Gay marriage dinosaurs should evolve or die out

COMMENT

Today, parliament carried by the slimmest of margins, 73-72, a Greens motion on gay marriage.

Not to grant legal status to gay marriage, mind you.

Advertisement: Story continues below No, this vote was just to give parliamentary weight to MPs talking to their constituents about gay marriage - and seeking their views.

It's significant progress, no doubt.

Despite this result, it continues to be the rigid stance of Prime Minister Julia Gillard - who has ruled out changing the party's policy on the issue until Labor's national conference - that has arguably sparked the most discussion.

And now, she's begun to attract some heavyweight celebrity criticism.

Renowned expatriate actor Portia de Rossi today declared her dismay at Gillard's lack of leadership - and she did most articulately; with a passion hard to dismiss as mere Hollywood sideline sniping.

Striking all the right notes, de Rossi - married to talk show megastar Ellen DeGeneres - urged Australia to take a lead on an issue she insisted was a matter of "equality for every citizen".

It didn't "seem right to treat gays and lesbians as second class citizens," she said.

"I always thought Australia would pass this equal rights law . . . long before America would," she told ABC radio this morning - adding she was "a little bit disappointed in the new prime minister''.

"But I am hoping Australia will be a leader in this."

But leadership appears to be in short supply; especially from our politicians.

And if the following comment is anything to go by, there may not be a lot of point in parliamentarians talking to their electorates.

One enthused news site commenter posted the following on an article arguing for gay marriage: "Who said Guy marrigers (sic) must get the nod, it is immoral & against nature, to explain it in the simplist (sic) terms we are here to keep the species alive. Look at the Dinosausers, (sic) they all turned gay, now were (sic) are they?"

Never mind meteorites, climate change or the challenge presented by the evolution of mammals. 'Dinosausers', more commonly referred to as dinosaurs, living in uncivilised times without a gay marriage ban, were apparently not able to help themselves being attracted to the same sex of their species causing a drastic drop in reproduction, leading ultimately to their demise. The implication being that if we allow gay marriage today, along with the problems of so called "immorality", a similar epidemic of homosexuality could wipe our species off the planet. The theory suddenly explains all those coupled male fossils they've been finding.

Now, perhaps more illuminating than this new and clearly scientific theory that I would suggest all paleontologists examine closely, is the fact that people out there may actually take the underlying premise of marriage as procreation vs homosexuality seriously. All I can say is let's hope this guy is a great satirist trolling and misspelling his way across news sites heavily laden with dollops of irony.

But a different type of gay dinosaur is still walking the earth with the political lay of the land for gay marriage remaining perfectly preserved in a tar pit of conservatism and tradition. The motion to be voted on today has ALP support but the PM remains firm against the idea of a conscience vote or a change to the Marriage Act, which currently defines marriage as between a man and woman.

This is despite moves from within the ALP, with Labor minister, Mark Arbib, federal backbencher, Stephen Jones and government MP Kirsten Livermore all dissenting from the official party line. Funnily enough for Ms Livermore, a recent survey showed her electorate as one with a large amount of anti-gay sentiment. The seat of Capricornia, currently on a margin of 3.7 per cent, had 44.7 per cent of respondents agreeing with the idea that homosexuality was immoral and only 33 per cent thought gay adoption was a good idea. The survey also spelled out the obvious, that anti-gay sentiment remains entrenched in outer-suburban and regional areas and in strong Coalition seats. Overall 27 per cent of respondents to the survey, conducted over two years, believe homosexuality is immoral.

Independent MP Bob Katter summed it up nicely; asked about the Greens' motion to promote a conversation between MPs and their electorate, he said he didn't need to talk to them: "I think I know their attitudes . . . Their attitude is not in favour." We know that areas like Bob Katter's electorate of Kennedy in North Queensland don't tend to be very receptive to the idea of gay marriage, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do, or that it's not the will of the majority.

Still, it is more than likely that Labor is going to take the cautious road on this one. The dinosaurs are not the ''gay ones'' that died out according to our commentator's theory above, but the ones in parliament directed by those voters stuck under a fossil somewhere. The movement on this issue has been glacial with small increments towards a more progressive stance, including the vote this morning which doesn't even approach the strength of a conscience vote but instead is simply a promise to talk. You've got to hope that as we enter a different paleontological age, these gay (marriage) dinosaurs evolve or die out.

Bella Counihan works in the Canberra Press Gallery and writes for The National Times.

Drunk Facebook photos - can we just get over it?

So if the Queen's on Facebook, then does that mean we're living in the future? Question the second, if the Queen had had a few too many Dubonnet cocktails and started drunk facebooking, or maybe a servant takes a happy, surly snap and uploads it, would we all be shocked or just get over it?

As more and more people become part of the social networking phenomena and we see people not for their public selves but for the more flawed, and often tipsy version, it might eventually be that the bar (ironically enough) will be lowered. And so our political leaders and celebrities will be seen as normal human beings, capable of stuffing up like we all do.

Unfortunately, a drunken Facebook photo of the Queen is unlikely, albeit an amusing thought; the British Monarchy's Facebook page is limited to well-chosen remarks and public events. But the fact remains that with mobile phone cameras everywhere, anyone is a click away from public shaming. As recently occurred with a footballer, a dog and a tweet. I speak, of course, of Joel Monaghan's dog sex act photo, which as soon as it was in the public sphere went viral and cost the footballer his career. The event even warranted a tasteless, 3D animation.

