Australian Marriage Equality national director, Rodney Croome, said,

“Wyatt Roy is representative of the strong support for marriage equality among young Australans as well as the next generation of Liberals.”

“Mr Roy joins the Young Liberals and other future leading Liberals like Kelly O’Dwyer and Simon Birmingham in supporting marriage equality, placing increased pressure on Tony Abbott to allow a conscience vote on the issue.”

“Kevin Rudd’s support for marriage equality is proving a game changer, especially in Queensland, with Wyatt Roy, as well as Mr Rudd’s Liberal challenger, Bill Glasson, both coming out in support of the reform in recent days.”

“This has left other Brisbane-based Liberals, like Terese Gambaro, with no more excuses for continuing to oppose marriage equality.”

For a report on Mr Roy’s support for marriage equality, click here.

For more comment contact Rodney Croome on 0409 010 668.

Author: Rodney Croome
Publication: Media Release
Publication Date: May 24 2013

COALITION MP Wyatt Roy has become the latest federal MP to throw his support behind same-sex marriage.

“I support the right of same-sex couples to have their loving and committed relationships recognised in state-sanctioned marriage,” said Mr Roy, who at 23 is the youngest MP in Federal Parliament.

Mr Roy said he would support a free vote in the party room on the issue.

His announcement comes in the same week as former prime minister and fellow Queensland backbencher Kevin Rudd’s decision to back same-sex marriage.

The conservative MP represents the seat of Longman, a semi-rural area outside Brisbane which includes the Caboolture Shire. Mr Roy said he was aware of the local community’s views on the issue.

“I remain vigilant in regard to the views of my local community – and I continue to work through the issues and concerns,” he said.

Gay marriage advocates today welcomed Mr Roy’s decision. Australians for Marriage Equality spokesman Rodney Croome said his decision reflected a generational change in the Liberal Party.
“Wyatt Roy is representative of the strong support for marriage equality among young Australians, as well as the next generation of Liberals,” Mr Croome said.

Mr Roy joins fellow Liberals NSW MP Malcolm Turnbull, Victorian MP Kelly O’Dwyer and South Australian senator Simon Birmingham in backing same-sex marriage.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said earlier this week that his opposition to gay marriage “certainly hadn’t changed” and that he had given a commitment to the Christian lobby before the last election that he would not allow his MPs a conscience vote on the issue.

Mr Croome said Kevin Rudd’s decision to support gay marriage, particularly significant because of his firmly held religious beliefs, had proved to be a watershed moment.

“Kevin Rudd’s support for marriage equality is proving a game changer, especially in Queensland, with Wyatt Roy, as well as Mr Rudd’s challenger, Bill Glasson, both coming out in support in recent days.”

Mr Rudd said today he had noted Mr Roy’s position.

“Does he also support Mr Abbott’s refusal to grant a conscience vote?” Mr Rudd said. “Mr Abbott has effectively denied half the Australian Parliament the ability to exercise their individual consciences on this question – and their ability to vote one way or the other.”

The changing politics of the issue in Queensland places further pressure on Brisbane Liberal MP Teresa Gambaro to get behind the issue, Mr Croome said. Ms Gambaro has sent mixed signals about her position on the issue.

“If the matter does come up, I expect it would be debated like any other matter,” Ms Gambaro said. “I will respectfully listen to all views, reflect on the issue, talk to my community and talk to my colleagues.”

Author: Daniel Piotrowski
Publication: news.com.au
Publication Date: May 24 2013

• Self acceptance, bullying leads to suicide in teens
• Study: Gay teens five times more likely to suicide
• First opening gay bishop conducting seminars on gay marriage
• “Progress towards gay marriage is inevitable,” he says

ONE of the world’s most high-profile gay rights advocates has urged Prime Minister Julia Gillard to support gay marriage and help end suicide by gay teenagers.

Gene Robinson, an adviser to US President Barack Obama on gay marriage, said prohibiting gay marriage was a form of oppression that denied hope to lonely and isolated gay teens.

