Against all religious exemptions

Lisbeth Latham

Religious exemptions to various anti-discrimination laws within Australian jurisdictions have come to the fore of public consciousness since the portions of the Phillip Rudock led the Expert Panel’s Review of Religious Freedom was leaked on October 9. Whilst much of the focus has been on the report’s recommendations regarding exemptions it has generated a broader discussion re religious freedom and how Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation works.

The Review of Religious Freedom has its origins in the 2017 Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey and in the subsequent process of legislating for marriage equality. At the time ultra-conservative sections of the Liberal Party pushed for dramatic expansion in the religious exemptions, which would have expanded religious exemptions to enable the denial of goods and services relating to marriage to any person holding a "religious belief" or "conscientious" belief not just about the nature of marriage, but about having children out of wedlock or the existence of trans or intersex people. At the time the LNP leadership rejected this legislative proposal but on November 22, 2017, offered a sop to the right (a section of which was in the party’s leadership) of establishing an enquiry into religious freedom.

A secret review
While any review of religious freedom established by the LNP would be a concern, per Yes Minister, you never commission unless you know the outcome beforehand, fears were escalated when it was revealed that the review would operate in secret with submissions, unlike normal enquiries, not to be made public. Which would mean that right would be able to make submissions that played up or simply fabricated without being subject to any public review or oversight. Following a public outcry, it was announced that all subsequent would be made public, but those who had already made secret submissions would be given the option of making their submission public. Following the closure of written submissions, a small number of closed hearings, where participants were promised that they would not be recorded.  The Review report was delivered to Cabinet on May 18, with no schedule for when it would be made public

Things could be worse, so its ok?
The leaked recommendations do not go as far in attacking the anti-discrimination as many feared it would, it fell far short of the objectives of in the alternative “Marriage Equality Bills” put forward by the ultra-conservative wing of the LNP. Indeed Liam Elphick, Amy MacGuire, and Anja Hilkemeijer argue that the report seeks to further constrains religious freedom in that it would require religious schools to have clearly articulated policies in order to have protection and must “act in the interest of students” when looking to discriminate against them – the fact that these religious schools would argue that acting against gay, lesbian, and trans students are in the interests of these students seeming to have escaped the authors. While at one level this is a reason for relief, the proposals are still toxic and reinforce the right of religious organisations to discriminate particularly in seeking to expand the right of religious schools to exclude students on the basis of the sexuality and gender identity, something that not all state anti-discrimination laws currently allow, and affirming the universal right of religious organisations to exclude staff based on their sexuality and gender identity.

Freedom to be bigots
Central to the logic of both the Review’s recommendations and the objectives of the religious right, is that religious beliefs give, as former attorney general George Brandis would say, a “right to be bigots” and that any impingement on this right is an impingement on religious freedom. However, as Anna Brown pointed out in response to the conservatives’ push to expand exemptions to the anti-discrimination acts in the Marriage Equality bill in 2017, whilst human rights laws internationally protect religious freedoms, these rights are not unfettered, and they do not extend to breaching the rights of others. However, for the religious right – religious freedom is not about freedom for religious minorities – indeed the religious right are happy for Australia’s Islamic community to be persecuted including mobilising polygamy as “dangerous consequence” of marriage equality which is a marriage practice which is permitted under a number religious and so they were happy to mobilise hostility to religious rights of marginalised groups as part of their campaign against the LGBTIQ+ community. Of course, our entire legal system is based on limits on the enforcement of religious doctrines

One of the ironic things about the recommendations of the Review report is that in asserting the importance of defending the right of religious organisations to discriminate on the grounds of gender and sexuality based on their doctrines, it at the same time rejects this right on other attributes, including race and intersex status, and thus accepts that it is appropriate for it to be curtailed in these circumstances. Which really begs the question how is being gay, or bisexual, trans or a woman, different from other attributes which the Review accepts that it is not ok to discriminate against? Importantly the Review, in seeking to defend and reinforce the right to discriminate creates a beachhead for an expansion in the right for religious organisations to expand their right to discriminate.

Dishonest
The argument that religious exemptions from sex discrimination acts are necessary to protect the religious convictions, are morally turgid but detached from reality that these exemptions do not prevent lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans workers from working for religious organisations, it just impacts on the circumstances in which they work. It means these workers will be deeply in the closet, they will have to hide significant aspects of their life from co-workers and live with anxiety when participating in activities within the LGBTIQA+ community for fear that someone with some connection to them at work seeing them. Research shows that being in the closet It means that a worker that no one has ever had any problem with regarding their performance or ability to meet the expectation associated with the organisations' doctrines could be lawfully dismissed on the grounds that their sexuality or gender if it is discovered.

In November 2017, Craig Campbell a relief teacher at a Baptist High School in Rockingham Western Australia (he had also previously studied at the school), having attended a family wedding with his partner but having to hide the relationship at the wedding because three students from the school were in attendance. Campbell told OUTInPerth “It got to this point where I was like, ‘I can’t hide this anymore.’” He also found it challenging to be a teacher who is supposed to instil values like honesty into students, while also being required to lie and cover up his own identity. In response, the school told him that he would no longer be given any work.

Roll back all religious based exemptions

The public response to the leaked report demonstrates that there is widespread opposition within Australia to discrimination on the grounds of sexuality and gender identity. This opposition has forced the Morrison government to make noises about removing exemptions which allow LGBTIQA+ students to be discriminated against by religious schools – however reports on negotiations over potential legislation to achieve this shows a desire on the part of the government not fully remove exemptions and to leave ambiguity as to what action schools will be able to take.

The public backlash has also resulted in the ALP, which had previously supported the existing religious exemptions, to join with the Greens, who have had a standing position against such exemptions, in moving a private members bill in the Senate on October 18. It remains unclear whether the opposition parties will have the numbers to pass the bill in both houses. It is important that all exemptions are removed in all Australian jurisdictions otherwise religious organisations, which employ more than 200, 000 workers across Australia, will remain free to discriminate on the grounds of gender and sexuality. This beachhead into anti-discrimination legislation would remain to be used to justify the further roll back protections should a future conservative government be willing to go against public opinions. For this reason, it is important all progressive forces commit to an ongoing campaign to rollback and overturn all religious exemptions in Australian jurisdictions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article are permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you republish this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

Still no easy pathway to marriage equality

Lisbeth Latham

Thousands of people gathered around Australia on November 15 to hear the results of the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey.

