INTRODUCTION
I would like to thank the organisers for inviting me to give the closing address to this most important
human rights seminar. The
calibre of the speakers you have heard today underlines the importance of
reforming the law as it relates to sexual orientation.
I regret that I could not be here for the entire day
but a rather hectic schedule of commitments in other States made this unavoidable.
I would like to begin by complimenting the organisers of today's conference on their choice of structure
for this seminar. I think
that it is appropriate, both conceptually and strategically, for a seminar such as
this to simultaneously address the issues of anti-discrimination
legislation and family law.
It makes conceptual sense because laws outlawing discrimination should serve as more than a source of
enforceable rights and protections;
they should also provide a basis for shifting prejudicial community
attitudes. These only change when a society truly recognises
the humanity of the group who have
been enduring discrimination and, to my mind, nothing can be more central to a definition of humanity
than respect for the importance each of us places upon enduring relationships.
Equal opportunity law may and often does give a person access to important individual remedies for
certain forms of discrimination.
Its importance should not be understated. Irrespective of the number of
complaints lodged, which may be small for reasons that I
will discuss, such laws have both an educative
function so far as the community at large is concerned and a deterrent function, so
far as potential
discriminators are concerned. For these reasons I support the introduction of laws in this State
prohibiting discrimination
against persons on the ground of sexual preference.
However, it must also be recognised that such laws have limitations, as indeed does any legislative
intervention into the sensitive
area of human relationships.
All too often, as other speakers have pointed out, the anti-discrimination laws contain unsatisfactory
compromise provisions to appease
the more conservative wings of the parties introducing them. The
laying of a complaint under them exposes the complainant to a process
that may be bewildering or
embarrassing and in some cases, expensive. In addition, such laws contain no acknowledgment that
gay
men and lesbians possess and express the most human of qualities - love and commitment through
relationships.
I believe that without the recognition of all family relationships, equality - the cornerstone of democratic
society - is missing;
public acknowledgment of private affections, commitments, interdependencies and
identities is denied.
For this seminar to pay attention to both family and anti-discrimination law is also a sensible strategic
choice. This is because
arguments for the inclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of
discrimination are likely to be met with confused claims
that doing so is a dangerous domino: that it will
lead to the demise of the so-called traditional family and the opening up of a
Pandora's Box of
unintended and undesirable consequences.[1]
One of the most politically potent but patently false ideas is that the recognition of lesbian and gay
men's relationships will somehow
encourage those who would otherwise be heterosexual to opt instead
for a same-sex relationship. To the degree that sexuality is
a fluid human characteristic, it strikes me as
absurd to imagine that the achievement of limited legal protections would induce someone
to reorient
their sexuality. It seems to me that politicians take themselves far too seriously if they really believe that
any legislation
they pass will have any effect, one way or the other, upon this issue. All that such
legislation will do and this is reason enough
for it, is to provide that people whose sexual orientation is
towards a same sex relationship will be treated equally with the rest
of the community so far as the law is
concerned.
The victimisation studies cited in Anna Chapman's paper clearly show that the introduction of law
reforms is no solution in itself
to prejudice, hostility and violence against gay men and lesbians.
The argument about encouragement is closely related to the equally misguided belief that homosexuals
are prone to attempt to "corrupt"
children. As noted today by both June Williams and Anna Chapman,
this myth is an unfortunate feature of the anti-discrimination
statutes of some other States and appears
particularly strongly in the preamble to the 1989 Western Australian Act, which decriminalised
male
homosexual acts between adults over a certain age.[2]
The tendency to confuse homosexuality with paedophilia has been commented upon in a number of
papers today. Such a stereotype reflects
the inability or refusal of some people to understand that the
exploitation, harassment and assault of children and young people
is a harm related to sexuality as such,
without regard to sexual preference and in most instances, but not all, to masculinity. The
important
point is that there is no evidence to support the proposition that it bears any relationship to
homosexuality whatsoever.
"Most perpetrators of child abuse identify as heterosexual men and their
victims are predominantly female."[3] It is therefore plainly spurious to confuse calls for law reform with
concern about the propensity of some to abuse their power
and trust. This was an illogical and
unsavoury feature of some of the opposition[4] to the recent "lawful sexual behaviour" amendment to
Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act, and one which I hope will not be repeated
by Western Australian
parliamentarians or the media.
