator Nick Minchin, Minister for Finance, admitted that the real annual cost of extending defined benefit superannuation schemes (including that applying to may Federal public servants) to same-sex couples would be small and fundamentally it was an issue of equality. However, he defended the government's decision not to proceed with the promised reforms as part of this year's budget because the cost to future taxpayers would be "controversial".

The Anglican Church of Australia's highest legal authority, the Appellate Tribunal, has ruled (see press reports here and here) that there is no constitutional bar to women becoming diocesan bishops.

In 2005, a group of 25 members of the General Synod asked the tribunal for its view on the lawfulness of women bishops. The tribunal, by a majority of four to three, today found that it was possible to consecrate women bishops. However, it said that this could occur only in a diocese that had both adopted a 1992 canon law allowing women priests and had ensured that its own laws and constitution allowed it. Curiously, the tribunal found that a 40-year-old canon still prevents women being assistant bishops. Women priests have been allowed in the Anglican Church in Australia for more than a decade.

Australia's Anglican bishops agreed earlier this year to hold off consecrating any women bishops until at least their next national meeting in April 2008. However, this is a decision to be made by diocesan synods, not Bishops as body.

I am delighted at this news. Australia could have its first Anglican woman bishop as early as next year. She may well be the next Bishop of my Diocese, Canberra and Goulburn, as Bishop George Browning will retire in 2008. (If our next Bishop is indeed to be a woman, I would even be prepared to take a guess (privately!) as to who that might be.) Our metropolitan is the Archbishop of Sydney, but it is unclear to me whether he would have the authority to deny to the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn the choice of a female bishop.

In my previous post, I expressed some gratitude to the US Episcopal church for at least doing what it has done to support full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church. It remains possible for gay and lesbian people to be ordained in the US church, for example. But after reading this by Giles Fraser in The Guardian (27 Sep 07), I begin to wonder whether I have been too generous. Fraser overstates his case, and in some points he is simply wrong. But he rightly draws attention to evils with which there can be no compromise.

My opinion remains that Archbishop Rowan should cancel the Lambeth Conference, as an expensive and largely useless event that generally does more harm than good. The US delegation should not attend unless Bishop Robinson is included as a full member.

US bishops have bent the knee to the will of the bully

Uniting in homophobia, the Anglican church has delivered another blow to the battle against global religious fascism.

After months of "Anglican church to divide" headlines, the end is, at last, nigh. Those Anglicans who are really no more than fundamentalists in vestments will split off and form a version of the continuing Anglican church, or whatever they will call it. And the moderate conservatives and the moderate progressives will settle down to business as usual. After much worry, the Archbishop of Canterbury will be able to have a good night's sleep. The church is safe.

If only it were as simple as that. The deal that the archbishop has brokered with the Episcopal church in New Orleans protects the unity of the church by persuading US bishops that the church is more important than justice. The prophets of the Hebrew scriptures would have been appalled. For all the high-sounding rhetoric about how much they value gay people, the church has once again purchased its togetherness by excluding the outsider. The biblical text that hovers over this whole shoddy deal is John 11:50. As Jesus stands before the court, the high priest Caiaphas persuades the others that for practical reasons he must be got rid of: "You do not understand that it is better to have one man die than to have the whole nation destroyed." And so the deal is done.

OK, so no one has died here. A gay American bishop hasn't been invited to the Lambeth conference, a hugely expensive jolly that brings all the church's bishops to Canterbury once every 10 years. On top of this, the US church has agreed not to make any more bishops if they admit to being gay and having a partner. And they won't do gay blessing services either. Is this really so onerous a set of compromises in order to keep everybody round the same communion table? After all, compared with the desolation and misery that Hurricane Katrina wrought on those who hosted the meeting in New Orleans, ought we not to get a bit more perspective?

No: the struggle for the full inclusion of lesbian and gay people in the life of the church is a frontline battle in the war against global religious fascism. Robert Mugabe has called homosexuals "worse than dogs and pigs". Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government denies that gay people exist in Iran, and hangs the ones it finds. The Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria thinks homosexuality "evil" and "cancerous". There can be no compromise with any of this, irrespective of whether it is backed up by dodgy readings of holy texts or not.

