I thought today's post would be about obama

I wanted to celebrate his election to President of the US. Exciting news. Instead I find myself in a bit of a blue funk, because in a state far away, a decision was narrowly made to eliminate the rights of same-sex couples to marry. This post would be a lot longer than it already is if I explained fully why this angers and disappoints me and I've said a lot of it before anyway. Instead I just want to focus on one aspect of the matter: family.

A few days ago I received a forward from a friend (here in Australia) with a link to a Youtube video of a song written by Janice Kapp Perry in support of the Yes on 8 campaign. JKP music is a little dated now in Church circles, but back when her songs were new I really liked them. They were beautiful and melodic, and easy to remember and sing. I actually felt spiritually uplifted when I listened to them. Unfortunately in this case, I got a bad feeling the moment I saw the text accompanying the link in the email:

Dear Members

Please have a listen to this lovely song from Janice Kapp Perry. On YouTube, things spread like wildfire across the Internet. To get our message out about the importance of families and marriage, we have written a song called, 'Save the Family' which we have produced into a powerful music video.

Click below to see it and feel the magic and importance of families. Here's the link for the music video.

It's here. Feel free to go listen to it before you continue reading.

The song should have been wonderful. Families are precious. They are the building blocks of society. Without strong families the nation will crumble. But the moment I saw those words, 'our message about the importance of families and marriage' I knew that I wasn't going to hear a song written in support of families and marriage, but instead a message about 'saving' one type of family by invalidating another.

I am sitting at my desk in a very empty office right now and that's kind of how I feel inside. 'Dear Members'. That's addressed to me. I'm a 'member'...and that used to feel like such a good thing to me. Even recently as I've been re-examining my religion, it didn't feel bad to be a member of the Church. But when I got that email I felt so angry.

That is not OUR message. That is not MY message.

Who do they think 'we' are under attack from? How exactly does same-sex marriage diminish their marriages? Is it like some kind of exclusive club, where membership only has value if you keep the numbers small? But the song isn't actually talking about marriage; it's talking about families. If I call Scot and his husband and their twins a family, explain how I'm being inaccurate. When I go home to visit I inevitably spend a lot of time with one of the most vibrant (read: NOISY!) families I know, parented by two lovely women. We play cards and catch up and their crazy brood (most of whom I've known since they were born) tire me out with their stories and questions. I like being there. They're precious to me. And never once have I sat in their lounge watching the general hubbub around me and thought, 'gee, such a shame they're not a real family'.

How dare anyone try to declare that there is only one valid kind of family? How dare they look at children with parents who love them, and declare their families to be a threat to what is good and wholesome? There've been a lot of comparisons in the last few months to racism, segregation and laws that banned inter-racial marriage. The comparisons are fair. People used to look at an inter-racial couple and believe that there was something inherently wrong with them being together. And what they didn't understand, they legislated against.

There was a time when I really believed that homosexuality was a sin. I hate admitting that, but it's the truth and it's relevent here. I was in that 'hate the sin, love the sinner' frame of mind and I saw it in the same vein as people who 'lived in sin' instead of getting married - I didn't think it was right, but it never stopped me being friends with anyone.

One day at a friend's house I heard a very sad story (not uncommon in the gay community, especially when you go back a few years) about a woman whose partner had died. Because they weren't married (at that time couldn't even legally be considered to be a de facto couple) her partner's family was able to successfully shut her out of the funeral (not just the arrangements...the actual funeral) and eventually force her out of the house she and her partner had shared. They did not choose to acknowledge her part in the life of their daughter/sister. Instead they treated their family, the one they built together by choice, as if it never existed. As much as they could, they rendered it invisible, unimportant.

As I listened to this story, I knew right then that no matter what I thought about homosexuality, I had to support the right to same-sex marriage. I don't get to choose who can and can't be a family. I don't get to tell consenting adults that my opinions matter more than their relationship. 'I don't live that way, so you can't either' is a piss-poor way to treat other human beings.

I saw a short speech on Youtube by San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders from back in 2007 when he was explaining his decision to support a same-sex marriage bill (after previously saying he would veto it). It was so beautiful I sent him an email. :)

Here's an excerpt:

As I reflected on the choices I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage...

Two years ago I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative. Those beliefs in my case have changed. The concept of a 'separate but equal' institution is not something I can support...

I have close family members and friends who are a member of the gay and lesbian community. Those folks include my daughter Lisa, as well as members of my personal staff. I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones - for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life's experiences.

And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I couldn't look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationship - their very lives - were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife Rana.

To make people...couples...families...invisible in the law is to deny that they are people of equal standing. These are real families. They can't be put away like an ugly vase or avoided like bad news you don't want to hear. No matter what you think you see when you look at them, you are not supposed to treat other people that way.