While the survey delivered the result that was hoped for by these crowds, there has been a growing awareness that a majority Yes response in the survey does not necessarily deliver an easy pathway to the legislation that would deliver marriage equality. Instead, a new battle is looming, to win not just the legislation that a clear majority of Australians support, but to defend anti-discrimination protections for LGBTI people.

The past four months have been difficult for the LGBTI community. As expected, right-wing homophobic organisations have used every opportunity to mobilise every tangential homophobic, transphobic and misogynist argument they can think of to support their campaign against equal marriage. At the same time as they constructed an increasingly violent and hostile atmosphere, they sought, with the aid of the mainstream media, to paint themselves as the real victims in the debate.

Despite this effort by the right, participation in the survey at 79.5% was far higher than anyone expected and it helped to deliver a very strong Yes response in the survey, with 7,817,247 people, or 61.6% of respondents saying Yes. This has created an understandable desire for parliament to deliver quickly and pass an amendment to the Marriage Act so that it provides for marriage equality.

This was reflected in the thunderous cheer at the Melbourne Marriage Survey Announcement rally to Opposition Leader Bill Shorten's call: "Today we celebrate, tomorrow we legislate". Indeed, parliament has moved quickly, with the Senate agreeing on November 15 to begin the debate on WA Liberal Senator Dean Smith’s private members bill to amend the Marriage Act. Based on the current schedule, it could be passed before Christmas.

Dean Smith’s bill

The Smith bill is seen as the consensus cross-party bill. On October 16, Labor’s parliamentary caucus endorsed the bill, arguing it “strikes an acceptable compromise” between marriage equality and religious freedoms. The Greens, who have historically opposed the inclusion of religious exemptions in the Marriage Act, have also endorsed the Smith bill. Greens leader Richard Di Natale was reported by The Guardian as saying the Greens would push for cross party changes to the bill, but would “not do anything to jeopardise” the bill if those changes were not supported.

However, the Smith bill is flawed, as it maintains the existing exemptions for religious organisations from the Sex Discrimination Act. These allow religious ministers to refuse to marry two people of the same sex or gender, if that is consistent with the beliefs of their church, and allows religious organisations to refuse to hire their venues. Also, as Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart told Fairfax Media on August 20, it would allow the Catholic Church and any other religious organisation to sack any of their employees who marries a partner of the same gender.

It would also extend an exemption to civil marriage celebrants via the creation of a new category of "religious marriage celebrants". Celebrants would be able to register as religious marriage celebrants and be able to lawfully refuse to perform marriage ceremonies on the basis of people's sexuality.

The problem with these exemptions is that they elevate the right of churches and religious individuals to hold their views above the right of LGBTI people to live their lives openly and exercise rights that the rest of the community takes for granted.

As bad as this legislation is, it could get worse as a consequence of efforts to further amend it. It has been very clear that opponents of marriage equality were not going accept the results of the survey if it did not go their way. It was always a cynical manoeuvre. Throughout the survey, the Australian Christian Lobby and other right-wing groups have sought to paint themselves as the real victims in the campaign and as the people in need of protection. The religious exemptions in the Smith bill are not seen as going far enough by more conservative forces both inside and outside of parliament, who have been threatening to move more than 100 amendments to the bill.

James Paterson’s bill

A glimpse of the types of amendments that could be moved was provided by Victorian Liberal Senator and former deputy executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs James Paterson. On November 13, Paterson announced his own bill to amend the Marriage Act – a bill that was described by Anna Brown from the Human Rights Law Centre as "a Trojan Horse, which would allow unprecedented discrimination".

Paterson's bill went much further than the Smith bill in creating "religious exemptions". It also created two categories of marriage — "traditional marriage" between a "man and a woman" and "marriage" between "two people".

The protections proposed by Paterson would have extended the right to refuse goods and services relating to marriage to any person holding a "religious belief" or "conscientious" belief not just about the nature of marriage, but about having children out of wedlock or the existence of trans or intersex people.

The bill would also have provided wide protections against discrimination for people advocating and holding views regarding the character of "traditional marriage" and provided binding directives to schools regarding the delivery of the Safe Schools or similar programs.

While the Patterson bill was seen as having no prospect of success, it was designed, as Brown put it, as "a blatant attempt to punch holes in discrimination law and introduce special privileges for religious conservatives".

On November 15, Paterson announced he would be withdrawing his bill, saying: “It is clear the majority of Senators believe my colleague Senator Dean Smith's bill is where we should start. I will now work constructively with my parliamentary colleagues over the coming weeks on amendments to ensure that the strongest possible protections for the freedoms of all Australians are enshrined in the final legislation.”

Amendments

Attorney General George Brandis indicated on November 15 he would introduce an amendment to extend the right to conscientious objection to performing a marriage to all civil celebrants.

The Australian reported on November 16 that Treasurer Scott Morrison is leading efforts to incorporate into the Smith Bill Paterson's proposed protections for advocates of "traditional marriage" and for guaranteed "parental protections". These would require schools to inform parents of any discussions that might be expected to occur in class, "which parents might reasonably object to", about marriage, sexuality and gender, and enshrine the right for parents to withdraw their children from these classes.

While there are clearly the numbers in parliament to pass the Smith bill as it is, it seems odd, after a 13-year campaign to end discrimination in marriage and a survey that showed the majority of Australian voters support doing so, that the campaign would settle for legislation that not only accepts existing religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws but goes further — without an attempt to push for a reduction in these exemptions.

More importantly, failing to maintain the pressure allows the most conservative forces inside and outside the Liberal Party to push for amendments that will dramatically expand the right of religious bigots to discriminate against the LGBTI community. They are using the threat of blowing up the party, a threat that contributed to the survey being held in the first place, to help build the numbers to pass these amendments.

Conservatives will also rely heavily on arguments that they are seeking to protect the rights of the 40% of the population who opposed any change to the Marriage Act. It is important that we continue to be in the streets to remind parliament that the overwhelming majority of Australians support real marriage equality.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisbeth Latham is a member of the Socialist Alliance
[This article was originally published in Green Left Weekly #1162]

Read more...

Marriage equality: the fight is far from over

Lisbeth Latham

The results of the non-binding voluntary survey on same-sex marriage will be announced on November 15.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that by October 31, 12.3 million people (77% of the electorate) had returned their surveys – a much higher level of participation than initially expected.

This strong turnout has been viewed as favouring a Yes result in the survey. 

Irrespective of the outcome, we will need to continue to fight not only to achieve marriage equality but to combat the right's bigotry.