Which is why the collapse of will in the US House of Bishops is so disappointing.

But was it a collapse, or merely an acceptance of the status quo (which, of course, may not be good)?

Whatever happened to the spirit of the Boston tea party? One visit from the Archbishop of Canterbury and they get suckered into history worship, falling in line behind the ancient mother church as if they were still suspended on colonial apron strings. Unfortunately, for all its sharp prophetic witness, the Achilles heel of the Episcopal church is its snotty-nosed Anglophilia. Establishment liberals have only so much bottle.

US bishops are now returning to their dioceses with a troubled conscience. Many know that the logic of the New Orleans deal is the logic of unity through exclusion. The church styles itself as not playing by these rules, yet this whole sorry business is as visceral as a group of playground kids coming together to slag off the boy with the unfashionable haircut or funny accent. Finding someone to point the finger at is the best way of bringing people together. Global Christian cohesion is being achieved by a church that is defining itself against some representative other - in this case, a short, rather geeky gay bishop with a bit of a drink problem. He is a scapegoat straight from central casting.

The sad truth is, the issue of homosexuality isn't splitting the Anglican communion: it's uniting it like never before. Before this great global row, we hardly knew each other existed. Anglicans in the pews could hardly care less about Christians in the next door parish, let alone care for those thousands of miles away in Africa or Asia. But as crisis looms, common cause has been achieved. The Rt Rev Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, has brought people together: hands across the ocean, united in homophobia.

It was the Episcopal church that held out longest against unholy unification. But in agreeing to these terms, they too have now bent the knee to the will of the collective bully. The fact that a fringe of rabid evangelicals may now quit the church must not distract from Rowan Williams's achievement in keeping us all together. A crisis has been averted. Gay people remain firmly on the outside; used by the church for vicars and vergers and sacristans, but officially little more than outcasts.

I have never been persuaded that Jesus was gay, as some do believe. But there is no doubt that he too was the outsider, despised and rejected. He also was the victim of official religious persecution. Which is why the other passage that today's Christians ought to give some thought to is the one from St Matthew's gospel that goes: "Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."

I am too weary of the whole business to bother saying much about the US Episcopal House of Bishops' recent response to the demands by the Primates' meeting that the US church renounce the blessing of same-sex unions and allow no more non-celibate gays to be bishops. However, I note an Australian Associated Press (27 Sep 07) report that the head of the Anglican Church in Australia, the Most Revd Dr Philip Aspinall, Archbishop of Brisbane, has welcomed the response.

I believe that the House of Bishops has responded positively to all the requests put to them by the primates in our Dar es Salaam communiqué. Certainly they have responded to the substance of those requests. I would now like the time to undertake careful analysis of the House of Bishops response, but my initial reaction based both on my preliminary reading of the document itself and on my first-hand conversations with many of the Bishops involved is that the house has responded positively to the substance of all the requests made by the primates.

Plainly the willingness of the US bishops to limit the role played by gay and lesbian people in the life of their Church is at odds with their affirmation that "We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church." That said, the US church has done more than any other Anglican/Episcopal church to affirm gay and lesbian people, which should be acknowledged and applauded. Meanwhile, the American bishops have done all in their power (a power limited by the polity of their Church) to bring oneness in Christ. Those who say it is not enough may do as they please.

It's time for Australia to reclaim sovereignty, by Tony Kevin. Eureka Street, vol. 17 no.18 (20 Sep 07)

There are two choices that help define the role of a state that aspires to have a meaningful sovereign role in the world. Governments must choose whether they subscribe to the ideal of a rules-based international order, or whether they merely pay lip service to this order, believing that the world is actually governed by competing powers? Following on from this, the question of how governments conduct their foreign policy--whether it is hegemonic, equal status, or in a tributary style--arises.

Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, are all 'smaller' states than Australia . Yet they exercise more international sovereignty than does Australia (I define sovereignty as the exclusive right of governments to exercise authority within their territory. The UN, as a rules-based international order, rests on the convention that all sovereign states, large or small, possess equal sovereignty) because they proceed from the ideal of a rules-based international order and because they conduct their foreign relations with all countries--large, medium or small--as formal equals within that order. They participate in the UN and its agencies, and have earned widespread respect for their independence and good international citizenship.

The other extreme was the communist regimes set up in Eastern Europe after World War 2. These were essentially tributary states. Though retaining some of the traditional attributes of sovereignty — parliaments, flags, anthems and armies, they were satellite states of the Soviet Union. While paying lip service to the UN ideals, they voted in the UN as directed by Moscow. These states had no faith in a rules-based international order — after all, the League of Nations had failed to protect them from Nazi aggression in 1939. These regimes, led by not wholly unpatriotic people, identified their personal and national destinies with Soviet power.

There is a fault-line between those who believe the last twelve years have been 'business as usual' in Australian foreign policy, and those who believe these have been years of growing foreign policy dysfunction and failure to defend Australian national interests.

Through the conceptions of international participation outlined above, the Australian government since 1996 can arguably be said to have ceased to believe in a rules-based international order and become increasingly cynical about the UN. It has instead moved towards coalitions with powerful world players with whom we are claimed to "share core values"--in particular, this has meant the United States.

The Federal Government has also moved from a foreign policy based on sovereign state equality to a belief in a hierarchy of contending powers, in which Australia must prudently position itself as a loyal tributary to the US, as a hegemonic power vis-a-vis South Pacific island states, and (with the exception of the UK and major regional powers with whom it tries to maintain special bilateral relationships, e.g., Japan and China), as broadly indifferent to other states or regional groupings in the world. With ASEAN countries, Howard's relations are uncomfortable--neither hegemonic, nor tributary, nor genuinely equal.

Under 12 years of Howard government, this way of viewing the world has come to be seen as 'the new normal', now deeply ingrained in Australian political elites and the commentariat as simply 'common sense'--even among people who would claim to be Labor voters.

If Labor wins the forthcoming election, Australia must decide if its foreign policy will continue to operate within such a world view. I believe the reality of our foreign policy experience over the past few years has more in common with the Warsaw Pact system than many Australians would like to admit. Over recent years, Australia has progressively surrendered important attributes of sovereignty, including the following.

1. Warmaking--Parliament has become a rubberstamp on the Executive's power to engage our soldiers in wars of choice.
2. Defence strategic doctrine and force structure planning, and procurement decision-making and practices--all now heavily influenced by US alliance considerations.
3. Trade and investment policies, in particular as affected by the WTO Rules and the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
4. Protection of national cultural values, quarantine protection regimes, public health and the provision of public medicines (and even blood).
5. Environment protection and climate change--where we have echoed US policies.

The Australian government is reluctant to admit how much sovereignty Australia has surrendered in these areas over the past 12 years. To do so reflects poorly on their professional stewardship.

The polarisation of debate on such issues over the past 12 years has left the middle ground of public opinion confused as to what is really happening to Australian sovereignty. Questions include how much of our foreign policy is within our control, and what aspects of sovereignty really matter any more. If Howard goes, there will need to be much work in redefining Australian strategic interests.

My hopes for Australian foreign policy in 2008 include the government making an explicit re-commitment to the UN, cooler engagement with Washington under ANZUS, a serious review of our strategic doctrines, defence force structure and procurement , a stronger role for the Parliament in decisions to go to war, an independent review of the US FTA, a review of our relations with Pacific and Southeast Asian neighbours and review of the manner in which aid is distributed as a foreign policy tool, and aid as an international good-citizen obligation. I would also like to see a judicial inquiry into questions such as how human rights and civil liberties been eroded in recent years by the blurring of the separation of powers between administrative and judicial functions, and between the police and the military. The collective expertise that exists in the Australian foreign policy and strategic community must not remain silent in the debates that our country needs to have as the Howard era draws to its close.

