The Democratic Labour PartyPosted: July 4, 2011 at 10:18 pm | Tags: Christianity, letters, lgbtiq, politics, Religion
I am related by marriage to the newly elected Democratic Labour Party senator for Victoria. This is not a happy thing. I wrote him a letter:
I don’t recall if I’ve met you, I’m married to James Dominguez, Peter Dominguez’s youngest son. I’m writing to pass on my congratulations to you now that you’re holding your position as a senator and to ask you to be a positive agent for change.
I was confused when I read the article about you in the ABC today, specifically the following sentences:
Senator Madigan says he is “unequivocally opposed” to gay marriage. He is also opposed to the carbon tax.
“I’m opposed to anything that makes people’s lives harder,” he said.
“Politicians, whether they’re a member of the House of Reps, whether they’re a senator, whether they’re a member of the Upper House in a State Parliament or your bloke on a council, you know, you’re a public servant. You’re not a public master.”
You said you’re opposed to anything that makes people’s lives harder after stating that you are also opposed to “gay” marriage (the correct term is “equal marriage” because it means that those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender can marry a same sex partner). Now when I read that, I think of the many stories I’ve read about people who really want to get married who cannot because the government and churches believes that opposite sex couples are the only ones worthy of marriage. I think of the friends I have who’d love to get married but can’t because an outdated concept is holding sway, despite many other concepts in the bible going by the wayside over the years (slavery, rape, women as possessions, non-white people being unequal, etc).
I don’t know, but making one group of people (those who are straight or in an opposite sex relationship) more equal than other people doesn’t strike me as making people’s lives easier. I’m all for making people’s lives easier, and that includes everyone no matter of their race, religion, sexuality, or political opinion.
Your sentiment about being a public servant was beautifully put. I would remind you that a servant serves, and therefore serves the will and desire of their constituents. Recent polls have shown that there is majority support for equal marriage, yet you seem intent on being a public master and dictating to those who are same sex attracted who they can and cannot marry.
Equal marriage will not destroy the sanctity of marriage, those who are already married have done quite a good enough job of that with affairs, celebrity marriages, domestic violence, divorce, same day marriage and divorce in Vegas, etc. Many people already do not view marriage as a sacrament, and at this point I do not see anything that will turn that tide.
I don’t know if you recall the day that you decided to be straight (I’m sure there wasn’t one, just as there isn’t any day that a queer person chooses to be queer), but surely it is time to stand up for those who are less equal in our society and right that wrong.
I’m asking you Senator Madigan to abolish the confused, outdated, and wrong policies of the DLP and make equality a genuine issue for you. Break new ground, lead your party from the wasteground and into the modern light of day.
I was introduced to the DLP‘s website today (it’s awful) and then found instant rage in their policies. Apart from being inconsistent, illogical and probably unconstitutional, there is just enough plain wrong in there to make me want to scream.
It was their “Life, marriage and the family” policies that I gave my incredibly brief before I exploded attention to today. I probably won’t be able to quote more than the first couple of bits before I have to go and have a lie down, but if anyone else ever has the stomach to pick the rest apart that’d be lovely.
Legislative measures that will uphold and protect the inalienable and fundamental rights of every person – to life, to the essential liberties of conscience, to equal treatment under the law, to the ownership of property and to a livelihood that enhances the dignity and security of each person.
As long as they are not queer. If they’re queer then they don’t get equal treatment under the law because equal marriage is against God’s will.
It’s also interesting to point out that the “inalienable and fundamental right… to life” means that you get to keep your life whether you want to or not. If you would like to end your life because of illness say, the DLP is right against that. So provided you agree with them, then you can be equal treatment under the law.
Absolute opposition to legislative or administrative measures that undermine or degrade marriage by conferring on homosexual, lesbian or transsexual pairings any form of legal recognition of their relationships, per se, whether through “civil unions”, “relationship registers” or other legal device.
So no equal marriage, no relationship registers, no civil unions… see above about equal treatment under the law, some people are more equal than others.
Oh and the term DLP is trans* or transgender typically.
Abolition of the Family Court of Australia, exposure of its destructive ideology and its harm done to children through easy divorce and the court-instigated break-up of their families and recision of all court rulings that serve to undermine marriage or degrade it by conferring on homosexual, lesbian and transsexual pairings equivalent standing with marriage.
Because the harm done to children in relationships where the children know that the parents are desparately unhappy together is far, far less than that where the parents separate and divorce. I’d also like some examples of this “court-instigated break-ups” of families. I’ve never heard of a case where the Family Court just waded in and split up a family because it was bored.
Restoration of the principle, in legislation covering matrimonial disputes, that “just cause” be established before a claim for “relief” through divorce can be granted in any court of law.
I’ve blogged on this being a bad idea before, I’m not going to revisit my arguments again.
Statutory recognition of the principle that no child should be conceived to be borne and reared deliberately deprived of a mother or father as in the cases of single women, lesbians and homosexual couples accessing artificial reproduction technologies including IVF and surrogacy or adoption overseas or within Australia.
So what about those children that are born, not through reproductive technologies, to single women and/or members of the LGBITQ community? Does the DFP have a policy regarding these children? Do they want them forcibly removed from those loving parents and placed with good, upright, religious families?
An acknowledgement in all legislation affecting families of the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage and of the need to maintain the moral, social, legal and economic support of the traditional family unit as the most effective (including cost-effective) means to safeguard children from the harm of exploitation, violence, pornography, drugs and crime.
Yes, because so many queer parents exploit and abuse their children. I hear of it all the time in the news, and I never hear about straight parents abusing their children ever.
The DLP upholds the traditional family as the ideal for all to aspire to. This is not to condemn others who may find themselves in other family models through no fault of their own. We admire and support single parents for example, and recognize their particular needs and difficulties in raising children alone.