So to Janice Kapp Perry and anyone in California who thinks they saved 'the family' with their fucking bullshit Yes on 8 vote, I want to say that I DO NOT accept your limited definition of family and I DO NOT support your derision for other people's families. I DO, however, think you suck.

vote

What Debi, and her friend Brian, said.

I've been pretty absent lately. Uni ends this weeks and I am so behind I'm kind of reverse lapping myself. Next week all the many thoughts in my head will come a-blogging out, never fear.

look and choose not to leap

The most important thing Matt says here is, "I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is".



I honestly think that even Republicans should be rejecting this woman, and rejecting McCain because she is the string attached to his presidency and he allowed that to happen. Nobody...NOBODY... in the US (and countries like mine that are directly affected by the decisions of the US government) is going to benefit from having this woman as president. It's just a very, very bad idea.

10 out of 10 people like me enjoy 8 out of 10 cats

Ahhhh, so nice to have the new season of 8 Out of 10 Cats back to delight me. This line from host Jimmy Carr re Sarah Palin:

Sarah Palin brings beauty, enthusiasm and charm to a job that requires experience, integrity and common sense.

Very nice. My only problem with that sum-up is that I find her neither beautiful or charming, and enthusiastic about all the wrong things.

just in case

From Sean's blog, the best advice any American is going to get this year:

Just in case you forgot, just in case you don't know when the deadline is, just in case you know someone who turned 18 this year and might not realise the power of the people that exists in voting.

Just in case there's anybody reading this who hasn't yet realised that the people who control the world really do not want the average person (let alone the poor) to recognise the power of the vote.

careful what you say...on camera

Courtesy of Maggie I discovered this fantastic little comparison piece by Jon Stewart. Nothing like sitting back and letting people's own words condemn them.

romney withdrew? o_O?

After reading this speech, all I can say is 'happy day, all is well'. I haven't read crap like that in a long time.

I do wonder a little if his decision has less to do with 'keeping the Republican party united' and more to do with having to finally admit he lied about the whole 'me and my daddy marched with Martin Luther King' thing. His father didn't march (though he was strongly supportive on civil rights) and even if he had marched on the day he was supposed to have in Mitt's retelling, Mitt was overseas as the time and could not have marched with him or seen him march, two things claimed at different times. The resultant backpeddling was awkward and embarrassing to watch.

Anyway, keep bringing it on, Obama. I'm starting to see some real differences between him and Hillary. Of course my lack of vote makes it all a bit moot, but whatever.

wage restraint...from pollies?

Wow, this really might be a new government after all...

Interviewed by ABC Radio about what she would want to do if the independent Remuneration Tribunal recommended paid increases for federal politicians in spite of the current inflation concerns casting a shadow over Australian families, Deputy PM Julia Gillard said she'd be happy to knock back a pay rise. She said she agreed with the PM's sentiment that wage restraint had to be shared by all Australians.

No promises yet, but Kevin Rudd has said, "I have a really open mind on that. It depends how this year starts to unfold but restraint is restraint and we'll have something further to say about that."

High five, Rudd government! Liking you more and more.

nice one, kevin!

Kevin Rudd (our Prime Minister) has decided to hold a super talkfest to find answers to what he describes as the 10 critical problems facing the nation:

1. the economy
2. economic infrastructure
3. sustainability
4. rural industry
5. health
6. social inclusion
7. indigenous people and services
8. the arts
9. governance, and
10. national security

One thousand of our best and brightest will be invited to Parliament House for a weekend in late April, with no businesses, unions or lobby groups represented. Rudd described the summit as a chance to "shake the tree" and see what suggestions fall to the ground. Cute.

I do think it's a bit of a wank to have 'the arts' in there. That's an industry that is quite capable of coming up with its own ideas, given a little funding. I'd much rather have seen him include education. We only have six states and two territories - it can't be that hard to plan for standardised education across the nation. And they could have tried to fix some of the damage that the Howard government inflicted on schools and universities. I'm hoping that 'sustainability' includes the water shortage. People might slot that in as a 'rural' problem, but there are a few capital cities under water restrictions that would beg to differ.

One aspect of the plan that I really like is that the focus in on long-term plans. So often governments only look as far ahead as the next election, and issues that require long-term solutions get left on the back-burner. Let's hope the Rudd government doesn't lose sight of that goal down the track. I think the public can support long-term goals where no solution will be evident until after the next election. It all depends on how it's explained to them.