The survey was intended to eliminate marriage equality as a source of tension within the Coalition's party room and ensure that legislation was not put before parliament. The hope was that the survey would deliver a clear No vote.

The desire to avoid debating any legislation is reflected in the government's continued lack of clarity on what bill it will support in the event of a Yes majority.

The most likely bill – because it already has the support of Labor – is the private member's bill put forward by Western Australia Liberal senator Dean Smith in August.

The Smith bill expands significantly on existing religious exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act. It would enable churches to refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples and civil marriage celebrants to register their objection to marrying same-sex couples.

It is objectionable that churches should be able to refuse to marry people on religious grounds. But to allow private citizens performing a secular marriage to do so sets a dangerous precedent in terms of legalising bigotry.

Smith has argued that his bill provides essential protection to "religious freedom". This refrain has been taken up by the Christian right in its campaign against marriage equality.

In late October, ultra-conservative Liberal MP Andrew Hastie called for the Smith bill to be dramatically modified. It is thought that Hastie will put forward more than 100 amendments to the proposed bill.

This is a cynical move, aimed at delaying the legislation and using marriage equality legislation to expand the ability of bigots to lawfully discriminate against LGBTI people.

 If successful, it would not only undermine marriage equality, but raise the level of discrimination and marginalisation experienced by LGBTI people.

The right's obsession with religious freedom is entirely cynical and divorced from the real historic struggles for religious freedom, which were about defending and protecting the rights of religious minorities from laws linked to state religions.

Organisations like the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), together with various far-right groups, have been at the centre of the right's campaign against marriage equality.

They have actively mobilised fear of polygamy as a reason for opposing marriage equality, despite there being no current push to legalise polygamy from those religious communities, including within Islam, where it is practiced.

These arguments are not just about saying that it is OK to discriminate against some religious beliefs; they actively seek to promote homophobia based on Islamophobic dog-whistle politics.

The right’s push to protect "religious freedom" is part of a broader assault to impose its conservative social attitudes via the state. It is a campaign that is anti-secular while seeking to violate the religious and social freedoms of those whose lives do not fit within the right's view of morality.

There are supporters of marriage equality who view these concessions as acceptable to achieve marriage equality. They argue that the amendments are irrelevant or that, once passed, the bill could be subsequently amended.

The reality is that these amendments will be used by bigots to marginalise and discriminate against LGBTI people. Moreover, once legislation is passed, it will be much harder to mobilise popular support to amend it.

The Christian right will not just rely on right-wing MPs and senators to stop or amend any marriage bill – it will broaden its campaign of vilifying the LGBTIQ community.

The ACL is likely to follow the approach of the US Christian right, from whom it borrowed its campaign against marriage equality, to push for the right to discriminate same-sex couples and amplify the marginalisation and vilification of the transgender community.

In the face of the right’s determination to roll back our rights, it is vital that we continue to mobilise in support of the LGBTIQ community.

Mobilising helps to build solidarity and reassert our right to exist and live our authentic lives.

Mobilising will also help create pressure to ensure that legislation is introduced quickly to parliament and help prevent a situation where Labor and other parties that support marriage equality accept amendments that expand the right of bigots to lawfully discriminate against the LGBTI community.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lisbeth Latham is a member of the Socialist Alliance
[This article was originally published in Green Left Weekly #1161]

Read more...

Beyond the survey, building the struggle for queer rights

Lisbeth Latham

While the marriage equality campaign is currently focused on maximising a Yes response in the national survey, supporters of marriage equality and of LGBTI rights more generally need to look beyond the horizon of the survey itself.

This is because a majority Yes in the survey will not definitively resolve the question of marriage equality and because there are many other challenges facing the LGBTI community, particularly around legal rights.

The national survey closes on November 7, with results due to be announced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on November 15. The ABS has said the number of returns in the survey is higher than anticipated. At the start of the campaign there had been a fear of complacency, but the higher than expected returns, along with polls continuing to show high levels of support for marriage equality, are both positive signs for a strong Yes response.

However, a Yes response, no matter how strong, does not guarantee that a marriage equality bill will be introduced to parliament, nor that there will sufficient support in parliament for it to pass.
Importantly, it is clear that the right, aware that the survey has not allowed them to defeat the push for marriage equality, is now seeking ways to undermine the language of any enabling legislation. This push would enshrine "religious freedom" in any marriage equality bill, which would dramatically expand in what circumstances "religious" individuals could legally discriminate against people they believe are in a same sex relationship.

The campaign must build pressure for a bill to be put and ensure it contains no expansion in religious exemptions to anti-discrimination acts.

Moving beyond the fight for marriage equality, there are several important legal rights and protections that need to be won to ensure violence and discrimination against members of the LGBTI community no longer have legal sanction in Australia. These include:

• Ending of the gay/trans panic defence, which remains on the books in South Australia;
• Prohibiting unnecessary surgical or other medical treatment of intersex children, including forced coercive interventions, until they reach an age at which they can provide their free, prior and informed consent;
• Establishing a national standard for gender recognition that has no requirement beyond an affirmed decision of the individual. At present only the ACT and SA do not require trans individuals to undergo surgery prior to achieving gender recognition, but they still require a statement that the individual has had clinical treatment by an Australian psychologist or psychiatrist. This stigmatises and pathologises trans experiences, although not as much as in other states;
• Rolling back the religious exemptions to the Anti-Discrimination laws in all Australian jurisdictions;
• Ensuring that oppression on the grounds of sexuality or gender identity are grounds for asylum and that this is not based on individuals proving that they are sufficiently queer;
• Enshrining the right for trans and non-binary individuals to use public facilities that correspond with their affirmed gender identity;
• Enabling individuals under the age of 18 to affirm their gender at school and have this affirmation respected and protected, without requiring formal gender recognition but giving them the right to change their gender marker if they choose;
• Ending the requirement for transgender minors to go to the Family Court to access hormones. Australia is the only jurisdiction with such a requirement, which creates a significant and unnecessary barrier to transgender individuals affirming their gender in the way they wish. Medical support with informed consent of the minor should be sufficient, as it is with accessing contraceptive pills.

Any victory for marriage equality will see the right push back on other issues concerning the rights of the LGBTI community. This push back must be firmly resisted.

We must demand the reinstatement of funding for Safe Schools and push for its expansion to more schools. Equally importantly, we should defend the rights of gender non-conforming children, including the ending of gender-based uniform restrictions — restricting dresses to "girls" and pants/shorts to "boys" places bizarre restrictions on how children and adolescents are able to choose their school clothes.

