The right to belong

In Australia, the 40th anniversary of the New York street protests which gave birth to the contemporary gay rights movement passed almost unnoticed.

While millions marched in North America and Europe to commemorate a turning point in global social history, the thoughts of most Australians didn’t get gayer than Bruno on Rove.

This means neither that Australians are more antagonistic to gay equality, nor that we are more accepting. It just means winter isn’t the time to parade outdoors in skimpy clothes.

But winter is an excellent time to reflect on who we are and where we’re headed.

The question most commonly prompted by Stonewall is: how far has the gay movement come, and how far has it yet to go? Usually, the answer has more to do with the politics of the person answering the question than objective reality.

But Australia is at such a clear-cut moment in its gay history, that we can provide something approaching a definitive answer.

Last year the Rudd Government, with the support of a majority of Coalition MPs, extended the definition of de facto partner to include same-sex partners across all those many federal laws offering spousal rights and responsibilities, including those dealing with parenting and family.

The parallel recognition of same-sex de factos had already occurred in every state and territory. It had been advocated federally for 15 years but was long-delayed by the indifference of John Howard.

In short, last year’s reform was the definitive end of a long-term movement for practical benefits and entitlements.

But as is so often the case, every movement for reform contains within it the seeds of what will come next.

The one federal law not amended by the Rudd Government was the Marriage Act.

Both major parties continue to vehemently oppose equality in marriage for same-sex partners.

This is despite the gathering pace of reform in the United States and Western Europe. It is also despite the latest Galaxy poll showing 60 per cent of Australians support same-sex marriage, one of the highest levels of support anywhere in the western world and a full 10 per cent higher than the very blue American states of California and New York.

When we juxtapose these two reforms - the recognition of same-sex de facto relationships and the recognition of same-sex marriages - we see exactly where a deeper fault line in Australia’s attitude to homosexuality lies.

A de facto relationship is one which exists prior to its recognition in the law, and regardless of whether society approves, disapproves or is indifferent. It is, quite literally, just one of life’s facts.

A marriage, on the other hand, is something which is created by the state, approved of by society, and agreed to by all those present. It does not exist until we all make the choice, explicitly or tacitly, that it should exist. It is the institution which not only intimately connects partners for life, but which intimately interconnects partners to their families, their communities and the nation.

This distinction between acknowledging what is, and valuing what could be, can be seen everywhere in government policy on same-sex relationships.

The Federal Government is happy for the ACT to have a civil partnership scheme that legally recognises existing same-sex relationships through administratively-arranged ceremonies but refuses to allow it to enact a scheme that legally creates such relationships through statutory ceremonies, even though the practical difference is barely discernable.

Rudd is happy to provide legal protection to families already headed by same-sex couples but refuses to countenance creating such families by allowing same-sex couples to adopt, even though there are so few children up for adoption that the exclusion is moot.

Rudd’s loyal deputy on key policy issues, Senator Penny Wong, has no problem saying she is in a same-sex relationship but transforms this relationship into an isolated, value-neutral fact by declaring it “irrelevant” to her politics, work or life, even though she says her Asian heritage was “formative”.

By these measures, gay Australians can be said to have won the right to exist.

That right is not always honoured. We are still victims of the kind of school-yard bullying, workplace discrimination and hate-crime which is motivated by a desire for us to cease to exist.

But insofar as the Rudd Government reflects Australia at its most cautious, it seems the Australian people have overwhelmingly responded to the old slogan “we’re here, we’re queer, get used it”, with “you are and we have”.

What is yet to be recognised and is still fiercely resisted by the nation’s political elite, is the right represented and encapsulated by marriage; the right to have the personal and social value of our relationships affirmed and celebrated in the way others take for granted, the right to be included and connected, the right to belong.

It is this struggle to belong that will define the future of gay rights in Australia, just as the struggle to exist has defined the past.

“We are one” will be as important a slogan as “we are here” has been.

And it will be the simple matter of solemnly declaring “I do” before family, friends and official witnesses that will symbolise this next great stage in the ever-developing relationship between the Australian nation and its gay minority.