Magda Szubanski to Fiona Nash on Q & A: "Thanks for nothing.” VIDEO

On the ABC's Q & A last night, Magda Szubanski spoke her mind, and rightfully so.

When she and deputy Nationals leader Fiona Nash clashed, well... here is the dialogue:

Drawing on her own experiences, Magda spoke about feeling suicidal when she was 11 and 12, when she thought being a lesbian would mean she’d have an “absolutely terrible life”.

“The difference between LGBTQI people and any other minority is that in every other minority group the family shares the minority status,” she said.

“As an LGBTQI person you are a minority of one within your own family. It is such a precarious feeling.”

She added that she deemed humiliating and denigrating that gay couples could not marry.

“It means you are not considered to be a fully human person,” she said.

“Every time they knock back those bills in Parliament how do you think we feel? We know it’s telling us we’re lesser. That contributes to the lack of self-esteem and the self-harm that LGBTQI people have done to ourselves for decades.”

But it was an exchange with Fiona Nash that got her really fired up.

Fiona was defending the government’s decision to back a plebiscite when Magda appealed to her to think of it from a more personal perspective.

Magda: “One simple question: Do you think I’m equal to you?”

Fiona replied: “Of course I do.”

Magda: “If I was your daughter, and I’m being gay, would you think that I should have the right to be married?”

Fiona: “I’ve been asked this question a lot over the last 12 months and my response was that my view is still the traditional view of marriage. I love my children regardless of what they ever brought home for me would make absolutely no difference at all. I completely respect your view and your desire to see that as equality ...”

Magda: “But you won’t give me my rights. Thanks for nothing.”

Heartbreaking, really. If you have a heart.

Here is the whole episode, with the plebiscite argument the first chat to take place on the show:

'Married At First Sight' Australia - Season Three: VIDEO

It's back.

Yep, 'Married At First Sight' Australia is BACK.

And this time, even more surprises are in store.

Watch the latest trailer:




Sooo... this series will be feature the first ever same sex wedding for the show. Finally!

What do you think of the show? Are you a fan?

Gay couple in 80s want right to marry before they die

This story moved me to tears.

My friend posted it and I knew it would be emotional.

And this, my friends, is why gay marriage should be happening in Australia. This, and the fact that it's really not a straight couple's business how a gay couple conduct, view, or 'legalise' their relationship (of course it's already legal, but to go that extra step, in the eyes of the law, as a married couple). Also, look at how elderly and beautiful they are. Give them their last wish!

An excerpt below, then read more here.

A Sydney-based gay couple aged in their late eighties, who have been in a relationship for 48 years, say they want the right to marry before they die.

After a lifetime of relative privilege and opportunity, it is the one thing that eludes John Challis, and at 87, it really bothers him.

"I'm not going to live forever," he said.

His partner, Arthur Cheeseman, who is 83 and has trouble seeing and hearing, was not well enough to take part in an interview.

"He is getting frail", Mr Challis said.

"We met at the Art Gallery of New South Wales; it was the final night of the great Sydney Northern retrospective in 1967.

Via abc.net.au - story in hyperlink above.

'Married At First Sight' Australia: REVIEW

So, I watched the whole of episode one and two of 'Married At First Sight', and if the preview was meant to have me hooked, it worked.

The process of getting these couples - eight people, four men and four women in total - matched up (according to psychologist John Aiken, psychologist Sabina Read, and neuropsychotherapist Dr Trisha Stafford) and then to the altar is something I found to be quite fascinating. In fact, I would have liked to have seen even more of why the experts chose who they did choose as matches. Watch the first episodes and you'll see what I'm talking about. Here are the eight men and women (they're not matched together in this photo below, by the way):

SO. Let's cut to the chase.

DOES THIS SHOW MAKE A MOCKERY OF MARRIAGE (I am shouting that because these are the words you will see strewn allllll over your social media feeds tonight).