The campaign to build the strongest possible support for Yes in the survey is important work.

However, if the horizons of the LGBTI communities and their supporters do not reach beyond this objective then we risk losing an opportunity to make significant strides in the rights and abilities of members of the community to live their authentic lives.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[This article was originally published in Green Left Weekly #1157]

Read more...

Why marriage equality is union business

Lisbeth Latham

In the lead up to and following the announcement of the plebiscite, now survey, on changing the Marriage Act, unions have played a prominent role in promoting and resourcing the Yes campaign.

Senior union officials have been speakers at rallies, there have been large union contingents at protest marches and unions — especially peak bodies such as Victorian Trades Hall Council and the Australian Council of Trade Unions — have been providing infrastructure to help build the capacity for the campaign to ensure maximum participation and support for the Yes side.

This strong position in support of marriage equality has attracted criticism from some union members as both a distraction from the “core business” of unions — wages and conditions — and as a failure by unions to “respect the views of members who are opposed to marriage equality”.

However, support by unions for marriage equality is consistent with long traditions within the labour movement of solidarity with oppressed and marginalised communities, and in support of democratic rights — approaches that help to build and strengthen the capacity of the union movement to win improvements for members, not just on the job, but throughout society.

Examples of the kinds of criticisms that unions supporting marriage equality have received can be seen on a recent post on the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union’s (CFMEU) Construction & General Division’s Facebook page of an email to the union by a member.

The email was from a gay CFMEU member thanking the union for taking a strong position in support of marriage equality and for organising a toolbox discussion around the issue on their worksite. It also raised concerns about the homophobic behaviour by some workmates during the discussion.

At the time of writing, this post has been shared 204 times and had attracted 123 comments. While the vast majority of these comments have been positive, there have been negative commenters who argue that the CFMEU’s support for marriage equality is a distraction from the union achieving improvements in wages and conditions for members and a violation of the rights of those members who do not support marriage equality.

These criticisms are not new and reflect a conservative view of unionism in which the role of the union in the lives of its members starts and finishes at the entrance to the workplace and unions should not seek to mobilise its members and resources on broader political questions.

The current Marriage Act and the No campaign are having a negative impact on the working lives of LGBTI union members. The act denies these union members of fundamental rights and the “debate” around the survey is contributing to a toxic culture where a section of society feel justified in vilifying LGBTI people in the street and in the workplace.

This alone is a strong basis for unions to support their members and push for marriage equality as it is the embodiment of the core union tenant that “an injury to one is an injury to all”.

Moreover as, CFMEU South Australia branch secretary Aaron Cartlege said in his address to the marriage equality rally in Adelaide: “Why does the CFMEU back the Yes vote? I'll tell you why we back the Yes vote ... for 15 years we’ve been campaigning because we’re discriminated against on building sites with draconian laws that target our members every day.

“How can we be calling for ‘one law for all’ and then have a different view when it comes to this?"

The conservative vision of unionism runs counter to the long tradition within Australian unionism, particularly within left unions such as the CFMEU, which sees the union movement as having a vital role to play in building a better world for all workers.

This vision has seen Australian unions actively campaign around issues affecting working people globally: opposition to conscription; refusing to load pig iron destined for the Japanese war machine that had invaded China; refusing to load Dutch ships in support of the Indonesian national liberation struggle; supporting striking Aboriginal pastoral workers and the struggle of Aboriginal land rights; opposition to South African Apartheid; green bans on developments that robbed communities of environmental and cultural heritage; opposition to Australian involvement in the Vietnam war and the Iraq war; in support of the East Timorese liberation struggle; and in support of the right of refugees to claim asylum in Australia, to name just a few.

These campaigns did not lead directly to improved wages and conditions on the job — but they contributed to the mobilising capacity of unions both on and off the job and helped to build respect within the broader community for the central role that unions play in building a socially just and liveable planet.
For all these reasons marriage equality is union business.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Lisbeth Latham is a member of the Socialist Alliance


This article was originally published in Green Left Weekly #1154

Read more...

Why a Yes response in the survey is not enough

Lisbeth Latham

Ever since it was announced, the federal government’s postal survey on marriage equality has been met with responses questioning both the legitimacy of the survey and demonstrating support for marriage equality — responses that have been vital for the confidence and morale of members of the LGBTIQ community.

Despite this, the right, particularly the Christian right, has demonstrated its determination to defeat the push for marriage equality through the mobilisation of homophobic and transphobic hatred and disinformation.

This opposition and the desire by significant sections of the Liberal and National parties to avoid legislating for marriage equality suggests that a clear and decisive response to the survey in support of marriage equality may be insufficient in itself to achieve that goal. We will need to build the strongest movement in the streets not just for marriage equality but in support of the broader rights of the LGBTIQ community.

The survey has been widely denounced by supporters of marriage equality. There are currently two High Court challenges to the constitutionality of the survey. These cases are scheduled for September 6, just six days before the surveys are due to be mailed out. Tasmanian independent MP Andrew Wilkie, who is one of the High Court litigants, has described the survey as a “sham” and argued that the government is “exceeding its powers and acting illegally”.

Despite this opposition to the idea of the survey, there is a widespread understanding that if it goes ahead, it is important that people engage in the survey in support of marriage equality.

Alex Greenwich from Australian Marriage Equality told ABC News on August 11: “Should we have to deal with a postal vote plebiscite being inflicted upon us, we have a duty of care and responsibility to make sure we campaign for marriage equality, to make sure we campaign Yes for marriage equality.”

This determination to engage with the survey is also reflected in changes in electoral enrolments since the survey was announced. Guardian Australia reported on August 24 that 90,000 young people had enrolled to vote for the first time, along with 675,000 people updating their details. At that time, a further 165,000 forms were still to be processed.

While some of these interactions with the Australian Electoral Commission would include opponents of marriage equality, the latest Newspoll on support for marriage equality indicates that 67% of those polled support marriage equality.

This support has also been reflected in and reinforced by the 20,000 people who rallied for marriage equality in Melbourne on August 26. Protests in support also occurred on August 26 in Perth and August 27 in Wollongong and further mobilisations are planned across Australia over the coming weeks.

The focus of the campaign has been on maximising both participation in the survey and the number of people who respond in support of marriage equality. Achieving a strong response in support of equality will put pressure on the government to introduce a bill to parliament and encourage its members to vote for that bill, but it may not be sufficient to secure marriage equality.

