For Tony.

This is a copy of the email that I just sent to Tony Abbott regarding the conscience vote on marriage equality.

If you want to get in touch with him too, you can reach him here: Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au.

Mr. Abbott,

Unlike a lot of the mail you’re going to get on the subject of marriage equality what follows here will not be an attempt to change your mind, or to ask you to reverse the personal stance that you have taken on the issue. Your reasons for objecting to a change in language of the Marriage Act to allow for same-sex couples to enter in to the institution are well documented and you are absolutely entitled to air them.

It is with that same sentiment in mind that I’m writing to you. It’s to be expected that an issue like this evokes strong feelings for any individual, and these are feelings that will be born out of the experiences that individual has encountered and collected. Through family, friends and serendipitous random encounters, everybody is given a unique opportunity to learn from and adapt to the environment around them, which in turn will shape that individual’s emotional response to issues such as marriage, euthanasia and abortion. With this in mind, I would ask that you allow the members of your party to undertake a conscience vote when the private member’s bill requesting amendment to the Marriage Act is presented to parliament.

It’s obvious that this issue is not going to be decided by bipartisan pragmatism. If that were the case, a change to the Marriage Act would have been actioned long before now – in line with the natural progression of our society towards a more progressive and accepting view of marriage equality. That this outcome has not yet been reached proves that there is a greater, more complicated morality at play – a morality that can only be satiated by allowing the individual to act under the guidance of their conscience.

I can only hope that I am not shouting in to the ether. There is a time for playing politics and pandering for votes, and time for allowing those who have chosen to stand alongside you as members of the Liberal Party to apply the sum of their life experience and the views of their constituencies to a conscience vote. Julia Gillard has made a choice, and now the country is watching as you make yours. You have a chance to show compassion and open-mindedness by allowing your party members to express personal views on a deeply personal issue. Views that, like yours, are shaped by their families, friends and everything they have experienced. See reason. Let them.

Thanks,

Lauren

 

For Julia.

Dear Julia,

The last time I sat down to do one of these was three months ago, when Miranda Devine took to the internet to essentially blame Penny Wong’s girlfriend’s pregnancy for the London riots. I remember a distinctly cleansing feeling as I hit the ‘publish’ button on that post, brought about mainly because I thought I had read the last opinion piece I was ever going to have to read that was going to make me, as a gay woman, feel like a second class citizen. I was wrong.

The damage you have done today is worse than anything I had ever thought you possible of inflicting. Miranda Devine and Jim Wallace were never going to stand alongside advocates of marriage equality in this fight, but you had a chance to. You had a chance and with your opinion piece in the Fairfax Media this morning serving as the final nail in the coffin of hope in this debate, you blew it.

Let’s take a moment and review my terminology there. You’ll notice that I say advocates of ‘marriage equality’ not ‘gay marriage’, because I believe in calling a spade a spade. This isn’t just about the rights of same-sex couples where marriage is concerned, but of any two consenting adults to marry if they so choose. Saying that members of the LGBT community can’t marry is as arbitrary and bluntly discriminatory as saying that two Brunettes can’t get married. By leaving the current definition of marriage unchanged, you are essentially suggesting that we are somehow not good enough to enter a monogamous relationship, for life, to the exclusion of others. NEWSFLASH: THAT’S ALL WE WANT TO FUCKING DO, JULIA. We aren’t asking you to allow us to marry eighteen people at once (though, given half a bottle of Gin and access to the cast of The L Word I might be willing to revise that sentiment). We aren’t asking you to allow us to marry our pets. Or our relatives. Or our toasters. We want to marry our partners, our confidents, our best friends. The people who make us laugh, who look after us when we’re sick, and who make our worlds a better place. Just like everybody else.

The vast majority of opponents to the movement cite protection of family values as a finite and irrefutable argument against allowing any change in the Marriage Act. Personally, I can’t think of a better example for any two people to set for their own children (and, potentially by extension, other children in their lives) than committing to each other wholly, publicly, and with the support of their family, friends and community. What are two gay men supposed to say to their child when he or she comes home from school asking why they aren’t married like all their friend’s parents? Surely it will make them feel more ostracised and confused when the devastating answer to that question is ‘because we aren’t allowed to be’.

