Video of two high-profile Australian politicians squaring off about marriage equality has gone viral down under. On Monday night, Finance Minister Penny Wong and Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey appeared on a panel on the ABC show Q&A, filmed in front of a live audience and broadcast live on national television. Audience member Ross Scheepers addressed the final question of the evening to Hockey, and it was a zinger:
. . . Earlier you said you think all Australians are equal, but on Friday you said you wouldn’t vote for marriage equality because you really believe children deserve a mother and a father. So I’m wondering if you could tell us, and Senator Wong, why you think you and Melissa make better parents than her and Sophie.
As the audience resoundingly applauded, the camera cut to Hockey — looking veeeeeery uncomfortable — and then briefly to Wong, who flashed a tight-lipped smile and seemed surprised at the pointed, personal question. (While Wong is openly gay, she hasn’t made marriage equality a campaign issue.) Hockey denied that he thought he and his wife were better parents simply because they’re an opposite-gender couple, but said that when he became a parent, he came to feel that “we’ve got to give our children what I believe to be the very best circumstances, and that’s to have a mother and a father.”
The audience reacts in a deliciously awkward manner: one person begins clapping, and a handful of others tepidly join in. The tension is palpable. Hockey exacerbates it further by elaborating that when it comes to marriage equality, “[he's] being asked to legislate in favor of something that [he doesn't] believe to be the best outcome for a child.” (Note: there is no evidence whatsoever that opposite-sex couples are inherently better parents or achieve better outcomes than same-sex couples, or that children of non-LGBT parents do better than those with LGBT parents.)
Asked to respond to Hockey’s remarks, a still-stunned Wong begins with “Well, there’s almost nothing I can say.” She then proceeds to deliver a remarkably candid and dignified rebuttal to Hockey’s discriminatory remarks:
The first logical point is, marriage has generally not been prerequisite for children, so I don’t think the logical position holds, but just from a sort of values perspective, it is sad, I think, that some families have to feel that they have to justify who they are. . . When you say those things, Joe, what you’re saying to not just me, but people like me, is that the most important thing in our lives — which is the people we love — is somehow less good, less valued. And if you believe that, then you believe that, but I have a different view.
When the moderator asks Wong if remarks like Hockey’s are hurtful, she replies, “Oh, of course it is,” then resolutely adds, “But . . . I know what my family is worth.”
Thunderous applause.
Australian Marriage Equality campaign coordinator Rodney Croome called the exchange a “watershed moment” in the battle for the hearts and minds of average Australians. In the days since it aired, Croome said the AME office has been overwhelmed with messages of support for Wong. He also reported a surge in AME’s web traffic caused by a large number of supportive citizens sending emails to their MPs through the group’s website, and noted that those making contact tended to be older, straight voters.
The National Times reports that while marriage equality legislation is not likely to pass in Parliament, it is wildly popular with Australian voters, enjoying over 60 percent support. But I didn’t need a poll to tell me that. Comparing the near-silence of the Q&A audience after Hockey spoke and their uproarious response to Wong’s from-the-heart comments tells me everything I need to know.
Check out the video below. What do you think?
In February 2010, Hockey appeared on the television program Talkin’ ‘Bout Your Generation where he was involved in a segment that required him to hold up a tutu and wave a magic wand
I am no expert on the governing system in Australia. But what i believe to be true is that they have a very weak Constitution, Go look it up on WiIki for more details. Basically what they have is raw Majority Rule.
There is no 14th Amendment in their Constitution that says that the Government must treat all it’s citizens Equally under the Law. In fact they did not even count the Aboriginal people in their population counts for allocating member of Parliament until 1967.
Nope it is pure majority rule there, their Constitution does not protect Minorities from the Tyranny of the Majority at all. There laws are merely acts of Parliament, and what one Parliament Votes into Law today another Parliament can vote out tomorrow. In other words they are perfectly free to make laws that Discriminate against certain classes of Citizens as their Constitution does not prohibit this.
So in Australia it is even more important to win hearts and minds because from what i can tell that is the only way for sexual minorities to win the right to Civil Marriage. So the applause after Ms. Wong spoke was really really important.
Again I am not an expert on Constitutional Law in Australia, and would be delighted if anyone who is would correct and or expand on my comment.
So what if they have no 14th amendment? Plenty of other countries do just fine without one. It’s not like the US has EVER lived up to its ideals. It always took decades to actually protect minorities. Great Britain abolished slavery with a vote. The US had a war over it. In gay rights, it’s also lagging behind the rest of the civilized world.
>”what one Parliament Votes into Law today another Parliament can vote out tomorrow”
The US is exactly the same. So are most other countries really. How many gay rights laws have been undone by subsequent Republican governments? Sure, you can sue over it, but that takes years and lots of money. Again, no difference. Just because something may be technically unconstitutional doesn’t mean it won’t be done. Especially if there is no established case law.
Australia has the advantage that since 2008 same-sex de facto relationships are recognized to a large extent and given the same rights as opposite-sex ones. That means that gay military members for example actually received benefits. Without being legally married. It’s also possible for a foreign partner to immigrate (just like in most of Europe). Australian gay couples also have access to things like health insurance, joint tax returns and survivor benefits.