“I would remind her of the importance of leadership [on this issue],” said Mr Robinson, who encouraged Ms Gillard to follow Kevin Rudd’s declaration of support.

“There is no overstating what a difference that can make to the 15-year-old who is going to hang himself because of all the negative things he has been hearing about being homosexual.

“I’m not talking about urban kids in the elite areas of Sydney or Melbourne, but someone in a tiny town far, far away from the city who feels isolated and hopeless.

“It’s about giving kids the hope that one day, like everyone else, they can be happy, get married and have a family, whether it’s two mothers, two fathers.

“The progress towards gay marriage is inevitable and time is important, otherwise we have young people jumping off bridges.”

A 2011 study by New York’s Columbia University found that gay, lesbian and bisexual teens were five times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts due to bullying, discrimination and self acceptance.

Brisbane psychologist Dr Paul Martin told news.com.au that, in Australia, gay and lesbian teens without parental support were eight times more likely to attempt suicide than those who had parental support, but also many times more suicidal than their heterosexual peers.

Mr Robinson, the world’s first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal (Anglican) Church, has flown in from the US to conduct a series of seminars about gay marriage and will meet NSW politicians at Parliament House in Sydney this afternoon.

Over his 40-year priesthood, Mr Robinson has campaigned against racism and for HIV/AIDs awareness and women’s right to abortion.

He delivered the invocation for Obama’s first inauguration ceremony and when he married his long-term partner in a civil union in 2008, Mr Robinson said the president “congratulated us, hoping we found the kind of happiness he and Michelle had found”.

Mr Robinson said Obama’s public endorsement of gay marriage had inspired US states to change their laws, and had encouraged Americans to publicly come out in support of homosexuality.

In Australia he hopes to change the minds of Anglican, Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders who have come out against gay marriage. He said religious groups’ opposition would be seen in the future as similar to their support of slavery in past eras.

“Churches have come to apologise and ask forgiveness for using scripture to support slavery,” he said.
“There are only six or seven passages in the Bible which are used in terms of homosexuality, and they cannot be taken in a modern day context.”

Mr Robinson encouraged Ms Gillard to “listen to her constituents and to the people of Australia”.

“Your former prime minister Kevin Rudd put it so wonderfully, and it was reminiscent of Barack Obama,” he said. “What I love about [Rudd's pro gay marriage] statement is that he alludes to the process of evolution.

“Every family knows someone who is homosexual. They have a colleague or a family member or a friend. It’s hard to find anyone under 30 who understands why gay marriage is such a big issue.”

Dr Paul Martin said self acceptance and bullying by peers were the leading causes of suicide and depression in teens.

He said parents needed to be mindful of what they said so children were able to feel comfortable coming to terms with their sexuality.

“Young people are at the highest risk of suicide in the process of coming out,” he said.

“The thing that causes distress is the fear of rejection, isolation and shame and it is particularly potent when it comes from their parents.

“The stuff that the Christian lobby is coming out with now about the children of gay and lesbian families being the so-called ‘stolen generation’ will only reinforce the feelings of kids that if they come out they are no good, sinful or disordered.”

Readers seeking support and information about suicide prevention can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Author: Candiace Sutton
Publication: News.com.au
Publication Date: May 23 2013

UK Prime Minister has attempted to heal the rift in the Conservative party by saying marriage equality opponents are not ‘bigoted’

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said the equal marriage bill in England and Wales will help gay teens ‘stand that bill taller’ today.

The Conservative leader also attempted to heal divisions in his party by insisting marriage equality opponents were not ‘bigoted’.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he said: ‘There will be young boys in schools today who are gay, who are worried about being bullied, who are worried about what society thinks about them, who can see the highest parliament in the land has said that their love is worth the same as anyone else’s love.’

Cameron added: ‘I think they will stand that bit taller today.’

Yesterday (21 May), the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill overwhelmingly passed the third reading by 366 votes to 161 – a majority of 205.

More Tories voted against the bill than for it, 133 to 117.

