A secretary for social exclusion
August 13 has become a day of shame for the ALP for the second time in five years.
First was Labor’s support for the 2004 ban on same-sex marriage. This time it’s dignifying the Christian right’s National Marriage Day with the presence of its Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion, Ursula Stephens.
The callous symbolism of the date could not have escaped the Government or Stephens -鈥� after all, she voted for the ban. That the event was a festival of exclusion was obvious from the start. If a simple gabfest on the value of marriage, where were the Muslim speakers, or the Hindus, or Buddhists? They marry too.
Co-organisers the Australian Family Association made clear what it was really about. Did you know that the meaning and legal standing of marriage is under threat again? A Greens bill脗聽 will re-define marriage as a union between -藴any two people’, and the Tasmanian Labor Conference -娄 passed a motion that there should be equal access to marriage under Australian law, regardless of sex.
Stephens’ address was fairly bland, but in 2007 she boasted to a gathering of Baptists that her脗聽 politics and Christianity intersect all the time, and not just when those -藴moral majority’ issues crop up -娄 I am not the only Member of Parliament committed to using this position to help make Christ’s teaching a reality.
Stephens is president of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship and Labor MPs are well represented among its almost 90 members.
The two boards that inform the Federal Government’s Social Inclusion regime and report to Stephens are also heavily stacked with Christians. Its Community Task Force contains eight representatives of church groups on a board of 13, while its Social Inclusion Board has another five. Not a single representative of the gay community can found among them despite our marginal status, and sexual minorities factor nowhere on the list of priorities.
While the ALP keeps trumpetinglast year’s reforms, same-sex couples remain excluded from equal treatment under Federal law -鈥� excluded from the certainty that their wishes will be honoured by private superannuation funds, excluded from grandfathering to pension changes afforded other older Australians, excluded from equal respect for their relationships in marriage or a legally recognised ceremony under another name.
New exclusions look set to continue under this Government, with the certainty that any anti-discrimination laws it passes will contain loopholes for religious groups, and with planned anti-terror laws making it an offence to incite violence against individuals based on race, religion or nationality -鈥� but not sexuality -鈥� despite abundant examples of terrorism directed at GLBT people around the world.
It doesn’t sound as if we have progressed as a society from 400 AD, when the Emporer and Church ordered all non-christians killed and any pagan books of faith to be burned.
I believe that we all have the right to believe in whatever we want. What we do not have the right to do is force your private beliefs on others. I am a Pagan, and feel offended the local primary school tries to force my child into RE. Religious beliefs are personal and private. They should not be used to subvert, over-rule, ostricise, or strike against any other human.
How can Parliament put Ursula Stephens into a role of head of social inclusion? Oh, that’s right, as long as you are of a Christian faith, Hetrosexual, not on welfare, and probably White, you will be just fine under her rule. I thought “Social Inclusion” meant Everybody and Equality – silly me.
Ben- We should definitely be more welcoming of members of progressive religious denominations who have it in their hearts to support us- and some of us could treat GLBT Christians with a greater deal of respect.
However it is precisely the lack of respect for the separation of church and state and the secular democracy in which we live that is demonstrated in the Lord’s Prayer being read at the start of each day by Parliamentary Standing Order that is holding up our progression to becoming full and equal members of this society.
I have no problem with Christians serving as MPs or Senators in our Parliament provided they are prepared to put the needs of their electorates before their private religious taboos.
If Christian MPs want to pray before the start of Parliament they should by all means be given a room outside the chamber to do so, but such prayers should not be incorporated into Parliamentary proceedings in any formal manner.
If in the event of a terrible catastrophe or the like being announced in the chamber, I have no problem with the Speaker calling for a moment of quiet reflection or silence in which religious MPs might pray quietly in their seats, and non-religious MPs might reflect on said occurrence in their own quiet ways.
I have no problem that there exists a Parliamentary Christian Fellowship.
However, I do not think it is appropriate for the Government to appoint its President to an office responsible for Social Inclusion, or that the boards that report to her are so uninclusive.
As someone born in Ireland I would like to think that Ursula Stephens would know better than to support an event like National Marriage Day when it parallels so closely with one of the most ugly faces of the Irish Catholic/Protestant divide- the Orange Day Marches held on the anniversary of the Protestant king, William of Orange’s defeat of the Catholic James II at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.
To this day, Protestant Irish “Orange Men” parade through Catholic neighbourhoods on the 12 of July in an ugly celebration of anti-Catholic triumphalism.
In the same way National Marriage Day is a hubristic celebration of a Christian victory over the GLBT population of this country and if they get their way, it will be a national celebration held every year with the endorsement of Government.
And for the record- although I do not identify with any organised religion, I am not an atheist, and were I sitting in the Parliament I would expect to be held to the exact same expectations in relation to my beliefs.
Andrew, earlier you made the valid point that the same-sex marriage campaign needs to reach out to supporters in faith movements (Churches).
We should not campaign against reciting the Lords Prayer, or attack politicians for being part of a church/synagogue/mosque.
Faith and belief in God are not exclusive to homphobics. Let’s get back to focusing on advancing our rights.
Good thinking Brendan- why not print out a whole bunch and take them with you to the next house party or dinner party you go to- ditto for Australian Marriage Equality’s same-sex marriage petition.
As Christian ultra-conservatives continue to thwart the right and custom of marriage for same-sex couples, it seems only fair to demand that THEIR imposing religious customs be excised from Australia’s public institutions.
In today’s era of religious lobbyists, our semi-separation of church and state is untenable. As evidenced by Stephens’ 2007 comments (quoted above) and the very existence of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, it poses an ongoing undue influence upon our polity. It allows conflicts between public and sectarian interests to go unchecked. For example, exactly whose interests are being served by Parliamentary Standing Orders which impose a daily recital of the Lord’s Prayer? What potential influence does that hold over elected representatives when they are subject to lobbying on a range of issues by adherents of that prayer? This undermines confidence in our politics. It does religion no favours either.
For starters, help end this mandatory prayer. Two petitions asking that Prayers be removed from the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives and Senate respectively are available from
Download, print and fill out a pair of petitions. For the House petition, leave the principal petitioner blank *or* only use the second page to collect signatures. Print extra pages if needed. It is important that *both* petitions are signed. The House and Senate have separate Standing Orders. The prayers are slightly different in each. The required format for Senate petitions is also different to House petitions. This all means that a separate petition is required for each chamber.
The Senate petition must be presented by a Senator. The office of Senator Bob Brown has confirmed that he will present the Senate petition on signatories’ behalf, so all that needs to be done is collect the signatures then post them back for collation and forwarding to Canberra. Originals of completed petitions (cannot be faxed or electronic copy) may be returned to:
Parliament Prayer Petitions
PO BOX U94
University of Wollongong NSW 2500
SEE ALSO:
End Mandatory Prayer in the Aussie Parliament
Aussies for Separation of Church & State
Keep God out of our democracy
As a Labor member this brings me great shame… shame on Kevin Rudd.