Marriage equality - Paul Fletcher

So like most Australians I think we need to pass marriage equality and move on to more important issues. Makeitlaw.com.au ran a campaign where they automatically emailed your state reps, I thought it was a good idea so I did it, using their canned email myslef;

To: Fletcher, Paul (MP); Cameron, Doug (Senator); Dastyari, Sam (Senator); Concetta.Fierravanti-Wells@dfat.gov.au; Leyonhjelm, David (Senator); senator.mcallister@aph.gov.au; Nash, Fiona (Senator); O'Neill, Deborah (Senator); Payne, Marise (Senator); Rhiannon, Lee (Senator); Sinodinos, Arthur (Senator); Williams, John (Senator); Burston, Brian (Senator)
Subject: Morgan Storey wants you to vote against a plebiscite on marriage equality
 
Dear Federal Representatives,

I urge you to vote against a plebiscite on marriage equality.

A plebiscite will be costly, divisive and damaging to the LGBTIQ community.

It is also wasteful and unnecessary given that marriage equality will ultimately have to be resolved in parliament anyway.

I urge you to support a cross-party free vote in parliament as soon as possible so marriage equality can be resolved quickly and Australia can move on.

Best wishes,
Morgan Storey,

***************************************

Little did I know that this would get a response. I thought it would be pretty ineffectual, but hey I may as well try.
Well it got a very canned response from Paul Feltcher... err I mean Fletcher (slip of the tongue);

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Fletcher, Paul (MP) <Paul.Fletcher.MP@aph.gov.au> wrote:

Dear Mr Storey

Thank you for your email concerning a same sex marriage plebiscite. It is very important that I am aware of the feelings of my constituents in Bradfield and so I appreciate the time you have taken to inform me of your views on this issue.

I am very pleased that in recent years Australia’s laws have been changed to remove discrimination against homosexuals and same-sex couples.  These include changes to laws in the areas of superannuation, taxation, social security, aged care and immigration.

The Howard Government reformed the law in several areas in this respect, and it was the Howard Government that began the process that led to the 2008 legislation of the Rudd Government that substantively removed discrimination for same sex couples.

These were all appropriate and necessary reforms.  They have taken Australia in a very positive direction, and (thankfully) a very long way from the time when homosexual acts were criminalised.

The institution of marriage has a cultural and religious significance developed over many centuries. Traditionally, the institution is based on the “the union of man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”.  That is the definition set out in Australian law. This in no way seeks to diminish the committed and loving relationships – both heterosexual and same-sex – that exist outside of the institution of marriage.

I support the Liberal Party’s policy to have a plebiscite, so that this matter can be decided by a vote of the Australian people. Allow me to explain the process by which the Coalition came to this decision.

At the 2013 election, the Coalition’s stated position in relation to same sex marriage was that if the matter came up in the next term of Parliament, it would be considered by the Coalition Party Room in the usual way.

Subsequently Liberal MP Warren Entsch advised the Party Room that he proposed to introduce a Private Member’s Bill which would change the law regarding marriage so as to permit same sex marriage.

Accordingly, consistent with the position the Coalition took to the 2013 election, the matter was considered by the Coalition Party Room on 11 August 2015.  There was a long discussion, extending for some six hours, on the Government’s policy in this area. More than 90 Members and Senators spoke. The discussion revealed a strong majority in favour of maintaining the Coalition’s existing policy position.  

Nevertheless, because of the unique and deeply personal nature of this issue, Prime Minister Abbott indicated that a decision on same-sex marriage would be made by all Australians via a plebiscite after the election. This would allow this deeply personal issue, on which people of goodwill can hold strongly divergent views, to be resolved by a vote of the people – rather than being left in the hands of politicians.

Following the change of leadership, Prime Minister Turnbull indicated that the Liberal Party would maintain this position, and took this to the 2016 Federal election. The Government is now working to determine the earliest practical time to hold the plebiscite, probably in the first half of 2017. When the matter subsequently came to the Parliament, I would vote in accordance with the judgement of the Australian people in the plebiscite.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Regards

Paul Fletcher MP
Federal Member for Bradfield

Minister for Urban Infrastructure

Level 2, 280 Pacific Highway

Lindfield NSW 2070

Suite M151 Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

(02 9465 3950 | 7 02 9465 3999 |SYDNEY

(02 6277 7790 | CANBERRA

************************************************

Me, being me I couldn't not respond;

Hi,

Lets break down your canned response below, to show how wrong you truly are.