Despite this broad support, and to some extent because of it, the level of homophobic and transphobic rhetoric from opponents of marriage equality has increased.

Homophobia rising
The clearest example of this has been the appearance of homophobic posters distributed by neo-Nazi organisations in Melbourne and Sydney which have linked equal marriage with child abuse and paedophilia.

The posters drew widespread condemnation from across the community, including forcing sections of the religious right to seek to distance themselves from the posters. Lyle Sheldon, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), did so by arguing the posters were part of a conspiracy by supporters of marriage equality to call into question the legitimacy of the survey. The ACL is seeking to paint the survey as a threat to marriage generally and an assault on religious freedom, with some of its more feverish supporters online suggesting that marriage equality would lead to the need to establish “underground churches”.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has sought to normalise this hatred by saying that it is part of democratic discussion around the survey and that people were likely to say things that are “hurtful, unfair and sometimes cruel” but, rather than stifle free speech, Australians should stand up for any friends and loved ones feeling distressed “at this challenging time”.

Turnbull also said: “You cannot ask for respect from the No case if you’re not prepared to give respect to the No case. The vast majority of people who do not agree with same-sex marriage are not homophobic and do not denigrate gay people.” This makes how the community has responded to homophobic attacks the problem, rather than the attacks themselves.

The reliance of the right on hatred and fear to mobilise its base is not just upsetting. It is potentially dangerous both in the lead up to the survey and in the wake of any legislation being passed.

In both the US and France, the final pushes towards marriage equality were responded to by the right escalating violence against the LGBTIQ community. This violence did not drop to the earlier lower, but still unacceptable, levels in the immediate wake of achieving formal marriage equality.

In both countries the right have continued to use marriage equality as a basis to mobilise their base to attempt to not only wind back marriage equality but also other rights that have been won by the LGBTIQ community and to block further gains. The clearest example of this push has been the growth, after the US Supreme Court’s decision in favour of marriage equality, of legislative efforts to block trans people from accessing the toilets of their affirmed gender.

The Christian Right and far-right are not as large or energetic here as those in the US and France. But we can see evidence of the right attempting to energise their base through hypocritical and hyperbolic attempts to convince themselves and their supporters that the survey and Safe Schools programs are existential threats to families and particularly children. These attempts have the potential to create a desperate desire not only to maintain the right’s rage against marriage equality but also to increase the physical threat towards visible members of the LGBTIQ community.

Need for mobilisations
This situation makes ongoing mobilisation during and after the announcement of the survey result central to maximising any result. It will also help maintain morale within the LGBTIQ community. Mobilisations will raise the pressure on the government — particularly those concerned that opposition to marriage equality is a vote loser — to push for marriage equality legislation to be passed.

Equally importantly, ongoing large mobilisations will help to create an atmosphere where homophobia and transphobia are not tolerated in our society. As part of our efforts to build mobilisations in support of marriage equality and against homophobia, it is important we build empathy and support for issues facing the broader LGBTIQ community.

We must support efforts to enable trans people to achieve gender recognition, combat broader discrimination against the community, particularly the religious exemptions from the anti-discrimination acts, and actively combat the Australian government’s ongoing racist policies targeting refugees, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

[Lisbeth Latham is a trans woman and a member of the Socialist Alliance. This article was originally published in Green Left Weekly #1151

Read more...

Don’t boycott the postal survey, build a mass Yes campaign

Lisbeth Latham

Despite widespread community opposition and the Senate's repeated rejection of a plebiscite the Malcolm Turnbull government is persisting with a non-binding postal survey on the question of removing the current definition of marriage from the Marriage Act and replacing it with an unspecified definition that will provide for marriage equality in some unspecified form.

At least one court challenge has already been announced and among members of the LGBTQI community a debate has opened as to whether supporters of marriage equality should boycott the survey.

The call for a boycott reflects justified anger and frustration at the government’s continued refusal to follow public opinion and pass legislation to provide for marriage equality, as well as a rejection of the legitimacy of the proposed process.

The most prominent advocate for a boycott was former High Court Justice Michael Kirby who called the postal ballot “irregular, unscientific — I’ll take no part in it” and told Radio National on August 10 “I feel as a citizen I’m being treated as a second-class citizen”. He has since reversed his position and now says he will participate.

Is a boycott the best approach in the present situation?

It is important to note that the question of boycotting a vote, or in this case a survey, is a tactical question, not a strategic question. A decision around the tactic may flow from your strategy, but it should also flow from questions such as the balance of forces, the likely support for a boycott and where your campaign will flow following a boycott or participation in the process.

While it is important to note that the plebiscite and survey are unnecessary and cynical moves aimed at delaying any vote on a marriage equality bill, this is irrelevant to whether the survey should be boycotted.

Also irrelevant is the fact that the survey is illegitimate and the abusive intentions behind the survey. These factors are relevant to whether the survey is necessary prior to any vote on legislation occurring or whether it should go ahead, but they aren't relevant to how we respond to an actual process.

We should also not be under any illusion that if the government were to announce tomorrow that it would introduce legislation to parliament and allow a free vote from its members, that this would somehow avoid a toxic homophobic campaign by the right.

In France, before the 2013 vote on equal marriage, the right mobilised millions of people against marriage equality, and they continued to mobilise large numbers against marriage equality even after it became law. These mobilisations have helped contribute to an increasingly homophobic atmosphere in France over the past four years.

Happily, on this occasion, Australia is not France and the right wing in this country is not as vigorous or capable of mobilising. But as anyone involved in reproductive rights campaigning knows, the Australian right can still mobilise in toxic and obnoxious ways.

A decision by supporters of marriage equality to not participate in the survey process will not stop homophobic and transphobic attacks by the right; if anything a boycott campaign would encourage the right’s antics and rhetoric.

The key question as to how to engage with and respond to the survey is what will strengthen the campaign for marriage equality and for the broader rights of the LGBTQI community.

There is no doubt that boycotts can be effective mechanisms through which to undermine attempts by governments to legitimise their actions and to buttress their position. But, equally, boycott campaigns can backfire. This is because:

• Successful boycotts are difficult to achieve
• Abstentions can be difficult to interpret as to whether they reflect disinterest and apathy, or are a consequence of the boycott
• Boycotts can also result in inflating the apparent support of the other side as they are unlikely to boycott.

An additional problem is that the ability of governments to carry out their agenda is not necessarily connected to the popularity of their actions or the electoral votes they receive. Even governments with razor-thin majorities and limited electoral support can still carry out attacks.