Acknowledging same-sex marriage had divided the Conservative party, Cameron insisted it was the right thing for England and Wales.

‘I am proud that legislation has now passed the House of Commons, that is a good thing,’ he said.

‘I think it’s important we have this degree of equality. I say that as someone who is a massive supporter of marriage. It’s such a good institution it should be available to gay people as well as heterosexual people.’

Some backbench MPs have blamed same-sex marriage for the drop in Conservative support in the polls.

Nadine Dorries, MP for mid-Bedfordshire, tweeted: ‘So, we dropped to 27 points in tonight’s polls. That gay marriage thing is really working for us.’

Former cabinet minister Norman Tebbit said ministers had ‘really fucked things up’, and claimed marriage equality would lead to lesbian queens and fathers marrying sons.

But Cameron believes the equal marriage opponents are ‘wrong-headed or bigoted’.

‘This is a different point of view but we should respect each other,’ he said.

‘There is plenty of room in a modern party like the Conservative party to have people who are opponents of gay marriage and proponents of gay marriage.’

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill has now moved to the House of Lords, where it is expected to cause will now move to the House of Lords, where it is expected to start discussion in a couple of weeks.

Author:Joe Morgan
Publication: Gay Star News
Publication Date: May 22 2013

However, figures as diverse in outlook as Tony Windsor, Fred Nile and Gerard Henderson have all welcomed the idea.

Is it only a coincidence that those receptive to a referendum have been opposed to marriage equality, or noncommittal at any rate?

Actually, the pattern might have been predicted, and is not unique to Australia. Conservative Party figures in Britain demanded a referendum on the issue after prime minister David Cameron threw in his lot with marriage equality in 2012.

Let’s be clear about what a referendum in Australia is meant to resolve. Party discipline has so far been foisted upon an issue which many would consider to be a matter of conscience.

If a conscience vote were allowed across all parties, a bill amending the Marriage Act would very likely pass both houses of parliament. In the absence of a conscience vote – and confronting what looks to be an impasse in the national parliament – a referendum is meant to side-step the process altogether by submitting the issue directly to the people.

Why then might those who stand most to benefit from a referendum be opposed to one? And, conversely, why would those who stand to lose their present advantage be in favour of one?

Prominent gay rights advocates have raised concerns about the effects a negatively charged “no” campaign could have on the mental health and wellbeing of young gay and lesbian people, particularly those still coming to terms with their sexuality.

It is feared that old prejudices will resurface that have long been outdated, with divisions, animosities and misinformation rife. It is also argued that direct democracy is typically reserved for constitutional amendments, and should not be necessary when the simplest of amendments to an existing act of parliament would suffice.

These mental health concerns are not misplaced, and should be taken seriously: so too should the anxieties surrounding extremist partisans stoking irrational fears and hatreds.

But there’s a deeper reason why a referendum should not be the method of choice for resolving important social questions of this nature. The answer here goes some way to explaining why the pattern of those for and against a referendum falls the way it does.

For those who see this issue as concerning basic human rights and citizen equality, a successful referendum cannot confer any more legitimacy upon the right than it has already. All kinds of matters might be put to a court of public opinion, but the rights of minorities to fair and equal treatment before the law and access to the same civic institutions as everybody else are simply not matters fit for public approval.

For example, if the public declined to return a vote in favour of some basic human right for a certain minority, the result could not be recognised as decisive of that minority’s rights. While this might sound anti-democratic, it is nothing of the sort.

Referendums are usually reserved for constitutional amendments. AAP/Dean Lewins

All genuine liberal-democracies are premised on self-determination, maximally compatible freedoms, equal say, mutual tolerance and inclusion. All genuine liberal-democracies are attempts to form a kind of social compact, what the philosopher John Gray has called a modus vivendi between different ways of life.

No bloc majority of citizens can remove or withhold the basic rights enjoyed by all those included in the citizenry, since these rights are, as the legal philosopher Jeremy Waldron has explained, the preconditions of a social compact being formed that melds so many different ways of life together.