Each area will be tackled by a group of 100 delegates. The delegates will be chosen by a summit steering committee of 10 people co-chaired by Mr Rudd and Melbourne University vice-chancellor Glyn Davis. I'm not sure how he got the job, as I've never heard his name come up before, but I'm curious to see who ends up with an invite.

if i were voting in the us elections

It seems I would be voting for Obama. At least that was the result that came through on my electoral compass. You indicate where you stand on 36 issues and it pinpoints how close your political perspective is to the various candidates currently running. Given that the majority of US LDS support the Republican party (something that never fails to amaze and confuse me), I was a little amused to see how far away on the compass I sit from Mitt Romney, who is both LDS and Republican. Amused, but not surprised. LDS or not, I was already well aware that he and I don't see eye to eye on the issues.

Here's the visual ~ click for a closer look. The point of the little pencil is where I am:

parental responsibility and the internet

Our new Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has pledged to provide porn-free internet feeds to schools and homes. He wants the Communications and Media Authority to draw up a blacklist of unsuitable websites, which internet service providers will then be required to block to their customers unless they specifically request an uncensored feed.

I think this is a great idea for schools and a very bad idea for households. At school one teacher may be in charge of 40 students at one time. They cannot be expected to watch every student all the time in a computer class, yet the school does have a legal responsibility to control what information children are exposed to in school. The same way that a book of pornography should never make it's way into a school library, so too, a school needs to make some realistic attempt to filter the internet content to which students have access. I also think that limited access to computer labs means that there is less time for children to be using the net unsupervised or for those who know how to hack through filters.

Households are a different matter. It is a parent's responsibility to know and control (certainly within their own home) what their children read and view. They might use filtering programs themselves, but shouldn't be relying on them. It is also their responsibility to teach their children about internet predators the same way that they teach them stranger danger before they let them walk to school on their own. Internet dangers are a reality of our life and the government can't solve all our woes. In fact, I agree with this morning's Sydney Morning Herald editorial that trying to filter out all objectionable material will simply give parents a false sense of security that their parental responsibilities to ensure that their children are not viewing objectionable material on the net have been taken over by a body with the power to ensure that nothing gets through.

The problem with a blacklist is that websites are easily created to replace those on it, creating a constant battle to keep the list accurately updated. Also while the most objectionable material might be blocked, such a filter lets through a lot of other kinds of pornograghy (eg showing acts that are legal between consenting adults in this country, suggestive online dating advertisements, and other content not suitable for children. Parents relying on government blocking (or net nanny programs for that matter) are just fooling themselves. They would be much better off following more practical rules for children's net usage, such as keeping the internet connection in a public area of the house (computers in child's own room don't have to be connected to the net) and monitoring kids' email (thinking particularly of young kids here). I heard about a guy who unplugs and hides the modem every night so that his teenagers can't access the net during the night. He knows it makes him look untrusting and over-protective, but he doesn't care, because he's more focused on the way the internet is being used by people who view teenagers as prey, and he understands that teenagers often think they are more world-savvy than they actually are.

Given that the internet industry has suggested it would take the average tech-savvy young person about two minutes to get around the system Senator Conroy is proposing (the net filter distributed by the Communications and Media Authority last year was defeated by a sixteen year old (Tom Wood, pictured) in about half an hour), I don't think giving parents a false free pass to ignore their children's net usage is realistic or kind to the children in question. Better to spend the money on increased Australian Federal Police resources to pursue child-porn rings and on educating parents about home-based filters and activity monitors.

bennelong time coming

So yes, we have a new government. Little Johnny not only lost the election, he also lost his own seat of Bennelong, so he wouldn't be in the new shadow government, even if he was planning to stay. After two elections watching in horror and wondering how Australia could be voting this government in again, I finally get to say goodbye to John Howard and his band of unmerry men (steal from the poor to give to the rich) and their terrible decisions on education, industrial relations, immigration and pretty much any other portfolio you could mention.

The Howard government is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now history. It's off the twig...it's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!!
THIS...IS AN EX-GOVERNMENT!!

As for our new prime minister, Kevin Rudd (pictured here with Australia's first female deputy prime minister, Julia Gillard), we'll see. I like him so far, but I need to see some commitment to the promises they've made before I properly embrace him as the new leader.

has dubbya has been watching family guy?

How do you spell 'oaf'? Well apparently today, as on so many days previous, it starts and finishes with a 'W'.

I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.
(George W Bush, press conference, Washington)

(a) Mandela is still alive
(b) if he had died, at 89 it would probably have been from old age
(c) Mandela has never been, to my knowledge, threatened by any Middle Eastern leader, dictator or otherwise.

But hey, it's all about saying words that make people afraid, right? Mandela's an inspiration to millions, Saddam Hussein just a step or two from Satan, so if we say Saddam (who is dead) killed Mandela (who is alive) people will just hear the scary words, ignore the idiocy of the remark, and cheer for our Iraq policy, right?