I feel it DOES NOT. My reasons are below.

First, here's what the panel on 'The Mixed Grill' on the 'Today' show had to say.

"Does this show make a mockery of marriage," asks Karl Stefanovic of journalist Sarrah Le Marquand.

She says: "Of course it doesn't make a mockery of marriage; it has survived centuries, it has survived the advent of no fault divorce, it's survived Kim Kardashian," she says, amongst lots of laughter from fellow panellists.

Adds David Campbell: "Marriage has done a really good job of making a mockery of marriage. Look at the divorce rate, people get married way too quickly. This is a social experiment. I enjoyed watching [John Aiken and Sabina Read - the latter of which says she initially said no to this show when she thought it was an actual, legal marriage. You guys: it's NOT] this morning on your show, we're going to talk about it on our ['Mornings' - see link below] show. It's a social experiment, it's a commit ceremony, it's not a marriage."

David also says: "I know a lot of my gay friends out there are angry about the whole marriage equality issue. I ask them to look at this as what it is: it's a title of a TV show just to get ratings which will hopefully it will get, but at the end of the day, it's not about marriage equality, and if you're angry about that, go speak to your MP." 

Agreed, David! I am ALL for marriage equality. LIke, wholeheartedly, no shit: gay couples SHOULD be able to marry too. Not all gay couples want to marry, just like not all straight couples do. Some de facto couples are very happy staying that way; the same as some gay couples.

Adds Sylvia Jeffreys: "It's a little like RSVP online, but you just skip a few stages."

So, are we mocking marriage with this show? In my opinion, no.

To add to Sarrah's list above, the whole practice of marriage has survived cheating, and people still wearing a wedding ring while sleeping with someone else while their partner has no idea what they're up to. That's a mockery of marriage.

It has survived people who think that multiple partners in a marriage is okay. Not okay. Weird. It's a relationship implosion waiting to happen if you think having an open marriage where having sex with other people with each others' full 'consent' is normal. Sooner or later, someone deviates. That is a mockery of marriage.

Marriage that is a mockery is: backstabbing your partner, consistently lying to your partner, not embracing the baggage that comes with your partner, thinking your parents are better than his. Gambling your money away. Lying, being deceitful. Now all of THAT is a mockery of marriage, folks!

But this: it's a show. It does not represent the decay of our society as we know it. Please.

Anyway, you guys: tune in. See for yourself. Revel in the utterly awkward moments of some (all) of the couples as they prep for 'the big day.' Some moments are so awks, you cannot look away. But gosh, they are fun to watch. Don't worry, they went into it with their eyes open. Nobody forced them.

Just watch it. It's TV! Not life or death. Get 'outraged' if you want… then have a wine and a laugh and just watch. Or don't.

I mean, in one scene leading up the wedding, one of the women - Claire - says out loud what we are all thinking: "I am just thinking, 'Are you crazy? What are you doing? What are you doing?'" she says.

Yup, exactly Claire. The whole country (*people who care about reality TV) will be scrutinising, and already there is much negativity on social media before the show has even screened (interestingly, the MOST vocal opponents of the show are the vast majority of people who have not seen it; most who have seen a full two-ep preview say they love it, can see it's different from what they expected, they know it's a social experiment, and they are FAR from 'outraged').

I am not outraged, I am not offended, I will not be told by others how I should feel.

Marriage is an institution I hold dear - I love it, in fact! To paraphrase David, it's so much fun I never want it to end. A show won't change my mind.

The segment from today's Mornings TV show is here where Lachlan, one of the grooms, is joined by Sabina.

The six part series - on each Monday night at 8.30pm - was filmed in Sydney and Melbourne last year, and the social experiment follows the newlyweds as they honeymoon, meet the in-laws and live together for a month, while trying to figure out if they really are a perfect match. Like the old 'Perfect Match' but on 'roids. And no Dexter.

A petition on change.org against it all has now surpassed its target of 15,000 signatures. It was to have the show not be screened. Yeah, that was never going to work.

