The
OPI GSL Wedding Page.
The OPI GSL passionately support the right
of GLBTIQ people to marriage in every sense of the word. The OPI would like
to invite all community members to send in letters and comments concerning
the GLBTIQ Marriage. We are especially interested in hearing about the stories
of people who have gotten married. We are offering this as a service to
the GLBTIQ community as part of our community building vow. N.B. OPI don't
endorse all the views or claims that are made in correspondence and articles
published. Please send your stories to theconvent@opigsl.org
Don't forget to visit Bully the Toad at our Help Desk & Media Page before you leave!!!
Mother Abbess with Holy Relics in the Marriage Chapel of the Black Swan @ Fairday where 20 couples took up our offer of a 30 Day PRIDE Marriage Special. Good Luck to all the Brides and Grooms. Pics in our Spring NEW Gay Newspaper 2006.
‘Marriage Think Tank 1’.
“Preliminary Quantitative Results from an Ongoing Survey.”
The OPI GSL 'Marriage Think Tank 1' was conducted as part of the Marriage Chapel of the Black Swan. The aim was to collect some tangible data in regards to 5 questions relating to GLBTIQ Marriage. This is an ongoing survey. The results in this ‘report’ are from survey forms collected at PRIDE Fairday 2006. A full report with a comprehensive analysis of all quantitative and qualitative responses will be made available following the survey collection and data analysis process. The OPI GSL would like to thank all the members of the gathered faithful who have completed our survey!
Click here to download the report in pdf form
82.48% of people said that if Western Australia had a legal GLBTIQ form of marriage they would get married!
92.07% of people indicated 3, 4 or 5 support for GLBTIQ marriage ceremonial/ritual rights.
89.92% of people indicated that the marriage model should be selected via a whole of community consultation process!
86.36% of people believe that a GLBTIQ form of relationship recognition will NOT undermine the institution or the sanctity of heterosexual marriage!
Update on the Second GLBTIQ Marriage Forum sent to us from the Office of Louise Pratt MLC.
The meeting went well with 34 people attending. Some of the outcomes from the meeting are-
1) Name of group is ‘Equal Love WA’
2) Rod putting website/email together
3) Kitty and co. are putting together a information flier for Fairday
4) Volunteers confirmed to handout fliers for Fairday
5) Bloggs and online discussions to be created to guage community awareness
and to educate
6) Work with 'Get Up' when we have info on model
This will be the catch phrase on fliers etc:
Equal Love WA
Relationship Recognition
- Working towards relationship recognition and equality on a State and Federal
level.
The flier will say who we are, what we are setting out to do and what we are trying to achieve as a collective. It will mention what has transpired so far from the forum and first meeting and the steps that are to be taken next. As well as, the direction and outcomes that we need to pursue for a successful campaign.
Zoë was great at facilitating the meeting and everyone was enthusiastic and positive.
The next meeting is set for the 10th October at Lotteries House... TBC
The email list has been created. People can subscribe by sending an email to equal-love-wa-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.au, or by going to the yahoogroups.com.au and joining the group equal-love-wa
From Senator Rachel Siewert, Australian Greens Senator for Western Australia.
Thankyou to Senator Siewert for sending this article in to the OPI. Members of the Gathered Faithful wishing to find out more about the valuable work of Senator Siewert should visit: http://www.rachelsiewert.org.au/
Uncivil debate on civil unions
15th Jun 06
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY CIVIL UNIONS LEGISLATION
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia) (12.36 p.m.)— I rise to support this motion for the disallowance of an instrument made by the Governor-General disallowing the ACT’s Civil Unions Act, and to appeal to senators on both sides of the House to simply accede to common sense. My colleagues have very clearly outlined our position on this motion. However, I felt compelled also to make a brief statement so that I could look into the eyes of the thousands of Australians who are being affected by the government’s action. I did it particularly so that I could look into the eyes of my friends and loved ones who could be affected by this government, so that I can say I did everything I could to uphold the meaning and value of the long-term, committed relationships that they have been in and are in. We value those relationships.
Whether the Prime Minister likes it or not, as of 2004 there were at least 20,000 couples, 40,000 people—these figures come from the Australian Bureau of Statistics—who want to be married, are living as married couples and are not heterosexual.These people confirmed it through the census process. They are part of the lesbian, gay and transgender community, and more importantly they are part of the Australian community.Once again Australia has been dragged along behind George W Bush. President Bush introduces a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages; John Howard decides he wants a crackdown here too.There is no contentious point of constitutional law here. Let us call this what it is; it is simply homophobia dressed up in a bogus argument about the rights of states and territories to govern themselves, and in other spurious arguments.