So, a successful boycott could delegitimise the outcome of the survey, but the government is not binding itself to the outcome so this is unlikely to pressure the government to bring forward legislation for marriage equality.

The government's resistance to legislating for marriage equality and its unwillingness to commit to the process being binding, means that they don't care if the survey falls over. Any opposition to marriage equality will be embraced and support will be dismissed — a boycott will potentially make this easier.

To contemplate a boycott, we would need to have enough support for the boycott across the spectrum of supporters of marriage equality — which seems unlikely — to have little or no participation in the survey from the movement and the broader supporters of marriage equality.

In addition, we would need a viable strategy of turning the boycott into a concerted push to force the government's hand to bring a bill to parliament and allow its members to vote freely. This is something we do not currently have, which is why things are at the current impasse.

It is important to support any efforts to legally block the survey. But if it does go ahead building a united public campaign for a Yes vote will create the best opportunity to combat any hate campaign against the LGBTQI community by reactionary forces and limit the space the Turnbull government will have to manoeuvre on marriage equality.

It will be important that the campaign takes clear positions on other LGBTQI rights issues. The right will seek to mobilise fears around these issues. Failing to defend those communities will reinforce fears in the community of support for the broader rights of LGBTQI community being dropped once marriage equality has been achieved.

A decision by supporters of marriage equality to not participate in the survey process will not stop homophobic and transphobic attacks by the right; if anything a boycott campaign would encourage the right’s antics and rhetoric.

The key question as to how to engage with and respond to the survey is what will strengthen the campaign for marriage equality and for the broader rights of the LGBTQI community.

The benefits of taking this approach can be seen in the experience in Chile during the 1988 national plebiscite on whether dictator General Augusto Pinochet would receive a further eight-year term as president. The anti-dictatorship forces ran a No campaign despite concerns the vote was unfair, that participation in the plebiscite would give the dictatorship legitimacy and that the Junta would simply ignore a No vote.

This fear was backed up by archives that showed Pinochet had intended to ignore the No vote but the rest of the Junta refused to support this in the face of both the strength of the vote and the danger of increased international isolation. Despite these fears, the opposition saw the plebiscite as an opportunity to publicly campaign, albeit with extreme restrictions, against the dictatorship with the possibility that the vote would result in ending the dictatorship — something they ultimately achieved.

While the stakes in Australia are very different to Chile in 1988, and we would prefer the quicker and easier path of a direct vote now, this is not the reality we face. Instead, the survey, if it goes ahead, is the reality we live with. As such, participation in building the strongest possible Yes vote is a clear path to forcing a vote and giving Turnbull and the reactionaries in the Coalition and the Australian Christian Lobby a bloody nose.

As part of maximising the vote and to build pressure to force the government to recognise any Yes majority, we need to support public mobilisations for marriage equality and aim to make them as large as possible, both in the lead up and after the survey.

Originally published in Green Left Weekly #1149

Read more...

What is and isn't wrong with using the word fuck to build a campaign

Lisbeth Latham

Now That's Just Rude!

In mid September a controversy broke over the poster for Community Action Against Homophobia's (CAAH) rally for marriage equality in Sydney on October 12, with both former CAAH convenor Bryn Hutchinson and Australian Marriage Equality (CAAH) National Convenor Rodney Croome writing article in the Queer Press critical of the posters. While I think there are good reasons why the posters can be criticised both Hutchinson and Croome rely on conservative arguments as to what is wrong with the poster reflecting an approach to achieve change based on convincing Abbott and other senior Coalition members of why they are wrong on Marriage Equality which fundamentally misunderstands why the adopts homophobic policies.

Rude?

Both Hutchinson and Croome raise concerns that the posters are rude and will make it difficult to convince Liberals and other Abbott supporters of the need to change their positions.

Fuck isn't really an offensive word - albeit it is problematic to use the same word for sex as you do for forcefully telling someone where to go. This position ignores and erases the anger that many people feel at the election result and the Coalition and more particularly Abbott represent.

Objections to the posters on the basis of how they treat of Abbott places saying the word “fuck” on the same level as the real threats of violence that Abbott and Coalition's supporters have been and are willing to mobilise against Labor, the Greens and other opponents of their policies. The clearest examples of this are the discourse mobilised by Abbott and his supporters against Gillard – and the large number of examples of homophobia by leading members of the Coalition. I’m sorry Rodney but Abbott acknowledging that supporters of marriage equality are genuine in their conviction is meaningless in the broad scheme of things and does nothing to cancel his record of homophobia.

 Abbott and a number of other senior members of the Coalition are hardened bigots who are opposed not only further extension of rights to the LGBTI community but to the rolling back of gains - this is based what they see as being in the interests of the "moral order" but also on a cynical desire to win and maintain the support of the Christian Right - outside of a small section of these forces it is unlikely that we will be able to convince these people of the "error of their ways based on rational argument" instead it will be necessary to mobilise on the street in ever greater numbers those people who support the rights of the LGBTI community and posing a threat to status quo if they refuse to change the laws.

Croome’s arguments that internationally marriage equality has been achieved by building bridges flies in the face of the reality that the fight against discrimination always generates efforts by those who believe they benefit from that discrimination seeking to oppose any movement forward. In the case of the move to legislate for marriage equality the experience in France, which AME has cited as a basis to oppose a referendum on the question, has been met with large scale mobilisation by the right and by an escalation in homophobic violence – this has nothing to do with the tone of the campaign but the hatred that right holds towards our communities.

Attempting to convince conservative forces of the lack of threat posed by and/or acceptability of marriage equality runs significant risks. The first is to limit the campaigns visions to what will be acceptable to more conservative forces and essentially dump other issues affecting LGBTI and Queer identifying community – this approach is reflected in the invisibility of the trans* community in the discourse of the campaign - and a hostility to demands that seek to push the campaign beyond a hetronormative framework. An important example of this is AME's hostility to the call by the Polyamory Action Lobby's call for recognition of poly relationships and the reactions to Bernardi's comments that posed the danger equal marriage of bestiality and polygamy that essentially accept that bestiality and polygamy as equal evils, Croome in a statement released on June 18 2013 said “Not one country that has allowed same-sex marriage has moved to legitimise polygamy or bestiality for the simply reason they’re not linked, legally, socially or culturally.”.

  

Different treatment between Abbott and Gillard?