Advertisement: Story continues below But as this next Facebook generation gets into public office, becomes teachers and police officers, let's hope your average silly drunken photo will not suffice to be labelled a scandal and cause them to lose their jobs.

For now we seem to still be in "oh my God" mode. There's always a news story of someone's stupidity gone public. A Canadian politician had to resign because he had some racy photos on Facebook, teachers in Queensland were investigated because there were Facebook photos of them dressed up in schoolgirl uniforms and finally the viral YouTube sensation of the cop rapping to a crowd rhyming "homo" with "watch gay porn in slow-mo". The officer was, in fact, praised for diffusing a tense situation but was talked to about his poor choice of words.

But shock sells, especially when people are easily and without context able to judge others on a photo, tweet or status. Of course, celebrities and political leaders do stupid things but so do you, yes, you reader. Imagine if every mistake (picture of you vomiting, smoking weed or stupid text) was broadcast worldwide, preventing you from continuing on in your offline world.

In the European Union they're even considering legislating for an "online right to be forgotten", particularly making sure that deleted photos on sites such as Facebook stay deleted and do not come back to haunt their owners.

In Australia, however, there is very little in the way of concrete legal underpinnings to a right to privacy and nothing like what the EU laws are trying to do, i.e catch up with modern technology and data protection. Many websites these days now regularly stalk their readers, providing lots of info about click habits for advertisers. Even political websites, those of Barry O'Farrell, Kristina Keneally, Tony Abbott and the Greens all leave a trail of cookie crumbles, so to speak, which allow third parties to follow your online tendencies.

But maybe we should just get rid of this "privacy" business all together; just unbutton, open the fly of the jeans of humanity and let everything hang loose. If technology is just shoving us along in that direction anyway, let's throw human dignity to the wind and say "here I am, drunk on Facebook and who gives a toss".

But we don't and until the day where every little indiscretion can be forgiven as soon as it has occurred then the future will be laden with those politicians, teachers, policeman and celebrities, furiously attempting to rub their online histories clean for public viewing and plenty of gotcha moments for those that don't.

Unless of course we go with Stephen Colbert's suggestion to simply get plastic surgery, change our names and move away from friends and relatives. Even if the Queen is on Facebook, that is a future I don't particularly want to live in.

Bella Counihan works in the Canberra press gallery and writes for The National Times.

Zombies trump a political apocalypse

When things are going awry, Julia Gillard may well find out that it is better to have a Zombie army than a political apocalypse.

You don't need to be a political expert or insider to have foreseen serious difficulties with the US mid-term elections for the Obama administration; the Tea Party, Fox News's Glenn Beck and a perfect storm of bad political and economic conditions made things none too easy for Democrats. Losing the House and retaining the Senate is almost good news for Democrats, they could have lost both. Unless a miracle bunny is pulled out of a hat, Obama could become a one-term wonder.

The bad mood surrounding the incumbent party and administration is such that in the lead-up to the West Virginia Senate race, Joe Manchin, a National Rifle Association endorsed candidate, ran an ad where he took out his gun and literally shot a copy of the cap and trade bill. Now before you say "there goes another gun-wielding Republican, sledging the Obama administration" it might be worth noting that he ran as a Democrat senator, notionally on Obama's own team and that he won his Senate race, 53 to 44 per cent.

Advertisement: Story continues below Meanwhile, back in Oz, Doug Cameron recently noted a truism of Australian politics, that Labor politicians here have become zombified. Now we're not talking, wondering through a shopping mall feeding on the living, Dawn of the Dead style. But more following, un-questioningly your own party line without reflection.

Cameron, a left faction leader, said serving the government was a "a bit like having a political lobotomy. You can't speak your mind”, adding that discussion behind closed doors just didn't cut it. He argued there should be more open debate, leading to a greater focus on longer term policy and less on spin. Now whether he would have said these things while old boss Kevin was around is another matter, but it's the strongest a Labor pollie has been on the matter publicly. Climate change minister Greg Combet also recently spoke along similar themes, although more circumspectly, saying that Labor had “a responsibility to lead, not follow" and not to be entirely beholden to focus groups.

So there's a couple in the government's ranks feebly trying to fight off the zombification of your MPs, but it could be worse for Gillard. At least no one is taking a gun and shooting down the mining tax or running ads rubbishing key parts of your administration's policy program.

Then what about the Australian voters? Do we prefer party discipline and tight-lipped, unthinking zombie MPs or would we prefer gun-toting, own-goal Joe Manchins? It's a matter of striking a better balance between pragmatic and more idealistic.

Doug Cameron suggested that we should employ the three-line whip idea from the UK, where whips, named because they are meant to keep everyone voting in line with party decisions, will have a ranking system for various votes.

One line vote: who cares which way you go.

Two-line vote: you should probably vote with us, but we're cool.

And three lines: if you even sniff the wrong side of us, you're out.

Until recently in South Africa, members of parliament could actually switch parties, or form new parties and take their seats with them. So if Cameron wanted to support gay marriage, as he's hinted at, then all he would have to do is switch to the Greens and we'd have two Adam Bandts.

In the meantime, some tips for surviving a political Zombie apocalypse:

1. Avoid parliaments/cemeteries.

2. Get into and sabotage focus groups.

3. Organise supplies before they come (might be too late as we've already voted them in).

4. The only way to stop them is to remove the head of the party, or destroy the brains of the voters.

5. Remember they're no longer who they were before they entered politics.

Bella Counihan works in the Canberra press gallery and writes for the National Times.