You have to accept that these 40,000 Australians are equal citizens in law. What we are talking about is making them unequal in law. Having specifically excluded their rights to marry under Commonwealth law in 2004, the Prime Minister is now pursuing them via this shambolic and heavy-handed process of overturning an act that passed lawfully through the ACT Legislative Assembly.The Commonwealth government has provided no coherent rationale for whose interests it is protecting in this attack on the rights of same-sex couples to be treated equally by the law. We have not been told whose interests are being harmed by what the ACT Legislative Assembly has done. In fact, what it has done is to make these people equal before the law.
The Prime Minister and Attorney-General have fallen back on vague, unsupported claims that the institution of marriage has been undermined. I would like the government to show me how this institution has been undermined in any of the states around the world where commonsense has won over prejudice and discrimination. Can the government show that the institution has been undermined in Canada, the Netherlands or Spain? Of course it cannot.
I want to remind the Prime Minister and those who follow his lead that real people in committed relationships are harmed by intolerance. I want to quote from a letter that I received this morning from friends of mine in Western Australia who had to travel to Canada to have their marriage recognised in law.This is from Graham and Damian Douglas-Meyer:
This is a pic of Perth's First Gay Couple! Bears Perth Inc President Paul Hayter and Former BPI Prez, Michael Middleton were the firstgay male couple to get married in Western Australia at the Burswood Resort following the law reforms, 4 years ago.
Even though we were covered in WA by some of the best de facto laws in
the country, we wanted to demonstrate our committment to each other, in
the same way our siblings have demonstrated their committment to their respective
partners.The symbolic and ceremonial aspects of our siblings marriages were
important to our families and we felt strongly that we wanted the same.We
held a committment ceremony in Perth in May 2004 with all of our family
and friends and had our union blessed by an Anglican priest. Even though
this had no legal standing, it was to us, and to our families, our wedding
ceremony.
However, we also wanted to gain the recognition from the wider community.
Our siblings were all married and had a state-sanctioned contract to that
effect. We could not do the same in Australia. However Canada had recently
changed it’s laws to allow same sex couples to marry and non-residents were
welcome to access those laws.So after our wedding, we flew to Toronto and
were married, legally under Canadian law, on March 26, 2004 in Toronto City
Hall. Our marriage is registered with the Registrar General of the province
of Ontario in the exact same way as any heterosexual couple. There is no
difference.Returning to Australia, of course, our marriage wasn’t recognised,
but we are still married. Under the Hague Convention for the celebration
and recognition of foriegn marriages, it should be recognised, but the passing
of the amendments to the Marriage Act on Black Friday, August 13 2004 put
paid to that.However, to us we are married. In Canada we are married. In
Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and the US state of Massechusetts we are
married as those jurisdictions all recognise foreign same-sex marriages.
In New Zealand our marriage is a civil union; In the UK it is a civil partnership; both automatically. In Tasmania, it is automatically equivalent to a registered domestic partnership.And in the ACT it was to have been recognised as a civil union, and we hope that, from today, it will be again when the Senate re-instates the ACT Civil Unions Act.However, in the eyes of our family and friends, and most importantly in our hearts we are married; we are husband and husband.
From the Mother Abbess of the Great Southern Land.
There is a lot of debate about which marriage/civil union model we should adopt for the GLBTIQ community.
At the civil unions forum which I attended there was discussion about models and it was suggested that the best model, that would be acceptable to the homophobes and the christian right, and thus with a better chance to get passed into legislation, was one without a ritual or ceremonial aspect. It was suggested that a model including the ritual or ceremonial aspect would be seen by those that oppose GLBTIQ human rights as too threatening or as us poofs and leso’s stealing their (heterosexual) holy sacred rituals or rites of passage and thus settling for a model without public celebration would have more chance of being passed into law.
This is not only a debate about legal rights but about the spiritual rights of all people. Parliament isn’t the place for spiritual debate and religion should not be the foundation of laws passed. It is a fact, however, that seats in our parliaments have been taken by the far right and christian fundamentalists, whose agenda is to impose upon Australia a very narrow archaic judeo-christian view of the world, that does not take into account modern multi cultural realities and changes of belief systems. These people, who have the luxury of being able to assume the human right to marry as a given, should not influence or make GLBTIQ people compromise the type of marriage model that we should have.