Croome raises concerns that the language uses against Abbott is different from that used against Gillard and the ALP and that this risks the campaign being seen as being seen as partisan. While Gillard and sections of the ALP have an offensive position with regard to the definition of marriage - which reflects both the bigoted views of a section of the ALP and the desire of other section leave open the possibility of gaining votes and preferences of the religious right. There are very real differences between the orientation of the ALP and the Coalition not only on marriage equality but on the broader rights of LGBTIQ communities and on issues that affect our community such as women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders, people of colour and workers. An obvious example of this are the changes that the ALP moved regarding federal anti-discrimination legislation including removing the right religious organisations particularly in aged care to discriminate on the basis of sexuality - while there remains a distance to go in ending the legal right of religious groups to discriminate the Coalition does not support this and wants to enable bigots like Andrew Bolt to vilify people with impunity.

People won’t support future activities?

Hutchinson raises concerns that posters undermine the ability of the campaign to reach out and engage with the broader community to mobilise in support the campaign. This is a legitimate concern, however in arguing that “high school students and church members often take real risks in speaking out in their communities” however to argue “such groups will most likely be reluctant to support or promote this and future activities – rightly so” is just bizarre. First it poses that it is the allies of the LGBTIQ community who are the real heroes – which is a real problem of the campaign where being a decent human is suddenly something that should be made a big thing of, but the idea that a poster with the word “fuck” on it would put them risk – I’m not sure who the risk is being posed by – obviously school officials might have issues with them being distributed, but high school students themselves wouldn’t – if anything having “fuck” on it would make it more popular. If people decide to not support actions in the campaign for marriage equality as a consequence of the poster then you would have to question their actual commitment to the struggle, and irrespective of your attitude towards the organisations involved in the rally or poster – if you support marriage equality you shouldn’t be celebrating the withdrawal of support from the campaign.

Red-Baiting

Hutchinson’s arguments rely heavily on red baiting. Red baiting, particularly of Socialist Alternative is not new in either this campaign or other movements. While there is nothing wrong having differences and criticisms with how Socialist Alternative and other socialist organisations engage in politics these articles don’t really go into specifics about these concerns instead relying raising socialist bogeymen to mobilise support for making the equal marriage campaign safe for more conservative forces.

What’s really wrong with the poster?

While there is nothing wrong with the idea of saying fuck or even fuck Abbott – I believe that Clementine Ford’s series of t-shirts rejecting the election of the Abbott government and what it represents did a roaring trade – as a rally poster it is problematic on a number of levels. It only relates to people who are at this point of anger and are comfortable expressing it in this way. The point of social movements is not simply to mobilise a subset of the people who agree with it’s objectives, but instead to seek to maximise the extent to which it is able to engage both those who already agree with the campaign and to win others to supporting the campaign and it’s objects – this poster doesn’t seek to do this and that’s what’s really wrong with the poster.

Read more...

France: Act UP-Paris Calls for Mobilisation Against Homophobic Violence

For equality, against homophobia
Call to rally Sunday, 21 April at Bastille

Act UP-Paris
Act Up-Paris calls for a rally this Sunday, 21 April 2013 in Paris, Place de la Bastille. Faced with the onslaught of hatred that hasengulfed all dykes, trans*, bies, fags, we demand equal rights.

The lack of equal rights maintains homo/lesbo/transphobia, promotes suicide and unsafe behavior vis-à-vis HIV/AIDS and STIs.

For all these reasons, we demand total equality of rights between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - marriage, filiation; IFV open to all women - and opening of rights for trans* people – gender recognition based on affirmed gender with no cost and free choice in medical treatment. These measures should be accompanied by actual plans to fight against the violence and stigma that we experience daily.

More than a social issue, it is a practical necessity for us, trans, dykes, bies, intersex and fags.

Six months ago, our lives are the subject of a "debate" of whether we deserve the full rights due to us. For a week, the homophobes asked openly that our blood flow.

We no longer want to see their words in the media legitimized, to endure seeing their hatred towards us considered an acceptable part of discussion. Because in their eyes our lives have less value than the others: we die.

We decided to live. We refuse to see the street abandoned to violent and fascist groups that are homo/lesbo/transphobic, sexist, racist, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic. We refuse to see the growth of violence and threats against us.

Given the union of extreme right against equal rights, we call for solidarity. The heterosexuals who do not condone the violence perpetrated against us, must understand that their silence allows the homophobic acts. We demand full equality of rights and benefits for all minorities.

First Signatories
Act Up-Paris, Act Up-Sud Ouest, le P¡nk Bloc Paris, le SNEG, le STRASS, Gouine Comme Un Camion, AIDES, Étudions Gayment, le collectif Oui Oui Oui, Sortir du Colonialisme, le Caélif, Plug N’Play, les efFRONTé-e-s, MIF, LGBT Formation (Avignon), What The Film !, Txy, Collectif 8-Mars pour Toutes, Municigays (Marseille), Barbieturix, les Ours de Paris, Acceptess-T, Angel 91, le Collectif Cancan/Cockorico, l’Inter-LGBT, Hétéros au boulot, UEEH (universités d’été euroméditerrannéennes des homosexualités), Support Transgenre Strasbourg, la Fédération Total Respect / Tjenbé Rèd, les CHEFF (Belgique), Collectif Hétéros au boulot !, la Fédération des étudiants LGBTQI francophones de Belgique, Relais VIH de Rodez (12), Chrétiens&Sida, HBO (Homos et BiEs d’Orsay), Fédération Sportive Gaie et Lesbienne (FSGL), Centre LGBT Paris / Île-de-France, les Front Runners de Paris, King’s Queer, l’Organisation Internationale des Intersexes (OII France, Francophonie et Europe), ELCS (Elus Locaux Contre le Sida), les Petits Bonheurs, Solidaires Étudiant-es, David et Jonathan, Front de Lutte LGBT, Mouvement Français pour le Planning Familial, PopinGays, association LGBTP de l’ESTP, association ALGO du Quai d’Orsay, Les enfants d’Arc-En-Ciel, la FIDL, MPF (musulman-es progressistes de France), HM2F (homosexuel-les musulman-es de France), Collectif Gais Lurons, RAINBHOPITAL, Pari-T, les OUTragés de la République, CentrÉgaux, G.A.R.ç.E.S., R.O.S.A., l’ARDHIS, Keep Smiling, OUTrans, ID Trans, Les Flamands Roses, les AmiEs du Bus des Femmes, Association des Communistes Unitaires, Carrefour de Chrétiens Inclusifs, le Collectif du XVIème, la Fédération Syndicale Unitaire (FSU).

le NPA, Europe Ecologie Les Verts (EELV), les Jeunes Écologistes, la Gauche Anticapitaliste (GA), le Parti de Gauche, le Collectif Fier-e-s et Révolutionnaires, Union Pour le Communisme (Lyon), CENTR’EGAUX – Association des Centristes et Démocrates Lesbiennes Gays Bi Trans et GayFriendly, Les Alternatifs, La FASE (Fédération pour une alternative sociale et écologique), OCML Voie Prolétarienne, la Fédération Anarchiste, le Mouvement des Jeunes Socialistes (MJS).

