-250.jpg "gertrudefrighteninghorses-(2)-250.jpg") Dear blaze readers, I’m always relieved when the winter
solstice is behind us. I like the sense
of daylight hours gradually increasing together with nature’s awakening, thus signalling
the advent of spring. Oh, that sense of
new life and rebirth!
And fast on its heels is the end of the financial year which
means tax return time. Do you anxiously
tally your deductions and then calculate whether you will have to pay, or
hopefully receive a refund? I do believe
our personal income tax system should be simplified – abolish deductions,
rebates and salary sacrifice and simply lower tax rates. However, being rather old-fashioned, I still
adore getting that refund cheque in the post. What implications will new equality laws have for queer couples’ income
tax? Does it mean couples can lodge
partnership returns?
Of course July 1, 2008 marks another significant
milestone in our political history. New
federal senators will take up their posts.
For the first time in 31 years there will be no Australian Democrat
Senators. I believe that South Australia’s Sandra
Kanck will be the only Democrat remaining in an Australian legislature. I think it’s a rather sad day for Australian
politics. They have been good friends to
queer folk. But, unto everything there
is a season. Perhaps they will bounce
back.
It will be interesting to see how the new Senate operates
with the five Green and two independent senators holding the balance of
power. Will this have implications for
the passage of same-sex equality legislation? Of course, The Greens are queer friendly, but not so Family First. And where does ‘Our Nick’ stand? I do think it’s healthy for democracy to have
a well-hung Senate!
I’m really concerned about comments by Brendan Nelson reported
in the last edition of blaze. In relation to the expeditious passing of the
same-sex superannuation equality bill he raised the potential weakening of the
status of marriage in federal law and the inclusion of same-sex couples in a
broader category of interdependency as issues that need further scrutiny by a
Senate committee!
Quite frankly I’m sick to death of such weasel words and
find them extremely offensive. In fact
they are downright homophobic. When are
these narrow-minded, hetero-normative politicians going to get the message that
the relationship of queer love-couples is, in ‘heterotalk’, a marriage-like
relationship? And in a society which
holds up the love-couple as the primary love-relationship, all such couples deserve
the same rights and protections irrespective of sexuality.
It’s a complete denial of the primacy and nature of
committed queer couples to lump them and their rights in with the “broader
category of interdependency”. There is a
world of difference between the relationship, cited by Nelson as an example, of
two unmarried sisters who live together as a household, and that of a queer love-coup. Unless of course the sisters are in a loving
sexual relationship! Do we condone queer
incest?
“Should they not have the same rights in relationship to
property, taxation and superannuation as two gay people who decide to do the
same in a sexual relationship?” asks Nelson. How very, very dare you, dear Doctor! Perhaps they should but it’s the wrong question. Let’s drop “gay” and “sexual”. How would it sound if he’d asked, “Should
they not have the same rights as two people who decide to do the same in a love-relationship?” Asinine!
Dear readers let’s stand up to these timid, homophobic
politicians and their smoke screens. Let’s make them admit that queer coupledom is marriage-like. Let’s frighten the bloody horses!
 |
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
