‘Live your liberation, don’t lobby for it’ : Australian queer student activists’ perspectives of same-sex marriage

One topic covered in Australian queer university student print media is the legalisation of same-sex marriage. The legalisation of same-sex marriage is currently generating much debate in Western queer communities. Same-sex marriage is legalised in some countries such as, Canada, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium. It has been outlawed in Australia and most states in the US. Campaigns continue to reverse these restrictions. Other countries, such as the UK and New Zealand allow same-sex civil unions, providing couples with the rights afforded to married couples. There is a range of research documenting queer communities’ attitudes towards this issue (for example Lannutti 2005; Clarke, Burgoyne and Burns 2006; Yep, Lovaas and Elia 2003; Wolfson 1993; Egan and Sherrill 2005). These studies document broad community views as well as those of community sub-sections. For example, Yip (2004) looks at the views of gay and lesbian Christians on same-sex marriage and Lahey and Alderson (2004) document the experiences of same-sex couples who have gotten married or who are waiting to get married. Philosophical analyses consider the legalisation of same-sex marriage in relation to, for example, liberalism, equal rights, liberation, queer theory, citizenship, history, activism, religious discourse and feminism (Ferguson 2007; Jordan 2005; Josephson 2005; Lipton 2006; Sullivan and Chauncey 2005; Riggs 2007). This paper explores Australian queer university student activist media’s representation of same-sex marriage, and the debates surrounding its legalisation. It examines a selection of queer student media from four metropolitan Australian universities, and the 2003 and 2004 editions of national queer student publication, Querelle. This paper uses discourse analysis of queer student activists’ media representations of marriage to investigate this issue in one specific context – metropolitan Australian universities. This paper thus contributes to the history of queer activism, documenting what one group of young people say about the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and furthers research on queer perspectives of marriage and same-sex relationships.

'Live your liberation - don't lobby for it' : Australian queer student activists' perspectives of same-sex marriage

One topic covered in Australian queer university student print media is the legalization of same-sex marriage. The legalization of same-sex marriage is currently generating much debate in Western queer communities. This paper explores Australian queer university student activists’ media representation of same-sex marriage, and the debates surrounding its legalization. It uses discourse analysis to examine a selection of queer student media from four metropolitan Australian universities, and the 2003 and 2004 editions of the national queer student publication Querelle. This paper thus contributes to the history of queer activism, documenting what one group of young people say about the legalization of same-sex marriage, and furthers research on queer perspectives of marriage and same-sex relationships.

Following Same-Sex Marriage : Redefining Marriage and the Impact for Polygamy

Dossier : Should Polygamy be Recognized in Canada ? Ethical and Legal Considerations

Beyond Racial Precedents: Loving v. Virginia as an Appropriate Legal Model and Strategy for Same-Sex Marriage Litigation

This thesis explores how LGBT marriage activists and lawyers have employed a racial interpretation of due process and equal protection in recent same-sex marriage litigation. Special attention is paid to the Supreme Court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case that declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. By exploring the use of racial precedent in same-sex marriage litigation and its treatment in state court cases, this thesis critiques the racial interpretation of due process and equal protection that became the basis for LGBT marriage briefs and litigation, and attempts to answer the question of whether a racial interpretation of due process and equal protection is an appropriate model for same-sex marriage litigation both constitutionally and strategically. The existing scholarly literature fails to explore how this issue has been treated in case briefs, which are very important elements in any legal proceeding. I will argue that through an analysis of recent state court briefs in Massachusetts and Connecticut, Loving acts as logical precedent for the legalization of same-sex marriage. I also find, more significantly, that although this racial interpretation of due process and equal protection represented by Loving can be seen as an appropriate model for same-sex marriage litigation constitutionally, questions remain about its strategic effectiveness, as LGBT lawyers have moved away from race in some arguments in these briefs. Indeed, a racial interpretation of Due Process and Equal Protection doctrine imposes certain limits on same-sex marriage litigation, of which we are warned by some Critical Race theorists, Latino Critical Legal theorists, and other scholars. In order to fully incorporate a discussion of race into the argument for legalizing same-sex marriage, the dangers posed by the black/white binary of race relations must first be overcome.

“Seismic cultural change?”: British media representations of same-sex ‘marriage’

The legal recognition of same-sex relationships is a contested terrain that has been hotly debated by feminists. This article provides a social constructionist analysis of the UK newspaper media coverage around the time of the introduction of the Civil Partnership Act (2004). In examining the 348 national newspaper coverage over a three month period (November 2005–January 2006) we highlight three prevalent, and conflicting, themes: ‘same-sex marriage becomes legal under the Civil Partnership Act’; ‘couples will not get full legal status’ and ‘marriage is a heterosexual business’. We discuss these media representations and argue that the heteronormativity of the coverage provided little space for more radical constructions of same-sex relationship recognition.

The times are they a-changin'? Can the Commonwealth parliament legislate for same sex marriages?

This article considers whether the marriage power contained in the Australian Constitution could support a Commonwealth law that recognised same sex marriages. To this end and after outlining the current constitutional meaning according to the High Court, three methods used for interpreting constitutional terms (connotation/denotation, moderate originalism, non-originalism) are examined to ascertain whether they could source such a law to the marriage power. It is submitted that none can do so without betraying their own core interpretative principle or the text and structure of the Constitution. However an alternative method for interpreting [*2] constitutional terms is proffered which may be able to establish a sufficient connection between a law that recognises same sex marriages and the marriage power. It involves recognising 'marriage' as a constitutionalised legal term of art whose meaning can be informed by developments since federation in common law and statute.