"The institution of marriage has a cultural and religious significance developed over many centuries."
Yes marriage is an institution that has existed for millennia, long before the religions of today existed. There is evidence that same-sex marriage existed in cultures long before Christianity, and Judaism existed. Stepping in now to say we can't change it due to tradition is the same as saying tradition allowed for the owning of people, so we shouldn't have changed that, tradition denied women the ownership or property or a public voice, can't change that either. Tradition is a reason to question an act, not a defense of the act. No plebiscite was required to outlaw slavery, or change the marriage act the last time, why is it now?
References;
Evidence of same-sex marriages in Ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Rome, and China; https://books.google.com.au/books?id=GIiFAAAAIAAJ&q=isbn:9780471120803&dq=isbn:9780471120803&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1hZaInPfOAhXDqJQKHTIKDbgQ6AEIHTAA
Emperor Nero married two males; http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html#28.3 see section 28.3
In fact even Priests and popes had same-sex concubines, it wasn't finally outlawed till 342AD by emperor Constantinus II: http://muxigoad.jimdo.com/2012/07/19/theodosian-code-marriage/
"I support the Liberal Party’s policy to have a plebiscite, so that this matter can be decided by a vote of the Australian people."
The plebiscite will lead to public persecution of same-sex peoples by right-wing christian groups. There have been warnings around this issues by the Australian psychological association, ignoring this warning shows that your policy is not evidence based, it is mere pandering to the right.
Ignoring this warning will mean people like me will hold you personally responsible for the suicides that are caused in vulnerable LGBTI youth by the likely horrible religious-rights advertising, think about that for a moment.
References; https://croakey.org/the-mental-health-implications-of-a-plebiscite-on-marriage-equality/ http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-a-plebiscite-on-samesex-marriage-is-dangerous-and-divisive-20160414-go63vs.html
"Prime Minister Abbott indicated that a decision on same-sex marriage would be made by all Australians via a plebiscite after the election."

Yet the Liberal party ousted Abbott, and did away with policies of his they didn't agree with (knights and Dames anyone). Why not do the same with this poor policy around a non-binding, psychologically damaging and costly plebiscite. Is it because the Liberal party are cowards, or ignorant short-sighted buffoons?
References; http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-scraps-tony-abbotts-knights-and-dames-20151101-gkodek.html http://www.pwc.com.au/press-room/2016/cost-plebiscite-mar16.html http://youngausskeptics.com/2010/09/%E2%80%9Cmarriage-according-to-law-in-australia-is-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others-voluntarily-entered-into-for-life%E2%80%9D/
You currently hold a tenuous minority government, this plebiscite (among other gross missteps) will ensure that the liberal party holds no government come next election, and probably not for a long time after that. You bring this on your own party, you look backward and rather than challenging beliefs you hold on to them to your own detriment, you waste money on a plebiscite that will possibly result in the loss of life in the form of vulnerable LGBTI youth. So lets not waste half a billion dollars on this, and hold it to a parliamentary vote and be done with it.

--
Regards
Morgan Storey
*************************************************

I doubt I really changed any minds there, but hey lets make the full discourse public and see if I can change any onlookers. I have yet to find a rational argument against marriage equality. But hey, politicians aren't exactly rational are they.

Oh and I got a response to the last email too, that was interesting in its brevity;

Thank you for your further comments.