All of this explains why opponents of same-sex marriage would only be too willing to submit the issue to a popular vote. Many might not be opposed to civil unions, or in any conscious way seek to delegitimise gay and lesbian relationships.

But the question of same-sex marriage is not, for its opponents, a question concerning basic human rights and equality. To them, same-sex marriage lies outside the class of rights and freedoms that are non-negotiable, and unsurprisingly, therefore, is an issue suited to resolution by popular vote.

In the end, the stance against a referendum can only be maintained consistently – and without insult to democracy – if the issue of same-sex marriage is viewed as one in which basic civil rights and freedoms are at stake.

A referendum is not the best way to proceed in a matter where majorities cannot have the final say. Of course, this is not to concede that elected majorities, like parliaments, should have the final say.

It merely appreciates that parliamentary deliberative processes, on the whole, are likely to be less divisive and inflammatory than alternative methods of collective decision-making.

Author:John Zerilli
Publication: The conversation
Publication Date: May 22 2013

Since the establishment of the organisation in 2000, I have travelled the length and breadth of the country. I have addressed hundreds of large and small gatherings talking about depression and issues relating to mental health.

In the course of those 14 years, I have met and talked to thousands of Australians about their struggle with anxiety, depression and serious forms of mental illness.

For so many sufferers, the barrier to a return to good health has often been the fear of being ridiculed, or discriminated against if they sought help.

I have met many people who have a physical or intellectual disability, or are indigenous or have a skin colour other than white. Why do some discriminate because of colour or place of birth? Why do we discriminate because of disability?

We may argue we do not, but the reality is we do. Governments do.

Their laws and practices discriminate in favour of the able, the strong, and the intellectually able. The National Disability Insurance Scheme seeks to redress the discrimination against disability. True, there is a great deal of work to be done to secure the positive outcome many think possible, but the fuse has been lit.

Think back on how far we have moved toward a more tolerant society in the past 20 or so years.

Twenty years ago, Nicky Winmar, the former St Kilda player, lifted his jumper to proudly display his colour in protest against racial discrimination within the community and sport.

Twenty years ago, mental health issues were fundamentally swept under the carpet.

Twenty years ago, to be gay or a lesbian was almost a death sentence.

Twenty years ago, for the majority, disability was almost the fault of the person with the disability.

Today, while there is still a great distance to go in delivering what many think possible in addressing a whole suite of discriminations, society is profoundly more tolerant.

Victoria has always been a leader in the area of tolerance, of multiculturalism, in trying to improve conditions for those suffering a mental illness. This leadership, in advocacy, in provision of services and the public rejection of intolerant views, has been bipartisan.

To the credit of both the major parties in Victoria, Liberal and Labor, when in government or opposition, their consistent advocacy and actions in support of tolerance has contributed to our reputation for compassion.

The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has introduced legislation into the Australian Parliament that will give rise to collecting part of the funds necessary to fund DisabilityCare. As she introduced the legislation, she was close to tears.

Some have sought to question the emotions she displayed at the time. Why? It was for her – and for the community the scheme aims to assist – a moment like no other.

I did not doubt for one moment the sincerity with which the Prime Minister introduced the legislation to raise the Medicare levy to help fund DisabilityCare. But there remains much to be done to deliver the dream.

This week, Kevin Rudd indicated he had changed his views on gay marriage. The current laws of the land declare gay unions to be illegal by recognising marriage only as the union of a male and female.

But does not the current law positively discriminate against otherwise law-abiding citizens who simply want to live together in the same way as heterosexuals do?

I used to support the current law, but changed my mind when I asked myself why should I deny anyone else the same opportunity to live as happy a life as I have been fortunate to live.

Why discriminate against those who are just being themselves?

I now know that there is a very high suicide rate among the GLBTI (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex) community. It is not because those individuals are gay, it is because of the difficulty they have in leading a “normal life” without discrimination.

It is the way many in the community discriminate against gay people that kills them, not sexuality itself.

So many in the media have described Rudd’s new position as a “backflip”.

