Penny Wong It's Time Analysis

In this article Michael Koziol discusses the conflict of the church when it comes to enacting legal protections for the LGBTI+ community. It particularly focuses the fact that both major political parties carry a fear of getting on the wrong side of church lobby groups and the effect that this has had the development, or lack there of, of the rights of the LGBTI+ community. He directly references times where this has been an issue for this community like the fact that the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act exempts private schools from the section on homosexuality and when this issue was brought to parliament by Alex Greenwich it had to be shelved due to the lack of support from the coalition.

Back in this time many Australians weren’t aware of the fight for same sex marriage and many strongly disagreed. However, now that America has passed the legislation in support of gay marriage, Australians now see this as a more achievable

Only recently, the Australian Government introduced reforms to de-facto relationships. This meant that same-sex couples are entitled to the same benefits and subject to the same obligations as opposite-sex couples (Property Relationships Act 1984 NSW). The legislation of Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws- General Law Reform) Act 2008 removed discriminatory treatment of same-sex couples. These acts included laws about tax, superannuation, Medicare, workers compensations, employment entitlements and family law. Homosexuals are discriminated against in terms of marriage, donating blood and are also victims to abuse due to their status. A study conducted by the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby revealed that 84% of participants aged between 14 and 21 had been treated unfairly because of their sexuality and almost half had suffered verbal or physical abuse. With these inequalities present, it is difficult to achieve equality and fairness around this group. Although Australia proposes the ideal of egalitarianism, it is hard to justify whether it is present or not.

Marriage equality matters just as much as anything else in the world. Same-sex couples want to marry like any other person and have all the same reasons as heterosexual couples. There are many legal benefits that come with marriage but they are however not available to same-sex couples. A marriage certificate allows married couples to easily prove their legal rights if challenged for example in an emergency situation. Equal marriage is important in modern society because it allows same-sex couples to be included in such a worldwide and cherished institution such as marriage will provide for them and their families with real social and cultural benefits. There is a growth in research, which shows evidence that married couples, which include same-sex married couples are on average healthier, happier and longer lived. Government restrictions on who gay and lesbian people in Australia can marry contravenes the fundamental human rights in the same way that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were once contravened with laws on who they could and could not marry.

In the article “For Gay Marriage,” author Andrew Sullivan declares the conservative denial of marriage to gay couples infringes on their equality as citizens. He explains love endures through commitment between two people, no matter the gender, race, or social background; therefore, any two citizens with a well-developed relationship should qualify for the marital bond which solidifies and epitomizes a long-lasting promise. Without homosexual weddings, LGBT youth have no outlet into society to hope for, domestic partnerships devalue relationships, and gay individuals remain second-class citizens with the inability to express the extent of their affection and fidelity toward one another. Andrew Sullivan’s vernacular both inhibits and stimulates the reader’s immersion into the debate on marital equality. Throughout the article, he uses the word conservative eleven times and homosexual twenty-two times.

Critique of Bennett’s “Against Gay Marriage” Gay marriage is repeatedly under the magnifying glass in the media, the papers, and constantly opposed by adamant conservative politicians. In his piece “Against Gay Marriage,” Bennett demonstrates this issue. William Bennett himself is a married conservative politician. Due to this, we can better understand the flailing urgency of his argument against homosexual marriage. Bennett takes a very strong and adamant approach to what is a particularly sensitive subject at this moment in time, and leaps into act of persuading his audience to turn away from the idea of legalizing gay marriage, or even to reject it.

The law regulating same-sex marriages continues to change, in order to better reflect the community 's opinions and expectations. Within the last decade, Australia has seen substantial changes in the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. This increase in legal recognition is primarily aimed at removal of institutionalized discrimination, as well as providing adequate legal protection of same-sex couples has arisen due to the wide spread changes of opinions about same-sex relationships within society.

This essay will be critically analyzing the social policy of same sex marriage using four Australian newspaper articles to demonstrate and examine how inequality through diversity and difference are present and experienced in the public domain. The essay will draw upon What ideological values and assumptions are present in both the newspaper articles and social policy?, What are the social justice concerns in relation to the current same sex policy?, concluding with a reflective component exploring where in relation to the social policy issue I am as a developing social worker.

