Civil unions in the closet: Rudd bows to the religious right

We are concerned with one question and one question only ... Should homosexual individuals who are adults, who both wish a homosexual relationship with each other, who do not flaunt it but who act in private, withdrawn from the public gaze, be dubbed criminals and be subject to punishment by the criminal law? I suggest to the House that they should not be treated in that way ...

Let us put out of our minds what sometimes is in mine - the thought of people walking hand in hand down the street or with their arms round each other or in other ways acting in ways which we find objectionable. Let us think instead of the thousands of men who are not like that, who could not be discovered in an ordinary glance at the population, who hurt no one, harm no one and yet have this hanging over them.

In other words, Gorton is endorsing views that gay men should stay firmly in the closet, self regulating even whether to put an arm round a lover, however much personal pain (and internalised shame) this imposed.

Male homosexuality has long been decriminalised (well only since 1990 in Queensland and 1997 in Tasmania). Federal Labor has progressed far beyond Gorton’s position. Unlike the Howard government, it supports removing the numerous forms of discrimination against same-sex couples (although not necessarily same-sex families) which the Human Rights and Equal opportunity Commission has identified. The government even has the first openly gay or lesbian Cabinet Minister (Penny Wong, who has spoken eloquently in caucus and parliament in favour of removing discrimination against same-sex couples). There is much for gays and lesbians to celebrate about the election of the Rudd Government.

Nonetheless, Robert McClelland’s recent statements suggest that there are still limits in how far Federal Labor will go in allowing same-sex love to be celebrated in public, even if their position has progressed enormously since Gorton’s.

The government doesn’t seem to realise that, by bowing to the religious right, Labor is still implying that same-sex unions are somehow shameful and should be kept private. Politicians need to think about how important such prejudiced attitudes have been in the history of oppressing gays and lesbians. If in doubt, they should read Senator Bob Brown’s account of the electric shock aversion therapy he underwent as a young man (see James Norman’s biography of Brown).

Labor is also (no doubt unintentionally) reinforcing the mores of a society in which gays and lesbians still know that, even today, casual displays of affection in public that heterosexuals wouldn’t think twice about, such as holding hands can be deemed unacceptable. Indeed, they can trigger incidents of homophobic abuse and violence (PDF 15.82MB).

It is an extraordinarily backward step. It is also an indication of Rudd’s own social conservatism and his somewhat ambiguous position on same-sex issues, given his desire to attract the Christian vote. (See my earlier On Line Opinion piece).

Brendan Nelson recently indicated his personal support for removing some forms of discrimination against same-sex couples. He asked Liberals unhappy with his position to imagine “how would I feel if that were me? How would I feel if I had a son, daughter, brother or sister in these arrangements?” I suggest it would be helpful if all heterosexual politicians imagined the same thing about civil unions.

How would you feel if your government apparently considered your love for your partner so problematic, so second-rate, so potentially shameful that they would not only make it illegal for you to marry, but would then go further and even oppose you having a public ceremony with your civil union?