Australia is the only developed country to cut public spending on tertiary education in the decade to 2004, according to a recent OECD report, Education at a glance--down 4 per cent compared with an average OECD rise of 49 per cent. Private spending on higher education, including students' tuition fees, now exceeds government funding. By 2004 the Government paid 47.2 per cent of university revenue in Australia, compared with an OECD average of 75.4 per cent.

This would be another reason to vote against the Howard government, but for the fact that the Labor party also support high contributuions by student to the cost of their education. Labor has, however, indicated an intention to invest more heavily in education.

Private spending soared mainly due to students leaving university with a greater debt after the Federal Government lifted maximum fees in 1997. Only the US, Japan and Korea charged students more for a public university degree. Australians paid an average $US3,855 a year for university study. Conversely, one in three members of the OECD, all of them European countries, offer students free university tuition.

Nonetheless, Australia leads the world in the accessibility of university education.

Across all levels of education, the OECD report found Australia devoted a lower proportion of GDP than the developed world average, though the proportion increased under the Howard Government, up from 5.5 per cent in 1995 to 5.9 per cent in 2004. Most of this growth was from private sources. About 27 per cent of total education funding was private, more than twice the OECD average of 13 per cent. The report also found that Australia had the lowest unemployment rate for tertiary educated 25 to 29-year-olds in the developed world and that Australian universities had the world's highest proportion of overseas students.

Our Patong holiday has begun against a sadly eventful background. The evening we arrived there was tsunami scare, following bad earthquakes and loss of life in Sumatra. The staff of our hotel were clearly worried, although professionally calm. In our room was a well-written instruction card on tsunami evacuation procedures. At about 6pm, Indonesian authorities issued a tsunami warning after shocks of 7.9 on the Richter scale. The Thai National Disaster Warning Center issued no official alert, but when national television broke the news about 7.30 pm, seaside bars and shops in Patong closed as people headed calmly for higher ground. There were traffic jams along the road leading inland over Patong Hill. Closer to the beach, police switched traffic to one-way, heading away from the beach. Phuket's 19 tsunami warning towers with emergency vehicles and equipment were manned as a precaution. In the end, it all came to nothing, but it was a good action drill for the authorities and went well. We are away from the centre of town, high on the hillside, and were little affected. It is remarkable how well Phuket seems to have recoved from the tsunami damage of two years ago, although, of course, the personal stories are largely hidden from the tourists. Then, two days ago, at Phuket airport, a 24 year old One-Two-Go airlines MD-82 skidded off the runway, crashed, broke in two and burned while trying to land in driving rain, killing many. Press images show the crumpled and smoking fuselage of the flight from Bangkok, with part of the plane can seen in trees alongside the runway. It had been raining heavily all day and visibility was poor. Attempting to land, the pilot decided to make a go-around but the plane apparently lost balance. One-Two-Go Airlines began operations in 2003 and is the domestic subsidiary of Orient-Thai Airlines. I'm not sorry that we flew in to Phuket in a new Airbus operated by Silk Air, a Singapore Airlines subsidiary.

Yesterday, at its annual session held in Goulburn, the Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn, of which I am a member, adopted without dissent (i.e. no 'No' votes) a motion that encouraged all parishes and ministry units to engage actively in the Listening Process, using a study guide to be published by the national church in 2008. It also instructed the Diocesan council to facilitate the Listening Process in the Diocese. The motion also said other things but I haven't yet got the exact wording, as it was twice completely rewritten during debate.

Bishop George Browning described unanimity on the motion as a "remarkable achievement". He also made some strong remarks urging all Bishops to attend Lambeth and to stop the present sniping about who will and won't attend. He told them to "stop it" urging Archbishop Rowan to be more assertive in insisting on better behaviour and mutual respect between bishops. George reiterated his welcome of gay and lesbian people to full participation in Synod and the affairs of the diocese. He said that homosexuality was utterly the wrong issue to have become the litmus test of orthodoxy -- citing abuse against women, exploitation of the poor and care of the environment as vastly more significant.

