The recent edition of the gay pres come with a primer on the political opinions of the local polititians running in the state election. The
SSO election survey, Has asked 7 questions to a range of candidates. The questions are easy. They beg to be answered positively, and for the most part they do, to varying degrees that is. After all would any politician responding a survey by the gay press respond with a flat out no? Hardly. Instead we are left with the half said, the unsaid, and the unmeant.
It is a situation of ensconce, in both senses of the word. Politicians structure their discourse so as to position themeselves safely, & also conceal themselves as need be. They opt against a clear position. To understand this situation is to make sense of individual resposes posed so coyly in in the press.
At first glance of the survey, we can see a pattern emerge. No one responds with a no. the majority of all answers begin with a Yes (in some form or another). Of the Non-Yes responses the most typical response given begins with the comment 'i believe...', or to a much lesser extent a question is asked or a fact is stated. This Non-Yes is a place where n o is not an option but nether is a yes, is the space where politicians need to ensconce themselves, they need a safe opinion, an opinion that hides from the word yes.
The one liberal surveyed ensconces himself 6 times. He can only answer yes to the question of supporting gay equality. Everything else ne needs to be unclear about. He is the all out winner for using this tactic, no surprises there.
Next up, is Labor. 3 of the 5 labor candidates are unable (or unwilling) to reply with a definitive positive statement to 3 of the questions. Questons 3, 4 & 6 are approached with a creased brow. Of the other 2 laborites only one sucmbs to answering with a yes-no yet again. it is to question 4. thus Q4 becomes the most contentious issue.
The Greens, Democrats & Independents have no problem with agreeing with the idea of equality for gays & lesbians what so ever. Yes all the way. No problem here, so lets go back to where the problem is - Q 3, 4, & 6.
In 3rd place is Q6, it relates to same sex unions. The laborites typically defer this question. for them this is an issue they support, but only in so far as it is to be discussed in caucus. Responsibility is deferred to caucus, individual ethical responsibility is rendered transparent. They do not condemn the internal workings of labor, or reiterate the simple dismissal offered by fellow members that it is '
not on the agenda'.
In second place is Q3 about legislation supporting parental rights for both IVF parents. Here we once again see a form of muffled support. There is an agreement to this point - but with in reason. Whos decides what one is reasonable? The answer is given - the community. The public opinion & possible legal issues must be taken into consideration. The question of course is why should the community have more say over the way in which a child is reared rather than the parent? And considering that the term community does not involve actual decision making from the community, but rather from those who represent them (ie the press & politicians) then is it too much of a jump to simply identify this as commitment to nothing but the political game amongst politicians?
In first place is Q4 the issue for gays & lesbians to adopt. This is an interesting one. Some are willing to state their support in 'principle'. But for all it seems there is a need to defer the issue until the review on the Adoption Act is complete. Interesting, first of all, candiates are candidly willing to say they support the gay community but dont want to commit until they get all the details. Gay and lesbian rights can wait. wait for what? what do they think the review into the adoption show? I'd assume not something positive, otherwise why wait? Possibly they are justified. After all those years of homosexuals being linked to pedophilia, S&M, corpophilia bestiality and masturbation - hey even id want to get a character check before i let my kids near them.
Of course they agree in principle. But principles can always wait. Have you ever heard the line 'yeah i like you, but im just a bit drunk, ok?' *nervous smile*
So what is the aim of the review of the Adoption Act? To make sure adoption:
* is characterised by openness, and is no longer shrouded in secrecy;
* conforms with Australia’s international obligations; and
* is brought into line with other areas of child law, as well as with prevailing community expectations and attitudes.
Considering there is little to say about homos in other areas of child law (to my knowledge, only issues about discusing sexuality etc for child carers would be the best i can come up with) Well im sure any reviews response would be based on community expectations and attitudes.
Considering that parties are not willing to take a part in influencing attitudes & expectations of the community, not willing to take a stand, other than in principle, one can hardly expect a positive outcome for the review. At best it will highlight the issue as being in contest. And thus make some stance toward a need for legislative advance... which once again places the issue unanswered.
A negative review can always be challenged, questioned, appropriated or ignored. But this kind of action requires more that something to be in principle. A principle must be attached to an action. The entire sentiment that a principle must wait for a review is a denial of the very principle guiding action itself. It is to ensconce the safety of the speaker. To speak from the safety of the arm chair, the ballot box or the opinion poll, without the formulation of true action is to say a yes & a no in one breath, as one voice in the utmost cynical of tones.