What must be properly understood is that the real effect of refusing to acknowledge and provide
protections to same-sex relationships
is to fail to recognise nothing else but relationships and the
meanings they give to an individual's life. This current state of the law smacks of society punishing
otherwise law-abiding
members for a sexual orientation that is, in and of itself, lawful.
And to what gain? Legal denial and intolerance achieve nothing but an insult to the dignity of
recognition that every family treasures
and has the right to expect in a country which supposedly
supports tolerance for peaceful differences among its members.
To continue to ignore the rights of same-sex individuals and their relationships is a pyrrhic achievement
of which no government ought
to be proud. Denying someone the right to be known as a committed
partner to a relationship, simply on the basis of the gender of
the partners, is no different to apartheid.
Writing of the resistance to same-sex relationships in American society, Herma Hill Kay,
Professor of
Law at the University of California Berkeley made an observation that applies equally here:
"Just as the existence of racially mixed families once challenged the legitimacy of white supremacy in
ways that strengthened the
social fabric in the United States, so may the contemporary example of
stable same-sex families ultimately lead to a richer and more
diverse social and cultural life." [5]
I am here today as the Chief Justice of the Family Court because I value positive consensual
relationships. As a barrister, Supreme
Court Judge and Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia,
the vast majority of harms seen in my work have arisen from violence,
abuses of power and broken
commitments and not to the fact that some people prefer same sex relationships. To value and respect
those who wish to stand connected to each other and accountable to each other in the face of
intolerance, is a cause that deserves
support.
I am also here today because I value human rights and the principle of equal treatment. These are
precious bulwarks against vulnerability
and oppression and it is almost axiomatic that the clearest
perception of the need for these rights comes from those who lack them.
The catch cry that is often heard, as it is with aboriginal and even feminist groups, that lesbians and gay
men are seeking "special
rights" has no foundation. It is simply a case of the law having failed to
provide the equal protection to which they are entitled
by virtue of their essential humanity. As I
understand the proposals for change under consideration in this state, none bear any
resemblance to
the somewhat charged legal concept of affirmative action. The calls for law reform are to end the current
harms caused
by inequality and the refusal to acknowledge that gay men and lesbians have and do lead
family lives that should not be denigrated
by legal invisibility.
To my mind, anyone who stands by the values of commitment, relationships and equal protection
should support legislative measures
that outlaw discrimination and recognise same-sex relationships.
Otherwise, they are shareholders in unwarranted fear and prejudice,
a stock that, unfortunately, is held
dear by too many in this country. Inevitably, some of our politicians reflect these feelings,
but I find it
hard to believe that a majority of them do so, when and if they are confronted with the overwhelming
logic of the contrary
position.
I have a little relevant experience in the controversy that attends these matters. In fact I suspect that the
organisers thought
to ask me because of comments I made on the value of recognising same-sex
relationships, remarks which attracted substantial media
attention early last year. I therefore thought
that it might be of interest to briefly recall that episode because it contained
some lessons which may be
instructive.
MY ADDRESS TO ST MARK'S THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE
Two years ago in Canberra in September, I was invited to address the St Mark's Theological Centre on
the topic of Perceptions of the Australian Family.[6] In my address, I was critical of the "sterile debate"
that had taken place in the International Year of the Family over what constituted
a family and the lack
of practical measures to aid those families most in need. In the course of my paper, I drew attention to
the
economic plight of mothers without partners and the increased suffering of a generation of children
arising from what I see as the
preoccupation of governments with economic rationalism.
On the night I delivered the speech, I had no reason to believe that it had been a particularly
controversial address, let alone radical
or revolutionary. I therefore found it surprising to receive a
telephone call in late December from a journalist who, I assume,
had seen of a copy of the printed
speech when it appeared in the Theological Centre's journal.
I do not know what she thought might have occurred in the few months since making the speech, but
she asked me whether I still stood
by a particular sentence in that address - that our understanding of
family, and I quote:
"may, in my belief, extend to people living in permanent homosexual as well as heterosexual
relationships and I think it more than
time that we and the law recognised this."[7]
Needless to say, I told her that I did stand by that view, and woke up on January 3rd to find that the
front page of the Sydney Morning
Herald was ablaze with the headline "Judge: give gay couples
equality".
Now, as many of you may know, the Christmas and New Year period is the slow time for news, and
attention to my comments served both
the interests of the media industry and those who opposed my
view. What followed bore little resemblance to what I had said about
the undesirability of setting rigid
limits on what a family can be and it was an interesting circus for a number of reasons.