This was my speech on the first draft of the motion about the Listening Process:

Mr President, yesterday morning you reminded us of the welcome you offered to lesbian and gay members when this Synod first met in 2005. When I and others then thanked you publicly, Synod was kind enough to applaud. I felt humbled and would have been happy to leave it at that. But now that this motion is before us, we must look for words that unite, not divide, words that heal, not wound. I thank the proposers for their willingness to do that.

This weekend, we have been blessed by people's stories of faith -- stories, not arguments. The Listing Process can be a way for the faith stories of homosexual women and men to be heard by us all. From Psalm 24 we hear this story:

One thing have I desired of the Lord,
and that will I seek after,
that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life,
to behold the beauty of the Lord
and to inquire in God's temple.

That's my story--a passionate desire for worship and to see God revealed in God's temple, in us, the people of God, gathered in worship.

We are commanded to love, to worship, God with our whole being. That includes our sexuality, a beautiful, but enigmatic part of our being. Yet sexuality, and everything else, is as nothing at the foot of the cross. To discourage anyone from worship at the foot of the cross is an appalling violence against them and against the gospel of Christ.

Yes, Mr President, as you have said, it is a mistake, to put it mildly, that in the Anglican Communion one's attitude to homosexuality should have become a touchtone of one's orthodoxy. I thank you deeply and humbly for all that you have said on this, this weekend and previously. Mr President, brothers and sisters, let's get on with the business of the kingdom! Alleluia!

The kingdom will be better served if we do not worry about what we believe to be our rights. But I do beg Synod, and every Parish and Ministry Unit in the Diocese, not to stand between lesbian and gay people, or anyone else, and their desire to know, to worship, and to serve our Lord Jesus Christ.

I'll post more later.

There won't be any postings from me for a while; on Tuesday James and I leave for a few days much needed holiday here.

Some wisdom from Ruth Ostrow (Weekend Australian Magazine, 1-2 Sep 07, p. 10)

The other day I decided not to take on a project that I'd been offered. It was a fantastic thing to do and I had been looking forward to it greatly. But suddenly, when I thought of all the steps I'd need to take to bring the project to fruition, I got an overwhelming sense of exhaustion and of biting off more than I could chew. And I decided to become an emotional "energy miser".

Definition? An energy miser is someone who realises they don't have as much energy as they used to have, and, with energy reserves at a critical low, decides to switch off the proverbial lights and use candles instead.

With all the demands upon us nowadays, there just isn't as much energy to burn as there once was. Humans have a limited supply. And while we're forced to multi task [as parents, workers, carers to ageing parents, supportive partners), any energy draining situation such as an argument, an extra project or a problem with one's kids can knock the body about dreadfully.

Nor should we be fooled by adrenalin surges. During the fight or flight reaction to a deadline or altercation, stress hormones flood the body and prepare us for action. This boosts energy levels and stimulates the system. But there's the inevitable biological let down afterwards, and it's now well known that continual, habitual stress makes the brain turn off other helpful hormones such as feel-good and sex hormones, leading to fatigue, immune deficiency and depression.

The skilled energy miser chooses his or her projects or battles carefully, scrutinising each ounce of energy that they are going to give the situation. "I won't yell at that bad driver because it will tire me out." Or "Yes, I will have those people over for dinner because their company will nourish me."

Once becoming a committed energy miser, there are techniques to help conserve energy such as learning to delegate, knowing when to walk away, and knowing when to bring in a lawyer or a nanny. Anything to spare spillage or leakage. Better to be energy rich and cash poor than the other way around.

We all know that it's becoming increasingly important to conserve the world's precious resources. Likewise, conserving our internal resources is not only intelligent, it's also the best anti ageing medicine around.

Last Sunday was Father's Day in Australia. Our church, St. Philip's made this a "men and boys" day. We included men who give fatherly love and care to others, if they have no children of their own. So I appreciated it even the more when James's adult daughter, Nicole, gave this card to us both!