Our community has to be careful that that religious fundamentalists, atheists and (closet) Roman Catholics, whose agenda is always to oppose equal human rights for GLBTIQ people, don’t hijack this debate so that we end up laws that meet their needs only. We are not spiritually 2nd class citizens. Marriage can for some GLBTIQ people be a profound spiritual experience too and our voices need to be heard as well.
Ritual and ceremony are essential symbols that define communities. They are important to all people as a rite of passage, and exist on a spiritual level too as well as being a public acknowledgment of one person’s love for another which occurs in the presence of the other people we love as well. Heterosexuals have this choice to have a legal ceremony or to have a civil ceremony that does not include ritual and both forms are recognized by law.
When
we ask for laws to be passed to recognize our right to marriage, aren’t
we just asking for the same rights as heterosexual couples to be married?
It is not after all ‘special’ rights but equal rights that we are asking
for. If the model put forward, doesn’t include a legal from of ritual or
ceremony, as is the case in heterosexual ‘NORMAL’ marriages, then aren’t
we asking for something less?
Our aim should be to ask for equal rights and the right to choose to be married with a ritual or ceremony should be an integral part of the legislation put forward. To ask for anything less would be to pander to the belief’s of the heterosexual far right and would be a statement from our community that we are not spiritually equal and an acceptance that our marriages are 2nd class in the eyes of the law and our and their gods and goddess’.
Getting marriage legislation through parliament might be difficult and this might be why a lot of the political GLBTIQ community are looking for a model that does not threaten the far right, but when we ask for something less than the heterosexual community is entitled to, doesn’t that say something more about us than the far right.
We have always had to compromise on any legislation that has involved the GLBTIQ community but this is something we should not do in this case. GLBTIQ people are not 2nd class citizens and we should not opt for a 2nd class form of marriage.
MAY
THE BLACK SWAN PROTECT YOU AND SHIT FROM ABOVE ON THE FAR RIGHT CHRISTIANS.
The Mother Abbess Gretta Amyletta of the Holy Vapours. The Order of Perpetual Indulgence of the Great Southern Land. motherabbess@opigsl.org
1 + 1 does not = 0
GLBT people should have the civil
right to be married, in all sense of the word, to the person of their choice.
First published by CADT Photography: Reprinted from NEW Gay Newspaper, Autumn Edition, 2006.
The notion that allowing GLBT to marry will somehow compromise the 'sanctity of marriage' has as much sense as the world believing 'the earth is flat'. It is a nonsense that must be spoken against. 1 + 1 does not equal 0. Equality under law for GLBT people is not about 'special rights'! The term 'special rights' is a tool of language coined by those that oppose universal human rights.
The sky will not fall down on our heads if marriage and other basic human rights, are extended to GLBT People. Denying marriage rights to GLBT people functions to oppress the growth and empowerment of community. Lack of community disenfranchises, disconnects and destroys individuals with an insideous creeping movement! Right wing politicians have the denial of marriage as a tool to 'divide and conquer' that has more to do with silencing voices of dissent. Marginalisation is a harmful cultural practice that is used to remove the challenge of the 'other' and serves to concentrate power in hands that have grown used to possession without sharing.
This marginalisation of individuals serves to continue to define the GLBT community as 'other'. The voice of the 'other' is always spoken from outside and as such is able to be ignored by the dominant (heteronormative) hierarchies. Those that oppose rights for GLBT people are attempting an intervention to prevent the evolution of civilisation. The 'cost' is that social justice, human rights, equal opportunity and freedom itself are undermined by the quest to retain the status quo. The 'pay-off' for the so called right wing is that society is being engineered to remain static.
Politicians need to be reminded that the numbers game of staying in power should not trample over community. A human right extended to one part of the community should be available to all members of society. Nation states need to be reminded that heterosexuality is just one form of sexuality and might does not always mean right!
Marriage should not be restricted only to heterosexuals,
or those claiming to be straight, but should be a civil right available
to all citizens.
James G. Rendell, Executive Director, The Caer-Awen Discretionary Trust, Perth, Western Australia.
(B.A. English and Religious Studies, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA. )
Wedding Photographs on this Page are of the First Gay Wedding
conducted at the Birmingham City Town Hall by the City's Celebrant in June
2004 reprinted with permission from CADT Photography.
Email: theconvent@opigsl.org
Web: www.opigsl.org
Above: The Small Shrine to the Holy Loon @ the Marriage Chapel of the Black Swan at Fairday 2006.
OPI GSL (WA) is sponsored by CADT Photography.