The Media Treatment
First, it seems to me that the media were preoccupied with the sensation of a Chief Justice speaking
about same-sex relationships
despite the fact that it was not a central feature of my speech.[8] The
media's agenda, I think, was to generate conflict which they could then report. Little room was left for
me to describe the
context of those remarks which was my continuing concern that there are various
types of deeply felt relationships which, despite
their importance, still lack legal recognition.
The concerns that I addressed in that speech were not limited to same-sex couples. I also addressed the
still unresolved problem of
the fragmented laws relating to heterosexual couples living in de facto
relationships. Also, shortly prior to giving the St Mark's
address, I had just returned from visiting Torres
Strait Islander communities as part of the Court's on-going commitment to improve
the relevance and
accessibility of its services to remote areas. I was particularly interested during these community
consultations
by the traditional adoption practices of the Islander peoples, examples of this being
brothers giving a child to a childless sister
and both child and sister accepting full parent-child
relationships.[9]
It was telling that in my subsequent interviews, when I tried to explain the problem of these
relationships remaining unrecognised
by law and that de facto heterosexual families still face
unnecessary inequalities, journalists were more pre-occupied with how I
felt about the adverse reaction
to my suggestion about recognising same-sex relationships. There was little interest in teasing
out the
significance of denying legal status, not only for the adults involved, but for the children in these
families.
The Reaction To My Comments
The public reaction to my comments was also instructive. Both the Federal Labour and Liberal parties
were rather quiet on the subject
but interestingly, the Young Liberals appeared to adopt a supportive
stance.[10] One of the most unusual responses from a politician was that my remarks reflected "narrow
cast but very trendy beliefs"[11] - a rather unusual claim to fame for a Judge! They were also
considered "an attack on the institution of the family" and a step towards a "non-reproductive society"
which had to be fought "tooth and nail".[12]
Fortunately, the then Attorney-General and Minister for Health in the Australian Capital Territory was
able to reassure the public
that this fear was unfounded. Mr. Terry Connolly said that the passing of
the Territory's Domestic Relationships Act, according
equivalent treatment of property settlement to
same-sex couples, had not had any effect on birth rates in Canberra; "On the contrary" he said, "we
recently opened our third Maternity unit".[13]
The Australian Newspaper's editorial said that my suggestion was "unrealistic"[14] and its columnist,
B.A. Santamaria, wrote that my remarks illustrated:
"the well-known phenomenon of the "slippery slope". Once one foundational principle [and by this Mr.
Santamaria meant "family"] is
compromised, it becomes only too easy to compromise the next. No firm
ground is left on which to stand."[15]
When I look back on the media treatment of the issue at the time I made my comments, it strikes me that
the push down the "slippery slope" mentioned by Mr. Santamaria, was coming from opponents to law
reform. The suggestion that relationships be recognised was transformed
by some into a warning
against the redefinition of marriage.[16] Such a connection was not mentioned in my remarks nor as I
recall, by those who spoke on behalf of the lesbian and gay community.
The slope itself must be a fairly
gentle one since the slide seems to have been well under way in Athens in 400 BC.
Same-sex Marriage
I do not find the lack of comment on the question of marriage from lesbian and gay commentators
surprising. First, despite the claims
of those who would see the redefinition of marriage as the ultimate
goal, I am conscious that there are wide-ranging views on this
issue within the lesbian and gay
community, including those who are staunchly opposed to extending the institution of marriage.
For example, at the First World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights held in Sydney during
1993, Hayley Katzen delivered a
paper on the legal recognition of lesbian and gay men's relationships
which suggested to me that access to "marriage" was not a common
goal, at least within the Sydney
community.[17] Rather, the principal concern was recognition of their relationships and an end to the
social, legal and economic disadvantages
which accompany having a same-sex partner.
Secondly, I would venture to suggest that advocates for reform are conscious that to speak of same-sex
marriages "ups" the symbolic
ante. Those opposed to the concept of same-sex relationships are very
aware of the currency of drawing the link with marriage and
in some cases may do so as a deliberate
tactic to stifle more modest law reform. Other opponents may be conscious that there have
been recent
attempts to redefine the meaning of marriage in other countries with a similar legal tradition to that of
Australia,
such as the United States,[18] Canada[19] and New Zealand,[20] and may assume that such
an agenda is at play locally too.
