The bill is about changing the laws that discriminate against same sex couples. The laws cover marriage, superannuation, pension entitlements etc. Although I referred to marriage I was being lazy because the more pernicious effects of these laws discriminate against adults in terms of superannuation, pensions, property etc.

When you have lived with someone and supported them emotionally, financially and made their life more pleasant for 40+ years why shouldn't you expect to share their pension, decide their medical future when they are incapacitated?

I suspect these laws that discriminate against same sex relationships also discriminate against single adults in long term relationships.

What is fair about a woman marrying a man with a good super scheme and a heart condition a month before he dies and being able to collect his superannuation and have more entitlement to his assets than his adult children?

Aren't you being perverted for judging a person by their performance in the bedroom?

J S Mill, glad you’ve dropped in here.

Pushing up daisies for the last 144 years seems to have dulled your memory. For example, you seem to have forgotten that you invented the harm principle, which holds that an individual has the right to behave as he likes, so long as his behaviour doesn’t harm others.

You specifically excluded children from the harm principle, but only directly, not indirectly (i.e. it’s OK to tell a child what to do because it is incapable; it’s not OK to tell an adult how to behave with a child, unless the adult’s behaviour can be shown to be harming the child). As a result, stating as you do that same-sex couples should be denied parenting rights defies some of your most deeply held principles.

You also argued that we should act to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Recent survey statistics show that the greatest number of people support equal rights for same-sex couples.

I acknowledge your honesty when you say, "I'm not ready to go that far." The visceral response is widespread, but it is invariably solved by getting to know some same-sex couples and seeing that their relationships are no less real, loving and supportive as the marriages you are comparing them to.

Go back to your basic principles, J S Mill, and remember that it’s not about you, and how far you can or cannot go. It’s about the lives of worthy law-abiding human beings, against whom, by your lights, unequal treatment cannot be justified.

Actually, I'm OK with JS Mill's views (the contemporary one that is - though i have no real problems with the historical one either!).

I think a lot of people have some sort of discomfort when it comes to gay people and gay relationships. That's only normal, given that society until recently has stigamtised homosexuality so badly. Even people of good will, can still be forgiven for having misgivings or concerns or discomfort.

The real question is what one does as a result. One can respond to those misgivings by giving in to them and allowing them to become bigotry; or one can respond to them by accepting them and yet behaving in the most ethical manner possible.

To give an analogy, I personally feel uncomfortable talking to or dealing with people with Downs Syndrome. It kind of creeps me out. No, I am not proud of that. And I choose to respond to that discomfort by accepting it, but then doing my utmost to treat the person as I would any other. I try not to let my discomfort influence my conduct.

I think Mills deserves full marks for honesty. But I fail to be persuaded by the argument that "gay people should not be able to marry because it makes some straight people uncomfortable". Just not a strong enough case.

Anthony

JS Mill,

None of us are perfect, but the fact that you recognise that you have an issue speaks volumes for your character. We all have faults and its our ability to recognise them for what they are that defines us.

I understand your concerns, and while I may not agree with them, I am more than happy to sit down with you and have a chat.

Great article, Lynne. I wish your bill every success, but won't hold my breath.
As to the supposedly vexed area of gay people parenting - there is, of course, nothing new about that. My husband and his 3 siblings were raised by their gay father. He wasn't quite out to the world (this was the 50s and 60s) but he was out to his kids. He had lived, like many gays of that period, a lie and married my husband's mother partly as a disguise ( he was high up in the armed forces). The shock and stress of the discovery of her husband's gayness quite possibly contributed to her very early death.
He was not a good person or a good father, but that had absolutely nothing to do with his gayness -indeed, it may have had something to do with the need he felt for deceit. The interesting thing is that none of his children (3 boys and a girl) have grown up to be gay.
Actually, I think the best and bravest thing he did for his kids was not keep his sexual orientation a secret from them, after all, as a wise person once said to me; "You are only as sick as your biggest secret." It showed great respect and also allowed them to have a real relationship with their real father - however flawed - rather than a relationship with a socially acceptable construct. This does not, of course, excuse the tragedy of his wife's misery and despair.

ena

The problem was probably more the expectation that people were seen as being more stable if married and it favoured advancement.

Even if same sex marriage had been available his 'biggest lie' would still have been marrying to get ahead. His partner might still have died earlier if he (the partner) had not taken responsibility for his own life.

It is more likely that had homosexuality been legal and accepted and had he not been so ambitious, he would never had married at all. This is because few homosexuals would choose same sex marriage even if it was available (see earlier quote from Somali Cerise, co-convenor of the Gay and Lesbian Lobby Group).

A big concern with the push by some for same sex marriage is that whilst it might suit a small number of homosexuals, it could well act against the interests of most whose relationships would also be subject to government regulation. There would be no opting out of the universal coverage of the Family Law Act.

An immediate effect of Family Law on the free flowing de facto arrangements of many gays would be delays to obtain resolution, compulsory counselling and high cost when things don't work out. At present there is the possibility of a broader range of relationships and arrangements (and quick splits) made possible by lack of Family Law intervention.

To be blunt, how many gays really want their relationships to be regulated like heterosexuals, where splits involve compulsory counselling, big lawyer fees and long waiting times for resolution?

When did the Democrats do a poll of gays to see how many were in favour of this radical change to regulate their relationships and domestic affairs?