Nine has responded to the petition, clarifying that the four couples do not actually wed in the legal sense.

Only commitment ceremonies have been undertaken (despite the dress and flowers, etc) and, after 30 days, the participants will decide whether they want to stay together or say bye for good.

“In order to comply with the Australian Marriage Act (1961) which requires one month and one day notification, a marriage in law was not conducted,” a Nine spokesperson told news.com.au.

“Each participant embarked on a commitment ceremony with a wedding celebrant with all due intention to commit fully to this union for the duration of the experiment. At the end of the experiment they are given the option to continue with the relationship or go their separate ways.”

If the couples do believe they have found their perfect match at the end of the month, they can sign the papers necessary to formalise the union.

Interestingly, one half of a 'Married At First Sight' couples from the US version saw a post of mine on Twitter a few weeks ago and he said that, one year on, he is still blissfully happy with his met-at-the-altar wife. The series is now about to screen season two in the US.

If these two people - who knew they were signing up to such a show - are consenting adults (and they are), let the 'outrage' ensue if the marriage breaks down! Let them cry over their gazillion toasters. But spending time being incensed for them? Nah.

You can follow the 'Married At First Sight' Australian Facebook page here.

Lachlan, one of the men ready to be matched up

Roni, ready to wear her wedding dress

Michelle, she's good to go

'What R U having?' Viral video

This soon-to-be viral video moves me to tears. Watch:



Did it move you also?

Says the YouTube description of the video, which went live on 6 May 2013:

Couples are used to preparing their world so their children have all the opportunities they had. So, what if the next child born into your family was lesbian or gay. What would that child be missing out on? Have you thought about that? Marriage Equality for LGBTI people is still something that has yet to be achieved in Australia. So maybe it's worth helping prepare the world for the lesbian or gay child that you might have in the future by asking your representative to help change the laws to allow full marriage equality today. This video has been commissioned by Shelley Argent, Australian National Spokesperson for the Parents and Friends of Lesbians And Gays (PFLAG). Visit www.whatruhaving.org for more information about the campaign.

Being gay is not a 'lifestyle choice'. It is inherently within you. It's in your DNA. And I truly believe that those who are critical of challenges faced by the gay community are vocal because their own child have not been dealt the blows a gay person is dealt. You wouldn't sign up for the discrimination they are dished. And supportive parents of the gay community feel their childrens' pain. They are and always will be their precious babies. This is what this video represents to me.

What about you?

Google "gay" or "marriage equality" = rainbow! Plus, Kristen Bell proposes

Google "gay" or "marriage equality" and watch what comes up... a rainbow!

As Global News reports, the rainbow pops up when searching  “gay,” “lesbian,” “homosexuality,” “LGBT,” “marriage equality,” “bisexual” and “transgender,” as well as searches for gay pride celebrations.

Says this LA Times story:

The rainbow of colors became the standard symbol of the gay community in the 1970s. In 1978, San Francisco artist Gilbert Baker designed a flag with eight bright stripes.

Each color has its own symbolism, as Slate reports: "pink for sex, red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sunlight, green for nature, blue for art, indigo for harmony, and violet for the human spirit."

This is in line with Wednesday's US Supreme Court rulings, striking down the federal Defence of Marriage Act and California's Prop. 8 prohibiting same-sex marriages.

As usual, Twitter was a fabulous barometer for the sentiments felt by stars.

Actress Kristen Bell tweeted to her fiance Dax Shepard:

"@daxshepard1 will you marry me? Xo #marriageequality #loveislove" - Kristen Bell to her fiance, Dax Shepard. The couple previously said they'd wait to wed until it was legal for everyone.

The couple previously said they'd wait to wed until it was legal for everyone. Bless.

Marie Claire Australia, July 2012: Marriage Equality + local paper speaks out

The newest edition of Marie Claire Australia - the July issue, out Wednesday - features Rachael Taylor on the cover, proudly wearing a sleeveless tee with the words "I Do".