The legal recognition of same-sex unions in Australia : a constitutional analysis

The Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 (Cth) currently before federal Parliament amends the present legislative definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. This article provides a constitutional analysis of the scope of the marriage power, s 51(xxi) of the Australian Constitution , through examination of the Bill and other existing and proposed legislation. It argues that if the High Court considered "marriage" to be a constitutionalised legal term of art, it could accommodate post-federation development at common law and in statute to the institution of marriage. It also argues that the presumption in favour of constitutionality ought to be at its strongest with federal legislation determining complex and intractable moral issues. The article explores the constitutional vulnerability of current same-sex union legislation and possible future legislation providing for recognition of the functional equivalent of "marriage". In addition, the article considers the constitutional foundation of a national framework to provide official legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

Same-sex intimate partner violence : exploring the parameters

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is not only a problem for heterosexual couples. Although research in the area is beset by methodological and definitional problems, studies generally demonstrate that IPV also affects those who identify as non-heterosexual; that is, those sexualities that are typically categorized as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex (LGBTI). IPV appears to be at least as prevalent in LGBTI relationships as it is in heterosexual couples, and follows similar patterns (e.g. Australian Research Centre on Sex, Health and Society 2006; Donovan et al. 2006; Chan 2005; Craft and Serovich 2005; Burke et al. 2002; Jeffries and Ball 2008; Kelly and Warshafsky 1987; Letellier 1994; Turrell 2000; Ristock 2003; Vickers 1996). There is, however, little in the way of specific community or social services support available to either victims or perpetrators of violence in same-sex relationships (see Vickers 1996). In addition, there are important differences in the experience of IPV between LGBTI and non-LGBTI victims, and even among LGBTI individuals; for example, among transgender populations (Chan 2005), and those who are HIV sero-positive (Craft and Serovich 2005). These different experiences of IPV include the use of HIV and the threat of “outing” a partner as tools of control, as just two examples (Jeffries and Ball 2008; Salyer 1999; WA Government 2008b). Such differences impact on how LGBTI victims respond to the violence, including whether or not and how they seek help, what services they are able to avail themselves of, and how likely they are to remain with, or return to, their violent partners (Burke et al. 2002). This chapter explores the prevalent heteronormative discourses that surround IPV, both within the academic literature, and in general social and government discourses. It seeks to understand how same-sex IPV remains largely invisible, and suggests that these dominant discourses play a major role in maintaining this invisibility. In many respects, it builds on work by a number of scholars who have begun to interrogate the criminal justice and social discourses surrounding violent crime, primarily sexual violence, and who problematize these discourses (see for example Carmody 2003; Carmody and Carrington 2000; Marcus 1992). It will begin by outlining these dominant discourses, and then problematize these by identifying some of the important differences between LGBTI IPV and IPV in heterosexual relationships. In doing so, this chapter will suggest some possible reasons for the silence regarding IPV in LGBTI relationships, and the effects that this can have on victims. Although an equally important area of research, and another point at which the limitations of dominant social discourses surrounding IPV can be brought to light, this chapter will not examine violence experienced by heterosexual men at the hands of their intimate female partners. Instead, it will restrict itself to IPV perpetrated within same-sex relationships.

Homophobia, heteronormativism and hegemonic masculinity : male same-sex intimate violence from the perspective of Brisbane service providers

Few studies have explored the problem of male same-sex intimate partner violence, especially in the context of Australia. Utilizing in-depth interviews with gay-friendly service providers in Brisbane, the research presented in this article sought to ascertain whether (a) intimate partner violence occurs in male same-sex intimate relationships, (b)if so, what form this violence takes,(c) what contextual triggers underpin this violence,(d) what barriers victims face in exiting abusive relationships and seeking support, and (e) what services are available and appropriate to the needs of men in violent intimate relationships with other men. Results suggest that the prevalence, types and contextual triggers of violence in male same-sex relationships parallel abuse in opposite-sex relationships. Heteronormativism, homophobia, and its close association with hegemonic masculinity, however, emerge as features unique to the male same-sex intimate partner violence experience.

Back to the future : prohibiting surrogacy for singles, same-sex and shorter-term heterosexual couples in Queensland

This article considers the regulatory position concerning altruistic surrogacy in Queensland, focusing on the intended changes to the current legal framework announced by the government in June 2012. The previous government had made significant progress by reforming surrogacy laws in 2010. However, that progress is at risk of being reversed. The proposed changes to the law would make it a criminal offence to enter into an altruistic surrogacy arrangement for certain individuals or couples. If enacted, the offence would only apply in altruistic surrogacy cases where the intended parent or parents are either single, in a same-sex relationship, or are in a heterosexual relationship of less than two years. Moreover, if enacted, the offence would apply extra-territorially. The authors argue that these changes represent a retrograde step for the law and urge the government to reconsider. This is based on the fact that they are out of step with current social attitudes, are contrary to the spirit of anti-discrimination laws, and that they are unjustified in terms of child welfare concerns.