It therefore seems to me that lobbyists for reform need to plan their approach with a recognition that
these overseas challenges do
impact upon the perceptions of Australians and that whatever the pros or
cons of the issue, the concept of "marriage" carries a meaning
which is powerfully infused with
tradition, history and religion, even more so than the concept of "family".
I think that it must also be remembered that marriage carries with it strong religious connotations for
many people and that the
law of marriage itself is directly descended from concepts developed originally
within the Eastern and Western branches of the ancient
Catholic Church and latterly, so far as this
country is concerned, by the Ecclesiastical Courts in England, applying the dogma of
the Church of
England.
It is true that as a matter of law it is now a secular institution, but it is rarely treated as such by the
public or by legislators.
The recent Parliamentary Select Committee on Family Law, which recommended the legal recognition of
de facto relationships, was careful
to say that this should not be achieved by the simple recognition of
such relationships in the Family Law Act, but rather by enacting
separate legislation which would not
afford to de facto heterosexual partners the same recognition as would be given to parties to
a marriage.
It is instructive to observe how far behind this country is on issues such as this when compared to
Canada with its Charter. In this
country a Bill of Rights is anathema to most conservative lawyers and
politicians and quite a few on the Labor side of politics.
It may also be helpful for law reform advocates to repeatedly make it clear that a change to the
recognition of same-sex relationships
in Western Australia will have no effect on the definition of
marriage because this is a matter of Commonwealth law. [21] While this may seem obvious to this
audience, I think that the issues can easily merge and blur for the public.
As my small experience in this matter has shown me, the media have an important role to play in keeping
the issues clear and I think
there is a good deal of benefit that comes from explaining to journalists and
to politicians what is not within the ambit of the reforms they propose.
The Correspondence
The hostile correspondence after my comments hit the press were a troubling indication of the
misunderstanding, fear and frank prejudice
that lies in the community. Some of the letters to my
chambers were rather vitriolic. Writers speculated on my underlying personal
motives, quite often
providing me with extensive quotations from the Scriptures.
Some who wrote to me called for my impeachment and this made for a touch of irony, because at least
one newspaper columnist had suggested
that my stance was part of a supposed bid to be appointed to
fill a vacancy on the High Court.[22] The logical link escaped me then as it does now, when one
considers the position of the Government at that time on the Tasmanian
criminal law against consenting
sex between adult men.
In contrast, the letters from those who supported my stance were often very moving. What touched me
particularly were the encouraging
sentiments of the parents and friends of gay men and lesbians, people
who are too often forgotten in the furore of debate. They
explained the damaging consequences of a
lack of societal respect for their children, and told of how social and legal blindness
to their children's
relationships placed stress upon the entire extended family. It left me wondering whether any of the
protagonists
had really stopped to think that lesbians and gay men were part of a wider family context
and I, as a parent, was left wondering
how I would feel if my grown-up children were talked about in the
tones of derision that crossed my desk in the newspapers and letters.
One letter that I particularly recall came from an adult man brought up by his mother and her long-term
female partner. His letter
spoke of the sadness and frustration he had continually felt at society's refusal
to acknowledge the legitimacy and the value of
the parents he cherished. The parents he respected
were being denied that same basic human right of respect by the laws of the community.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RESPECT
It is this concern for respect which unites human rights proponents and it is the denial of respect which
underpins discrimination.
In a recent judgment, Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dube of the Supreme Court of Canada captured the
essence of this issue when she wrote:
"...inherent dignity is at the heart of individual rights in a free and democratic society...Equality means
that our society cannot
tolerate legislative distinctions that treat certain people as second-class citizens,
that demean them, that treat them as less than
capable for no good reason, or that otherwise offend
fundamental human dignity."[23]
Her comments were made in the landmark 1995 case of Egan v Canada brought by two men who had
been living in a relationship for nearly 50 years by the time it was decided by the Supreme Court of
Canada.
It was a case under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which enables federal and
provincial legislation to be challenged
as discriminatory on certain grounds.
As you have already heard today, in Egan, the partners submitted that it was discriminatory to deny
them a social security supplement which would have been paid if they had
been an opposite sex couple.
Although they did not succeed in their specific claim, it was the first unanimous recognition by the
highest Court in Canada, that sexual orientation is a recognised ground of discrimination under the
Charter.
In considering why they did not succeed it is instructive to look to the joint judgment of four of the five
Judges in Egan's case who found against the plaintiffs.[24]
Defining a Family: Children or Interdependence and Commitment?