Surely, that is grossly unfair. Surely, one can change one’s views on a subject within one’s lifetime based on new information or better education.

In private life, if we change a view on an issue, that is invariably described as a changed position.

If you are a politician, it is described so as to imply some sort of embarrassment – a backflip.

A position on a social issue is a view, not a commitment as was the promise: “There will be no carbon tax in any government I lead.”

So I welcome Rudd’s changed position. It recognises the need to remove discrimination against those who simply want to live a happy, law-abiding life.

I recognise that there are many in the country who support the current law. They should not be demonised. That is their right.

It remains to those of us who support changing the law to continue the advocacy, to convince the majority of the correctness of changing the definition of marriage.

If we can’t do that in an orderly way, our campaign fails for now.

Discrimination is so hurtful, in all its forms. I ask you again, why should any of us discriminate against people who are just being themselves?

Jeff Kennett is a former Victorian premier

Author: Jeff Kennett
Publication: Herald Sun
Publication Date: May 22 2013

Finance Minister Penny Wong has condemned the Australian Christian Lobby over comments likening children of same-sex couples to the stolen generations, saying the group’s “bigotry” has no place in modern Australia.

Senator Wong, who is a lesbian, a mother and a Christian, said comments made on Tuesday by the the ACL’s managing director Lyle Shelton “demonstrated just how out of touch they are”.

Within hours of former prime minister Kevin Rudd announcing his change of heart on same sex marriage, the lobby group published a press release on its website saying: “The prime minister who rightly gave an apology to the stolen generation has sadly not thought through the fact that his new position on redefining marriage will create another.”

This new “stolen generation” would come about “because of the use of technology to sever a child from its biological parent in order that same sex couples could realise their desire to have children”, Mr Shelton later told the ABC.

The stolen generations refers to children of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent who were removed from their families under acts of parliament over several decades.
Asked about Mr Shelton’s comments on Tuesday afternoon, Senator Wong said “this sort of bigotry really has no place in modern Australia”.

“Regardless of his views on marriage equality, same-sex families exist and we have children,” Senator Wong said.

“Our children are loved and our children are cherished and they deserve far more than the sort of peddling of prejudice we’ve seen.

“I don’t think the ACL speak for all people of faith in this country.”

Senator Wong welcomed Mr Rudd’s change of position on marriage equality.

Of the 71 Labor MPs in the House of Representatives, about 40 support same sex marriage legislation, according to Labor backbencher Stephen Jones.

However, Mr Jones, who has been one of the most vocal advocates of changing the law to allow gay couples to marry, doubted Mr Rudd’s announcement would change much in this parliament.

“The only thing that’s going to change the issue in this parliament is if Tony Abbott allows a conscience vote,” Mr Jones said.

Author: Jonathan Swan
Publication: The Age
Publication Date: May 21 2013

The importance of Kevin Rudd’s change of heart on marriage equality can’t be overestimated.

The former prime minister remains an influential political figure with significant support in the ALP.

It is inevitable that his public ”coming out” as a marriage equality supporter will prompt other MPs to do the same.

Rudd stirs marriage debate
Kevin Rudd’s shift to support same-sex marriage has intensified debate on the issue and forced party leaders to re-state their opposition.

Already, another former Labor frontbencher, Joel Fitzgibbon, has indicated he may change his mind on the issue.

Other MPs teetering on the edge of supporting marriage equality will also be inspired to follow Rudd.

But where Rudd’s influence will be greatest is among people of faith.

When he was prime minister, Rudd made much of his Christian values and their influence on his politics.

He remains one of Australia’s most prominent Christian politicians and Christian public intellectuals.

Rudd has immense credit with many people of faith who remain conflicted about marriage equality.

There is great value in his message that Christians should neither be forced to recognise same-sex marriages, nor should they force their values on others through civil law.

But his most important message to people of faith is that they can support marriage equality not despite their faith but because of it.

The story of how Kevin Rudd came to support marriage equality – through a conversation with a former staffer and fellow Christian who is gay and wants to marry – is also important.