She joins other celebs - including Jennifer Hawkins, Missy Higgins, and Megan Gale - supporting the marriage equality cause.

What also impressed me this morning is seeing that marriage equality made the cover of my local paper.

Such a hot button topic making its way to the cover of suburban, mostly conservative local paper? Bravo editors!

The father featured here, Geoff Thomas - says:

"I grew up homophobic," he said. "I'm a plumber. I spent nine years in the army; I'm a Vietnam veteran. When I grew up, I was taught that gays were perverts — basically."

Mr Thomas said about a year before his wife died, his son told her he was homosexual — came out to her on the phone.

"She handed the phone to me and said, 'Geoff, your son has something he wants to tell you'," Mr Thomas said.

"He said, 'Dad, I'm gay'. He was very nervous about it. I said, 'You're my son and I love you'. I said, 'I'm going to have to reappraise my views'."

You can read more here: 

http://www.fairfieldchampion.com.au/news/local/news/general/father-fights-for-equal-rights/2574046.aspx

This piece speaks to me more than any other national, global campaign... because it starts at grass roots level. It also affirms what I believe: until the gay marriage issue affects you personally - your own son, brother, cousin, friend of a friend is gay - you can't possibly know how it feels to want the same rights as everyone else.

Marriage equality: campaign by GetUp and Australian Marriage Equality

Have you seen the new marriage equality ad?

Watch:

It was produced to support the campaign by GetUp and Australian Marriage Equality to strive for marriage equality, encouraging people to make a real difference by signing the petition and emailing and meeting your local MP.

I am a huge supporter of marriage equality.

Several of my gay friends are getting married or are wanting to, and it really hit home to me when I discovered a young relative of mine is gay (well, I always knew and I am sure, so did he) and found myself hoping he can find love and keep it and marry his partner if he wanted to one day.

It's as simple as that.

Here is the ad I first saw during this year's broadcast of the Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras. As a mother of twins, and a supporter of gay marriage, I must say it affected me greatly:

And, in case you missed it, this piece by my friend and ex-work colleague Drew Sheldrick is one of the best pieces you will read about the issue. Click right here for this piece.

For more, see: http://www.ido.org.au/ and http://www.getup.org.au/

When it comes to marriage equality, hold the nuts. By Drew Sheldrick

There has been much discussion and debate recently surrounding gay marriage. I enlisted Drew Sheldrick, journalist for gay and lesbian newspapers Sydney Star Observer and Southern Star Observer (you must follow him on Twitter via @DrewBoyTweets) to write a piece on the topic. I invite you to share this link, and comment.

When it comes to marriage equality, hold the nuts. By Drew Sheldrick
In March this year, Kerri-Anne Kennerley’s morning show hosted a debate between Australian Marriage Equality’s Alex Greenwich and Christian Democratic Party candidate Peter Madden.

At the conclusion of the discussion between the same-sex marriage advocate and the anti-gay Christian, Kennerley turned to Greenwich and confidently told him that she hoped he “appreciated the fairly good even spread of information here”. I was struck by the comment.

While no one expects the kind of soft-news/lifestyle programming of Kerri-Anne to be on the front line of balanced current affairs debate, Kennerley’s perception of what constituted an even playing field in discussing GLBTI issues – and particularly marriage equality - is indicative of a wider problem with Australian media outlets.

Why are we turning to the likes of Madden expecting reasoned argument in these debates? A self-confessed sex addict who told media outlets that he’d visited brothels and hired prostitutes, Madden one day decided to become a Christian pastor and run for state parliament on what was mostly an anti-gay platform of shutting down Mardi Gras and upholding the ‘sanctity of marriage’.