Underlying their Honours' judgment is a view that the legal notion of "family" should be defined with
reference to the functions of
this social unit. In this regard, they elevated the procreation and raising of
children to the point of being definitive of the
meaning of "family" and considered the social and legal
acceptance and support of de facto heterosexual families as somewhat of a
concession to "the social
reality that increasing numbers choose not to enter a legal marriage".[25] They said that extending
support to unmarried families was warranted in order to avoid the poverty which is more often faced by
sole parents' children and the greater "burdens" such children often place on society.[26]
Whatever one's view of how the state goes about it, society will always have and, in my view, should
always have, an interest in recognising
and protecting the family unit because it is the natural
environment for children to be nurtured and developed. To hold this view
passionately does not,
however, justify or logically lead to the withholding of recognition and protection to relationships which
do not have the raising of children as their raison detre. Such relationships are by no means confined to
same sex relationships.
In my view, it is not procreation that defines a family relationship, it is the commitment and the financial
and emotional interdependence
of family members. To alienate families with these qualities but who are
different to the so called "traditional" form, is both
unnecessary and counter-productive. It is
reminiscent of the legal and social chauvinism that has been largely, but not entirely,
dispelled in
respect of so-called illegitimate children.
One of the fundamental misconceptions which plagues the issue is the failure to understand that
heterosexual family life in no way
gains stature, security and respect by the denigration or refusal to
acknowledge same-sex families. The sum social good is, in fact
reduced, because when a community
refuses to recognise and protect the genuine commitments made by its members, the state acts against
everybody's interests. This is because it alienates ordinary people whose commitments represent an
investment in the shared social
order and the values which are promoted by it.[27]
Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dube put it elegantly when she wrote:
"It is possible to be pro-family without rejecting less traditional family forms. It is not anti-family to
support protection for
non-traditional families. The traditional family is not the only family form, and
non-traditional family forms may equally advance
true family values."[28]
Those who would emphasise the difference between same-sex and heterosexual families either
unwittingly or deliberately cast lesbian
and gay men's relationships as fundamentally and uniformly
different and foreign. Such an assumption is simply insupportable. Social
science research and
common experience consistently tell us that diversity is the norm and, to quote one eminent sociologist,
Professor
Margrit Eichler:
"Overall, the differences among opposite-sex couples and among same-sex couples are greater than the
differences between these two groups." (emphasis in original).[29]
Family Law and Diverse Families.
It is precisely this diversity of individuals and families and their circumstances which presents in family
law matters every day.
Sexual orientation is no basis upon which to make assumptions about the
quality of an individual's relationships or the parenting
capacities of a person. That is why sexual
orientation, in and of itself, has been held to be an irrelevant matter in disputes about
children under the
Family Law Act unless it somehow impinges upon the best interests of the child.[30]
To the extent that such potential effects are relevant, Justice Wooten in the Supreme Court of New
South Wales correctly observed
that such matters are "equally applicable to [the] heterosexual
relationships of parents".[31] In saying this, I am conscious that additional questions are seen to be
posed when the Courts evaluate lesbian and gay applicants
and their proposals for the care of their
children, that are not found in cases where a parent's sexual orientation or partner is
heterosexual.
I am aware that there have been criticisms of the approach taken in some Family Court cases, [32]
particularly the first instance 1983 decision L and L,[33] which suggested that a court faced with a
homosexual applicant should consider a "checklist" of factors such as the following:
"Whether children raised by homosexual parents may themselves become homosexual, or whether such
an event is likely.
...
Whether a homosexual parent would show the same love and responsibility as a heterosexual parent.
...
Whether homosexual parents will give a balanced sex education to their children and take a balanced
approach to sexual matters."[34]
I can appreciate why it is said that these matters begin from an improper footing because such an a
priori list of factors seems to presume that such differences may be expected when the applicant is a gay
man or a lesbian as against a
heterosexual parent.[35] Interestingly, the correctness of the L and L
approach has not been the subject of challenge before a Full Court.
