The incredible pettiness of this government is overwhelming! No matter how small, they will find a way to persecute and interfere.
Trudy The Sydney Morning Herald Williams on futile mission to put a check in the male Date: 15/01/2002 Peter FitzSimons asks: Why on earth does the Attorney-General want to interfere in the lives of an apparently loving couple trying to bring up their child? Try this one, then. It's a true story. Three decades or so ago, a girl called Kimberly was born. At least physiologically, Kimberly was a girl. One way or another the child always felt masculine, and soon as she was able, Kimberly began to live as a "he". He dressed as a male, was accepted by family, friends and work colleagues as a male, took regular doses of male hormones and became "Kevin" - in short did everything but go through the complex operation of constructing male genitalia. In October 1996, Kevin met a woman called Jenny, and the two fell in love. In September 1997, their commitment to each other was strong enough that they entered an IVF program and in 1998 Jenny and Kevin had a son. In August of 1999 they were married by a celebrant and issued with a certificate to that effect. All well and good, then? Everybody happy? (I mean apart from you, Fred and Elaine, bless you both.) Well, the Federal Government wasn't. Last year it challenged the legality of the union before the Family Court. For the Commonwealth, Henry Burmester, QC, made the case that under the Marriage Act of 1961 a "man" could only be a man if he was a male at birth - and as Kevin did not meet that definition, the marriage was therefore invalid. Last October, Justice Richard Chisolm sent the Government away with a flea in its ear, declaring the union was valid. His judgement noted that the 1961 law and definition were clearly out of step with community views about transsexuals now, and that to define Kevin as a man would "perpetuate a view that flies in the face of current medical understanding and practice .." Then to the nub ... "Most of all," Justice Chisolm wrote, "it would impose indefensible suffering on people who have already had more than their share of difficulty, with no benefit to society." Now is everybody happy? Still not! As reported in The Australian on Thursday, the Attorney-General, Darryl Williams, has moved to appeal against the decision on six grounds. That appeal is scheduled for next month. My question is simple. What, pray tell, is the issue? In terms of properly allocating its limited resources, why does the Federal Government think that lobbing legal cannonballs on an apparently loving couple raising their child is in the nation's best interests? Just what is the "benefit to society" that Darryl Williams can see and Justice Chisolm can't? As a matter of fact, isn't this kind of issue something that as a society we settled back in the 1970s, and have since moved away from? Haven't we come to the conclusion that if two adults love each other, it is no-one else's damn business the way they choose to sort themselves out? These, surely, are legitimate questions. Yet when The Oz asked the Attorney-General last week for reasons for the appeal, Daryl Williams declined to comment. I received the same response yesterday. When I asked the reason, a spokesperson told me it would be "inappropriate" for the Attorney-General to comment. Why? Is it asking too much for Mr Williams to point out to us just why this is an issue worth fighting for? As to Justice Chisolm's claim that the community is now reasonably comfortable with same-sex and transsexual marriages - and that the Marriage Act should be brought into line with that - I believe he is correct. When I put the issue of "Kevin" and Jenny to commercial radio talkback callers last week, the response was overwhelming in support of them. Only one caller, an older woman, maintained that as a community we had to have "standards" and it was good that the Federal Government was trying to maintain those standards to preserve happy families. Poppycock, madam. The "happy family" market has not been cornered by heterosexual couples. Furthermore, standards are by their nature subjective, and in a complex, multi-faceted society like Australia, universal "standards" we can all agree to are pretty hard to come by. Not so, however, values - and I cite particularly values such as honesty, kindness and generosity. More to the point, we can surely all agree that the central value of "live and let live" is a sound one that is worth embracing and fighting to preserve. So I'll ask again. Why, Mr Attorney-General, are you - who on every other count seem to be an entirely reasonable man - going after this couple so strongly? What is the point? I think we should be told... [EMAIL PROTECTED] This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited. -- __________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ from that date. This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