With the world watching, you have chosen to essentially sidestep this issue by allowing it to fall to a conscience vote. Your opinion is that the Marriage Act should remain unchanged and this is your way of not having to take the heat for that opinion coming to bear all by yourself. I get that. It’s easier to point several of your fingers at all the other members of your party who will also vote against legislating for change in the Marriage Act than it is to have to answer for the decision as though it was yours alone. In an interesting twist though, your refusal to actually stand for anything (as you’re not even really standing for the Marriage Act in its current state with any conviction – if you were this wouldn’t be a matter of conscience) leaves me wondering if you even buy what you’re trying to sell any more yourself.

When you were sworn in as Prime Minister, you stood on the precipice of great change in this country. Change you could have been a catalyst for, and a driving force behind. Forget my sexuality for a moment: as an Australian woman, THAT is how I want the first female Prime Minister of this country to be remembered.

I know you still have it in you.

It’s never too late.

Prove me right.

Cheers,

Loz

 

With thanks to Miranda.

Dear Miranda,

I don’t normally find myself writing to members of the press to wax lyrical about the impact that they have had on my day, but your recent piece on Penny Wong’s girlfriend’s pregnancy has stirred me to reach out to you in this very public forum. Why you ask? Because I owe you a great debt of gratitude, Miranda. You have helped to open my eyes, and shaken the very foundations of what I believe with just 951 words.

You see, I had this whole situation all wrong. When I first heard about Penny and Sophie’s news, I – like the fool I am – was actually happy for them. Imagine my horror when I realised what a gross error in judgement I’d made! That horror was only amplified when I realised that I wasn’t even happy for them because they were a gay couple – I was happy for them because I quite like Penny Wong as a politician and as a person. This fact had actually eclipsed her sexuality to the point that I’d forgotten to be outraged about it (I know, I know, that thought led me to whip myself much like that handsome albino fellow in The Davinci Code to absolve myself of the guilt I felt). Thankfully, you were on hand to remind me that this news item – and, in fact, gay marriage as a whole – is “simply a political tool to undermine the last bastion of bourgeois morality – the traditional nuclear family.”

I had misinterpreted the gay marriage issue as a group of people fighting against an archaic system to ensure equality under the law and in the eyes of politicians for themselves, or family members and friends. Thanks to you, I understand that it’s actually an underhanded attack on the moral fibre of our society (presumably because they don’t like the colours we’ve used to weave it, you know how picky those gays can be). You have rescued me from my previous mindset with your timely and persuasive words. Phew!

With my moral compass recalibrated, I turned my thoughts to what possible disasters were headed our way now that some idiot had had the temerity to allow such a horrendous event to occur. Previously, I’d thought that the affect that this would have on our society would be, well, absolutely nothing. Given that Penny and Sophie are but two people in a world population of billions, and there are plenty of studies that show that children are no better or worse off in a household with two parents of the same sex, I had laboured under the misapprehension that I could go about my life once this child was born as I always had. Thankfully, you had me covered on this line of thought as well. Would it be too much to say that I had chills as your piece began to draw terrifying parallels between the fatherless children (i.e. products of one parent household) of London, who were absolutely and beyond doubt responsible for the recent violence and the fatherless children (i.e. products of a loving relationship between two gay women, because of course two women couldn’t possibly make up the parental shortfall that having a penis automatically brings to a relationship) that irresponsible people like Penny and Sophie are starting to inflict on our society? No, I don’t think so.

Of course, you were right: we are standing on the precipice of a generation of sluts who will be dropping children every five feet as they run rampant through streets that their boyfriends and husbands have torn asunder. In preparation for this dark period I immediately went out and purchased a rape whistle and a fire extinguisher, and when the time inevitably comes that I will be forced to use them I will no doubt be shouting my thanks to you from the rooftops – if indeed there are any rooftops left after these hooligans have had their way. If only their fathers had been around! Won’t somebody think of the children?!

So, thank you Miranda. You have helped me to realise that the world actually needs more pious, vile ultraconservatives with access to big media outlets. You will encounter many, many people who will tell you otherwise, proclaiming that you’re a bigot, or that you’re actively setting back the feminist movement with every keystroke – you know, that old chestnut. They are but jealous naysayers who could not ever hope to reach the levels of enlightened observation about our society that you have ascended to. They must be ignored at all costs, your message must continue to be heard. Don’t be afraid, and do not let them win.

Remember, you’re the one with God on your side.

All the best,

Loz