I cannot say what a Full Court would do with such an issue, but I would hope that the passage of years
and the resulting change in
community attitudes would be reflected in the Court's consideration of the
matter
Related issues did, however, arise in the Canadian adoption case of Re K[36] which was discussed in
Jenni Millbank's paper as an illustration of a successful challenge to statutory definitions. As you will
recall, this was a case brought by four lesbian couples under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. In each of the couples,
one partner was the birth mother to the child or children under
consideration. The Ontario law permitted an adoption application
by "one individual" (without regard
to sexual orientation) or "jointly by two individuals who are spouses of one another" (married
or
unmarried). Since the couples did not meet the definition of spouse, the practical problem was that the
non-birth mother could
not apply as an individual without extinguishing the birth mother's legal
connection to the child.[37]
In essence, the question which faced Judge Nevins was whether the couples should be permitted to
apply to jointly adopt the children
that each was already parenting. He found that the barrier to joint
adoption was discriminatory and, to use the language of the
Charter, not "demonstrably justified in a
free and democratic society."[38] The substantive adoption applications went on to be determined
according to the well-known basis of the "child's best interests"
test.
For my purposes today, I would draw attention to the examination within Re K of social science research
findings, because Judge Nevins
had before him highly regarded expert evidence in the fields of
sociology,[39] psychology,[40] and psychiatry,[41] "on the ability of homosexual persons to parent,
individually or as couples".[42] It led his Honour to find that there is no rational basis for negative
stereotypical beliefs about the mental health and relationship
stability of such parents or the
psychological profiles of their children, and I quote:
"there is no cogent evidence that homosexual couples are unable to provide the very type of family
environment that the legislation
attempts to foster, protect and encourage, at least to the same extent as
"traditional" families parented by heterosexual couples".[43]
I would take a great deal of persuading that the same conclusion does not apply in Australia. Indeed,
one of our longest serving
Judges, Justice Lindenmayer said in a very early Family Court case on the
subject:
"A court of law must act upon evidence not upon assumption or theory ... there is no basis upon which
it could be suggested that the
Court should judicially notice that a practicing homosexual parent cannot
provide as good and healthy an upbringing for his or her
children as a heterosexual one." [44]
While the Family Law Act itself does not contain the same discriminatory premises that were challenged
in Re K, I accept that any process of decision-making carries with it the risk that assumption will take the
place of evidence. Indeed,
a major educative theme within the Court has been the promotion of greater
awareness to issues of gender and race, and the risk of
decisions containing unintentional biases based
on stereotypes unsupported by evidence in a particular case.[45] To date, the Court has not paid direct
attention to issues of sexual orientation in these programs but there is scope for that to
occur and, as
pointed out in June Williams' paper, stereotyped notions of male homosexuality and lesbianism are
interwoven with concepts
of gender roles, and what is thought to be appropriate conformity to them.
One of the most heartening features of the Court's gender and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Awareness programs, to me at least,
has been the fact that it has led to an increased self questioning by
the participants of their approach to stereotypes and an enthusiasm
to confront other areas, such as
this one, where stereotypical thinking abounds.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
By way of conclusion, I would like to take us back to a quote from a speech in another time on another
issue. The words are from
an Englishman speaking in 1833 on a matter which, like so many matters seen
in a historical perspective, seems a little self evident.
It is the speech of Thomas Babington Macaulay
advocating in favour of full political equality for Jews in England: Mr. Babington
said of his opponent:
"The plain truth is that my honourable friend is drawn in one direction by his opinions, and in a directly
opposite direction by his
excellent heart. He halts between two opinions. He tries to make a
compromise between principles which admit of no compromise.
He goes a certain way in intolerance.
Then he stops, without being able to give a reason for stopping. But I know the reason.
It is his
humanity. Those who formerly dragged the Jew at a horse's tail and singed his beard with blazing furze-
bushes, were much
worse men than my honourable friend; but they were more consistent than he."[46]
Australia would do well to have more Honourable Members who could be described in these terms, as
unable to give a reason for their
opposition to human rights because of their "humanity". This does not
seem to have been the case here so far on the subject of sexual
orientation.
Hopefully, this seminar will make a difference. I hope it provides the necessary impetus for the
legislators of this State to question
any reluctance they may have to law reform, and the assumptions
which underlie it.
Most of all I hope this seminar leads them to rethink their humanity and to wonder what it must be like
to be denied a pivotal feature
of one's humanity for purposes which, I must say, seem to pander to
irrational fear and prejudice.
I wish you well in the pursuit of your goals: recognition and respect for your human right, and that of
your children, to laws that
assure and deliver equal and fair treatment. As a judge, these are my lode
stars and I hope that your legislators can lead as well
as navigate towards this future for lesbians, gay
men and their families.
I thank you for inviting me here today.