Among innumerable reasons why marriage equality should be legalized in Australia, a prominent one is that restricting the option to marry any citizen is discriminatory and unconstitutional. This sort of treatment not only deprives every-day people of their dignity, creating a second class of citizens, but also suggests that LGBTI+ people are somehow unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society. A lack of opportunity to formalize same-sex relations implies that these relationships aren 't of equal standard, exacerbating unjust prejudice and intolerance. This impression is promoted through the lack of financial, medical and social rights associated with marriage to individuals in a civil union, the supposed 'adequate equivalent ' for marriage. Although the legalisation of marriage equality would have no impact on non-LGBTI+ communities,

Whilst explaining that there has been an on-going battle over gay rights and even comparing them to the rights of other overlooked populations such as the African American one, they explain that this fight has been fought most intensely at the subnational level; in legislatures, courtrooms, and direct democracy campaigns—yielding a complicated policy montage. Although some states have adopted numerous pro-gay policies; others have very few or none. The article stresses the struggles over various minority rights and how they have played an immense part in history and are among the main conflicts in any diverse democracy. Believing that possibly over time such struggles may have moved from race to sexual orientation, it is clear that basic tensions remain unresolved. Their analysis sheds insight into how these tensions play out for gay rights, and, in particular, their research allowed them to assess the degree to which majoritarian responsiveness has dissatisfied the objectives of the gay rights movement. The article also contains the argument of conservative religious voters and how they exercise an unjustified influence on policy making and through political activism and interest group pressure, have been able to successfully block popular laws that extend and grant government protection to the

LGBTQ social movements have evolved over time from liberationist politics of the 1970s to an enormous contemporary focus on gay and lesbian marriage rights, a controversial and arguably assimilationist priority for mainstream LGBTQ advocacy groups. Different forms of activism have approached assimilationism versus societal reformation or preservation of unique constructions of queer identities with a myriad of arguments. In “The Trouble with Normal” by Michael Warner, the author focuses primarily on a criticism of gay marriage rights activism in which he posits that all marriage is “selective legitimacy.” He points to other LGBT movements and issues as more worthy of pursuing, particularly intersectional pursuits of equal rights for people regardless of coupled status. In “Marital Discord: Understanding the Contested Place of Marriage in the Lesbian and Gay Movement” authors Mary Bernstein and Verta Taylor give a snapshot history of LGBTQ activism since the 1970s and offer similar arguments as Warner about the heteronormative and neoliberal nature of placing the fight for legal marriage rights at the forefront of LGBTQ activism, although they do also introduce emerging improvements with the increasingly intersectional awareness of modern advocacy efforts.

It can be argued that marriage equality is the paramount issue for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) in Australia, and worldwide. The push for marriage equality has been at the forefront of debate for many years, especially in Australia, where same-sex couples are still unable to marry under Australian law. Despite the recognition of same-sex matrimony in

For Australian law to be effective it must be dynamic so it can reflect changing societal views, which law reform can help attain. A significant area of recent social change is the acceptance of same-sex relationships in Australian society. To mirror this, current law reforms have been somewhat effective in achieving just outcomes regarding the recognition of same-sex relationships in Commonwealth law. The combination of official recognition of same-sex relationships to an extent, attempts at removing discrimination in legislation, and the delay of justice denotes this. Considering the achievement of justice and the protection of individual’s rights, it is evident that law reform has significantly improved recognition of same-sex relationships, but there are more essential responses that need to be enacted.

Australian culture is vital in the process of socialising the public’s views and beliefs. Through social stratification and labelling different groups as superior and inferior, Australian culture has been manipulated into believing that homosexuals are deviant to the rest of society.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few months, it’s not an overstatement to say we are drowning in the midst of a $122 million same-sex marital tsunami. Apparently holding a non-binding, non-compulsory and non-legislative postal survey with a titanic price tag was the best way to publicly delay this long-awaited reform. Australian journalists of all ages have set their keyboards alight expressing their severe outrage over this destructive, divisive and money guzzling act, leaving behind not a single positive article regarding the postal survey. I guess we could say the media ditched the cutlery and smashed our faces straight into the cake of biased opinions and we are eating our way out.