Paul Fletcher MP
Federal Member for Bradfield

Minister for Urban Infrastructure

Level 2, 280 Pacific Highway

Lindfield NSW 2070

Suite M151 Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

(02 9465 3950 | 7 02 9465 3999 |SYDNEY

(02 6277 7790 | CANBERRA

Stirring the pot

Peter Boghossian recently tweeted that "Questioning that one can be proud to be gay is a leftist blasphemy. #justbornthatway"

While in the strictest definition of proud this could be conceived as correct, although the definition starts with proud of one's accomplishments, it finishes with proud of what ones own qualities. But on even a cursory glance at some of the literature around the pride movement the error is quickly found. Just as some people aren't proud for being an atheist, skeptical or human, people aren't proud for being Gay in the strict definition of the term, or for that matter proud for being anywhere else in the sexual spectrum.
They are proud for coming to terms with it in a predominantly heterosexual, binary gendered society, they are proud for coming out in such a hostile environment to not only gain support from non-LGBTI people but to make it easier for others to come out. This kind of pride sounds really familiar, oh wait a minute these are the same arguments for coming out as an atheist, for having the reason rally, or any number of Celebrations of reason etc.

I agree with Boghossians premise, to quote a great philosopher that came before him "In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted." - Bertrand Russell
But I think Boghossian may have missed the mark on this one, and in doing so has gotten off side a large part of the community that would invariably be opposed to some of the same things he is opposed to, yes you can be LGBTI and religious, but I think if you do you have a short and forgiving memory for the persecution you suffered under religious hands.

Greta Christiana writes a more thorough refutation here.

Why Frozen and Brave maybe the most important films of our time.

Sorry spoilers ahead.

Frozen has be lauded as a phenomenal piece of work by Disney for reasons of Feminism and LGBTI rights. Not only does she not get saved by prince charming, no-one does. Like the other excellent work by Disney; Brave the women save themselves. Damn straight they save themselves, they are tough and worthy of praise. But that is not the only reason why it is the most important film of our time, after-all princess Fiona in Shrek (although not Disney at the time) saved herself a few times, and taught kids it was OK to be different.

Disney, whether you like it or not. Informs and changes the world with the next generation. It does reflect somewhat the current times, but in these two pieces it goes further, to tell little girls and boys out there watching it that they don’t need to depend on someone else to save or complete them. It tells everyone that the way they are born should be accepted, and that following convention doesn’t always lead to the best result.

Anna’s love saves Elsa and vice versa in Frozen, there is no prince charming here to save them. The Queen in Brave saves everyone, and defeats the undefeatable bear Mor'du, while her daughter manages to fix the mistake she made in tricking her mother, I also love the scene where she shoots for her own hand in marriage, yes I knew what was going to happen but it was played out brilliantly.  Princess Anna and Princess Merida aren’t always perfect princesses; they have their moments of just being a person, messy hair in the morning, dirty dresses and feet on seats. But they can still be ladies, still be strong, brave and confident and still very caring and loving. They don’t even have to have a man to be the leader of a nation as all these heroines prove, they get stuff done themselves, gone are the sleeping/locked-up princesses of yore that needed a man to save them.

Then there is the LGBTI angle at least on Frozen, I did notice the sauna scene, but thought it was a son... how heteronormative of me. The song is the bit that first got me, so I looked it up, seems I was right there are other people thinking it is one big coming out anthem. Another big tick for this movie; acceptance and strength of conviction.

I want to address some of the criticisms in the articles I cited. Yes the princesses in both Brave and Frozen are "pretty", I don't think that is so bad, so are 99% of female and male leads, we are used to it. We already have the story I mentioned before of Shrek and the inner beauty which is shown in that. But regardless they are supposed to be princesses, and yet they all show their human traits of being less than attractive at several points throughout the films.

The sun is definitely rising on acceptance for whoever you are, a world empowered to the point were coming out doesn't need to happen anymore as no ones orientation will be assumed, a world were little girls and boys and everything in between are happy to be who they are.

So all the kids out there that see these films the hundred or so times as they are likely to see it will grow a little bit stronger and more confident. This film will have repercussions in 20 years’ time that will see new prosperity and it makes me immensely happy, needless to say they will be on high rotation for my kids once Disney releases them on DVD. Till then Fiona has bought the "Let It Go" song By Idina Menzel on Google play, and I plan to buy the whole soundtrack once I find it.

That does bring me to a question I wanted to ask, which version of "Let It Go" is better, the one by Idina Menzel or the one by Demi Lovato, my opinion is the first... and I have played it a few times today to confirm that :)