Marriage Equality Rally

[laura_seabrook]

Despite earlier problems with language, I seem to have done something today. As you know, I attended the Marriage Equality Same-Sex Marriage Rally (ask me why I'm not going to the next one) in Sydney last Saturday. Here's two videos and some pics from that event.

Click to view

...and...

Click to view

You'll also find some pics at my Flicker Set and many more at my Facebook

Comments

[baby_elvis]

Transgender folk were excluded, perchance? My reading is leading me to believe this is frighteningly common. Have you been following the column about transgender life on the Guardian site?

[laura_seabrook]

Totally unaware of that site.

But yes, every speaker talked about Same Sex Marriage, not Marriage Equality (grrr).

[baby_elvis]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/series/transgender-journey

[bmowder]

Ms. Seabrook-

I wasn't aware that there was a marriage problem for transgender people (other than the same sex issue), i.e, if a transgender woman chooses to marry a male person, is there a problem? Can you help me understand this, please?

[cmcmck]

It shouldn't, of course, be an issue, but it depends where in the world you live- not so much a 'postcode lottery' as a 'national lottery'! I'm UK based and a straight trans woman and I am perfectly legally married to my (cis) man- we've been together for 17 years and married for the past 4. The UK gives trans women the same rights in law as cis women.

A trans/cis or trans/trans gay or lesbian relationship here would allow the couple, should they wish, to commit to a 'civil partnership' as they call it (in truth 'civil partnership' and civil marriage don't really vary much in detail other than the fact that one of them isn't called marriage)

Some parts of the world have more liberal attitudes to these issues than others.

I hope that makes some sense? :o)

Btw, in case you aren't familiar with it 'cis' means not trans.

[laura_seabrook]

That hasn't always been the case though, has it?

[cmcmck]

No certainly hasn't- which is why the marriage date is only four years ago!

[bmowder]

Well, wow. I thought that *I* was confused

[laura_seabrook]

Norrie knows a thing or two. The revisions to the Marriage act were steam-rolled through Federal Parliament by the Liberal Govt. This is the same govt that actively sent more troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, even sent troops to the Northern Territory to occupy Indigenous settlements "for their own good" and tried to destroy unions.

The tragedy is, that the labour govt that replaced it, repealed maybe (some) of the union legislation, said they were "Sorry" to the indigenous folk for European settlement (fair enough, settlers here more less destroyed the local culture to a great extent) but then DIDN'T cease the intervention.

This is why no one has much faith in a Labour govt to push through legislation without a kick in the bum.

[bmowder]

Ms. Seabrook-

>The revisions to the Marriage act were steam-rolled through Federal Parliament by the Liberal Govt.

Well, that seems counter-intuitive... WHY do they call it the Liberal Govt.?

>(...)sent troops to the Northern Territory to occupy Indigenous settlements "for their own good"(...)

I'm always leery of the motives of ANYONE who does something to someone else 'for your own good'... How, specifically, does this benefit the Indigenes? My people are Irish- We've heard this one before. Is it to save the poor benighted savages from being lumbered with all that awful land and mineral wealth, as it was with the Native Americans here?

I'm sorry if my tone seems cynical, but I would like JUST FOR ONCE to be wrong in my predictions of what people in positions of public trust do, if only for the novelty of it