It is a reminder that many gay people support marriage equality not just because they desire legal equality, but because they value marriage, family and faith.

It is also a reminder that ultimately what drives the marriage equality is not politics or policy but the deeply personal stories of those who are affected by exclusion.

Inevitably, there will be cynicism about Rudd’s change of heart and the timing of his announcement, including among supporters of marriage equality who believe it should have happened when he was prime minister.

It’s undeniable that Rudd’s announcement has political implications.

His support for marriage equality differentiates him from both Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Tony Abbott.

Both Gillard the atheist and Abbott the Christian now have one less excuse for their opposition to change.

But I urge those who dismiss Kevin Rudd’s conversion as mere posturing to adopt a more generous attitude.

There are still many older, socially conservative, religious and rural Australians who are conflicted about marriage equality.

Their support will be crucial to achieving reform, especially when it comes to convincing the Coalition to allow a conscience vote.
Embracing Kevin Rudd’s change of heart sends them the message that their evolution on the issue is welcomed too.

Negating Rudd’s announcement says to them they will be judged harshly whatever position they adopt, providing them with no incentive to change.
Marriage equality is not a symbol of some people’s moral superiority over others.

If anything, it is a symbol of the journey the entire nation is on towards greater equality and inclusion.

Historians will look back on Kevin Rudd’s support for marriage equality as one of the most important steps in that journey.

Rodney Croome is the national convener of Australian Marriage Equality.

Author: Rodney Croome
Publication: The Sydney Morning Herald
Publication Date: May 21 2013

Australian Marriage Equality national director, Rodney Croome, said,

“It’s a welcome development to see MPs like Mr Hawke, who oppose marriage equality, nonetheless supporting a conscience vote.”

“As at 10am this morning 156,000 letters had been sent by marriage equality supporters through the AME website to Coalition candidates asking them to support a conscience vote.”

“We are pleased Liberals like Mr Hawke are responding to strong public support for the Coalition to move forward on marriage equality.”

A national poll conducted last year by Galaxy Research found 73% of Australians support a Coalition conscience vote on marriage equality.

Mr Hawke has said a conscience vote should occur after the next election. His comments came in the wake of support for marriage equality from former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.

For more on Mr Hawke’s stance, click here.

For more information contact Rodney Croome on 0409 010 668.

Stolen generation advocates call for Chrisian Lobby apology for “disrespectful” and “dehumanizing” Marriage Equality comments

Advocates for the Stolen Generations have called for an apology from the Australian Christian Lobby for comparing the forced removal of Indigenous People from their families to same-sex couples marrying and having children.

Pastor Ray Minniecon, CEO of Kinchela Boys Home Aboriginal Corporation, a Stolen Generations Service for Indigenous men and their families, said,

“As a representative organization for the Stolen Generations, we are deeply concerned by the comments made by Lyle Sheldon on behalf of the Australian Christian Lobby comparing former Prime Minister Rudd’s support for marriage equality with creating another Stolen Generation.”

“The assimilation policy of forced removal of children from their homes and the subsequent abuse of those children is no way comparable to the desire of a loving couple to have a child and have their relationship recognized.”

“It is disrespectful to the current Stolen Generations, their history and their families.”

“It is also dehumanising and demonising of gay couples and their desire for marriage and family.”

“We call on Lyle Sheldon to apologize to the Stolen Generations and to the gay community for this comparison.”

“We call on other Christian leaders to publicly repudiate Lyle and the Australian Christian Lobby and to back our call for an apology.”

Today, Mr Shelton responded to former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd’s, support for marriage equality by recalling Mr Rudd’s landmark apology to the Stolen Generations in 2007.
According to Mr Shelton allowing same-sex couples to marry will “rob children of their biological identity” creating another “stolen generation”.

This is despite the fact that many Australian same-sex couples are already raising children and are recognised in state and federal law as the legal parents of these children.

For more information contact Pastor Ray Minniecon on 0487-530-703

Author: Pastor Ray Minniecon
Publication: AME Media Release
Publication Date: May 21 2013