Supports
Alternative Libertaire, Solidaires Paris.

Read more...

France: For equality now, against discrimination all the time!

The French National Assembly began debating a Bill on marriage equality on January 29. The proposed legislation was announced on November 7 2012. The introduction of the Bill has sharpened the debate within French society around the rights of LGBT people. LGBT organisations and supporters have escalated the movement for equality, pushing for President François Hollande and the government of Jean-Marc Ayrault to go further with the legislation in addressing discrimination against the LGBT community more broadly. This is response is important in the context of criticisms that have been made against the movements for marriage equality in the US and Australia. Specifically thatthese movements promote the campaign for marriage equality while ignoring the other oppression and discrimination experienced by the LGBT community.

Below is a rough translation of the call for the Demonstration for Equality held on December 16. The call was initiated by the interassociation LGBT which brings together 58 LGBT organisations across France. The original in French is available here. Organisers estimated that 150, 000 people attended the December 16 mobilisation (the police estimated 50, 000 participants).

I'll be posting more material about the campaign in France soon. 

Call - Demonstration for Equality on December 16 in Paris 

For equality now, against discrimination all the time!

On November 7, the Bill on the opening of marriage to same-sex couples and the recognition of homosexual parents was presented to the Council of Ministers. Parliamentary hearings started the next day in the French National Assembly. Fourteen years after the passing of Civil Solidarity Pacts (pacte civil de solidarité - Pacs[1]), the legislative march towards Equality for all resumes at last.

France designates lesbian, gay, bi and the trans (LGBT) citizens as second-class citizens in refusing their equal access to rights - and the only reason is their sexual orientation or their gender identity. Eleven countries have opened the right to the marriage for same-sex couples, including six member states of the European Union. The only consequence was equal rights.

Opening marriage, and allowing these couples to adopt, as the bill in its current form envisages, is a step towards the lifting of some of the forms of discrimination which the LGBT community is subjected to today. It is a progress but we cannot be satisfied.

We claim that all of the measures which François Hollande proposed during his election campaign belong in this Bill. This law should not be circumscribed with a law on the marriage: it must make it possible for LGBT people to be regarded as full citizens on a purely individual basis, in couple, within their family and in the whole company. The members of Parliament must open medically assisted procreation (PMA) to all women, the access to adoption for non-married couples, and give to same-sex couples the possibility of creating a bond of filiation with their children which are the same  as those available to heterosexual couples, whether they are in or out of marriage, today. We also ask for a reform of the division of parental authority so that all children are protected and all parents recognized whatever the family structure.

François Hollande was committed to respecting the basic rights of the Trans people with a legislative reform allowing them to have identity papers that conform with their affirmed gender without having to undergo sterilization or medical treatment. We remind him of it’s urgency and necessity.

The law will put to an end institutional discrimination that victimises LGBT people and protects today all the remarks and behaviours of lesbophobes, homophobes, biphobes and transphobes. We do not forget that this daily discrimination is a factor of discomfort, in particular for young people who record high rates of suicide attempts, risk taking and HIV infection. Since the debate is in the public square, the most defamatory remarks on behalf of the opponents to this Bill is being brought to our attention. Those who rise against this social project are the same ones as those which were opposed yesterday to access abortion, the right to contraception, the recognition of the divorce and to Pacs.

This is why we will protest on December 16 for quality, for social progress but also against all discrimination, all hate speech and all the forms of obscurantism.

* * * First signatories: Inter-LGBT / Coordination Lesbienne en France / SOS-Homophobie / Centre LGBT Paris-IDF / ACTHE / ID-Trans’/ AIDES / Collectif Oui oui oui / Les Enfants d’Arc-en-ciel / APGL / ADFH / Homoboulot / ALGO / Embrayage / HomoSfèRe / Mobilisnoo / Comin-G / Gare ! / Flag ! / Popingays / Les Panthères Roses / La Nef des Fiertés / Les Enfants de Cambacéres / MAG-Jeunes LGBT / Les Effronté-e-s / Osez le Féminisme / Cadac / Collectif National Droits des Femmes / Ardhis / David et Jonathan / Beit Haverim / Carrefour des Chrétiens Inclusifs / Appel pour le Christianisme Social / Fédération l’Autre Cercle / Contact Paris-IDF / Association Equal / Bi-Cause / Collectif LGBT ADFE – Français du monde / GLUP / LGBT Nord-IDF / Dures à Queer / Gouines Comme un Camion / Caélif / Melting-Pomme Caen / LGP Lyon / LGP Montpellier-LR / LGP Bordeaux / Centre LGBT Normandie / AEC Toulouse / Les Bascos – Boarritz / LGP Lille / LGP Marseille / Coordination InterPride France / SOS-Racisme / LMDE / UFAL / CNAFAL / FIDL / UNL / UNEF / FSU / Union syndicale Solidaires / EELV / Jeunes Ecologistes / Jeunes Radicaux de Gauche / Centr’égaux / GayLib / La Diagonale / Jeunes Socialistes / HES / Collectif Fier-e-s et Révolutionnaires / Front de Gauche (PCF, Parti de Gauche, Gauche unitaire, Fase, Convergences et alternative, République et Socialisme, Gauche anticapitaliste) / NPA

Not-signatories but supporting and calling with the demonstration: FSGL / ASMF / Les Oublié-e-s de la Mémoire / Syndicat de la Magistrature / LDH / UNSA / SE-UNSA / UNSA-Education / CGT / Parti Socialiste / PRG

*******************
[1] Pacs are a form of civil union that was established under law in November 1999 which confers onto participants some of the legal rights granted under marriage including filing joint income tax returns and the impôt sur la fortune (wealth tax) being applied to the joint assests of couple. From it’s inception, Pacs have been accessed by larger numbers of opposite sex couples than same-sex couples, as of 2010 there were 9, 143 same-sex couples in a Pac, compared to 196, 415 opposite sex couples in a Pac.

Read more...