He’s in good company in the early morning hours. Channel Seven’s Sunrise is more a fan of former Family First candidate-turned-Australian Christian Lobby spokesperson Wendy Francis. Francis once compared same-sex marriage to “legalising child abuse” and has these days turned her attention to taking down safe-sex advertising campaigns claiming they’re hurting children.

This week, in light of the passage of same-sex marriage legislation in New York, News Limited ran two anti-marriage equality opinion columns on the same day. One was in the Courier Mail and the other on The Punch. Both were from representatives of two separate ‘family’ organisations and the Courier Mail piece went as far as labeling the children of same-sex couples as a new ‘stolen generation’ and implied homosexuality was something that could be cured.

The Queensland paper went on to post a counter opinion on the same page as the piece, but not until hours after it was originally put online and disgust had spread through social media at the decision to publish at all.

Dr David van Gend, the writer of that particularly abhorrent op-ed, is a spokesman for the Family Council of Queensland, and the author of The Punch’s piece was Tim Cannon, the media spokesperson and national research officer of the Australian Family Association.

Through inviting the representatives of these groups on respected news and current affairs programs or into mainstream publications to discuss marriage equality, their opinions are being elevated to the level of what is considered rational discourse, when they really have no right to be.

In the US, CNN has come under continued pressure from advocacy groups for continuing to invite representatives of these religious groups masquerading as all-embracing family advocates.

Popular guests of the network include members of the Family Research Council (FRC), a group that claims higher rates of teen suicide among gay teenagers is simply because homosexuality is “abnormal”.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLADD) see their continued media platform as an unfair equation of viewpoints on GLBTI matters.

Take the debate between the FRC’s Peter Sprigg and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) repeal activist Alex Nicholson on the network in January this year.

Nicholson’s qualifications in regards to the military ban on openly gay servicemen and women was clear. He was an openly gay, former army intelligence officer, who could give firsthand accounts of how the discriminatory policy played out in the daily lives of gay and lesbian service members.

Sprigg came exclusively from his job at the FRC and in pairing him with Nicholson, GLADD argued that CNN told its millions of viewers that both these men should be seen as equally valuable to the discussion.

FRC representatives are also invited onto American news networks such as MSNBC and Fox News on a regular basis. There they continue to quote lies about the GLBTI community and their families from discredited “research” groups such as the American College of Pediatricians, which was started by notorious ex-gay therapy promoter George Alan Rekers, a Baptist minister caught holidaying with rent-boys in 2010.

GLADD’s issue is not that the media is taking on these groups; in fact they strongly support exposing their archaic views on television for what they truly are. No, GLADD believe that the media are elevating the hurtful messages and attitudes of people like Sprigg, claiming they are somehow equally weighted with someone like Nicholson’s real life experience and firsthand facts.

I’m the first to admit that it makes for entertaining - if occasionally infuriating - television, but that doesn’t make it a legitimate source of opinion. It’s time we jumped on board with the Americans and called for these invitations for comment to end.

This is not a matter of denying the right of free speech to those whose views one doesn’t agree with, it’s about what constitutes balance. It’s time for producers and editors alike to raise the bar when inviting commentators to debate. It’s not just lazy journalism, it’s potentially harmful.

The discriminatory and hateful rhetoric of people like Madden and Francis does nothing but make young people in the GLBTI community feel even lower self-worth. They represent a viewpoint on marriage equality not grounded simply in tradition, political or legal opposition, they speak for pockets of prejudice and bigotry in their chosen religions.

While the US still has some resistance to interracial marriage – as witnessed in 2009 when a Louisiana justice of the peace refused to officiate a civil wedding for an interracial couple – you’d be hard pressed to find a network willing to invite a white supremacist on the air for a robust debate about decades of anti-miscegenation law reform.

You want to have a debate on marriage equality, let’s do it. But let’s stop giving the hate-speech of these extremists more oxygen than it deserves.

Drew is a journalist for gay and lesbian newspapers Sydney Star Observer and Southern Star Observer. Follow him on Twitter via @DrewBoyTweets