The Stirrer – mikeybear

Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, Patron of the Australian Family Association, dead at 103 | The Stirrer

No one doubts Elisabeth Murdoch did a great deal of good: but she also lent her name to bigotry.

This article was first published on The Stirrer.

Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, Patron of the Australian Family Association, dead at 103

by: Michael Barnett

December 6, 2012 – Family, featured – Tagged: AFA, Australian Family Association, bigotry, Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, homophobia, homosexuality, marriage equality, MCRI, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, philanthropy, youth suicide – no comments

Last night Dame Elisabeth Murdoch died, aged 103. She was a much loved philanthropist. She was also a patron of the Australian Family Association.

Whilst on the surface a supporter of a cause that supports families might sound warm and fuzzy, the reality is that a supporter of the AFA supports a cause that is intolerant of same-sex attracted people, and intolerant of same-sex relationships. It upholds a definition of marriage that excludes same-sex attracted couples.

The good dame was also the patron of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute. Today their web page announces:

Her vision and commitment have saved thousands of children’s lives and improved the health of many more living with rare and common childhood conditions.

The irony of this is that her having been a patron of the AFA, an organisation deeply intolerant of homosexual people, is that her good reputation gave credence to bigoted values that have proven links to contributing to the alarming rate of youth suicide, mental health issues and other forms of self-harm.

While she may have been a wonderful person, she linked herself with a disreputable organisation, in stark contrast to many of the values she espoused in her public life. She sided with bigots and homophobes and we shouldn’t forget that.

Whilst many remember the great good that Dame Elisabeth Murdoch did for society, we must also remember her as a person who upheld bigotry.

Campaigning on pointless promises | The Stirrer

Peter de Groot is standing for the City of Port Phillip and has made a useless campaign promise that appears to be a grab for the pink vote.

Campaigning on pointless promises is the third piece I’ve had published on The Stirrer.

Campaigning on pointless promises

October 24, 2012 – Politics – Tagged: City of Port Phillip, Peter de Groot, Relationships Act 2008, Relationships Register, Sandridge Ward, Victorian Registry of Birth Deaths and Marriages – no comments

http://www.flickr.com/photos/opendemocracy

Last night I got home from a solid workout at the gym, cooked myself a healthy dinner and sat down to read my emails. First cab off the ranks was a story in the Port Phillip Leader: Call for Port Phillip same-sex register*. The story is about City of Port Phillip council candidate, Peter de Groot, campaigning in the Sandridge Ward, on the promise of a establishing a relationships register for same-sex couples if elected.

I would have thought this story more appropriate for the April 1 edition, but the date on the story is October 23 2012. You see, under the Relationships Act 2008 the Victorian government established a state-wide, legal relationships register, managed by the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Read the history of this here.

I don’t see any benefit a new council-based relationships register could offer that a long established state-based relationships register doesn’t already offer. Council relationship registers don’t even confer formal legal relationship status per se.

To that end, campaigning on a platform that contains a well-intentioned but effectively useless promise smacks of a naive grab for the pink vote at best. If I was a voter in the Sandridge Ward, I’d be very cautious about voting for a candidate whose campaign platform included such empty election promises.

Rather than campaign on something useless like a council-based relationships register, a better way to spend rate-payers money would be on causes that actually benefit the community. Consider a safe space for queer youth, a support group for same-sex parents, an anti-homophobia/anti-transphobia campaign for the local community, a social group or friendly home visiting service for elderly, disabled or isolated GLBTIQ people, a queer orphans Christmas gathering, and so on.

Peter de Groot may well be a passionate human rights advocate, as his campaign page describes, but I would hope voters put the honesty, ethics, credibility and integrity of a candidate before their sexual orientation or demographic affiliation.

P.S. Check out this conversation on unChain Inc‘s Facebook page

* SOURCE ARTICLE
http://port-phillip-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/call-for-port-phillp-same-sex-register

ST KILDA Same-sex register call CANDIDATE WANTS TO END DISCRIMINATION. (2012, October 22). Caulfield Glen Eira / Port Phillip Leader [Victoria, Australia], p. 3

Ethical Eggs | The Stirrer

An interesting ethical dilemma for lesbians considering egg donation.

Ethical Eggs is the second piece I’ve had published on The Stirrer.

Ethical Eggs

October 12, 2012 – Family – Tagged: egg donor, lesbian, Orthodox Jews, same-sex attraction – no comments

Recently it came to my attention, by way of a Sydney-based Jewish gay mailing list, that an observant Orthodox Jewish couple (married and nominally heterosexual) were unable to conceive conventionally due to a medical condition. However they were advised that conception could be achieved with the assistance of a donated egg.

To accommodate their strict religious requirements the egg donor ideally must be Jewish and must be, and remain, unmarried. The writer of the post felt that if the egg donor were to be a lesbian, this would rule out the likelihood that she would ever marry (a man), thereby meeting the aforementioned prerequisite that the donor be now, and remain, unmarried.

By the time I had digested the gist of this somewhat unusual request I was starting to feel a little uneasy. Not that someone should donate an egg. In itself that was fine. What bothered me initially is that it was considered acceptable to use a lesbian woman as an egg donor simply because she would effectively be guaranteed never to get married (under Jewish law).

In 2012 in Australia this is a correct assumption. Lesbian couples cannot currently marry in Australia, and if they get married overseas their marriages are not legally recognised here. In any case, Orthodox Judaism does not currently recognise same-sex marriages anywhere in the world, so even if they could get married under a civil jurisdiction, they would not be considered married under Orthodox Jewish law.

What this doesn’t take into account is that at some time in the future lesbian couples may be able to get civilly married in Australia. Given this possibility, it raises questions as to whether said lesbian egg donor, unmarried at the time of donation, would still be considered unmarried in the eyes of the Jewish law if she were to tie the knot with a same-sex partner under civil law. Whilst this is not a concern of mine, it may need to be a consideration for the prospective parents.

What is of greater concern to me is the welfare of any child born from the gift of an egg to this couple by an unmarried lesbian donor. Specifically, I would be concerned that this child might be raised in a manner that did not take into account that it may grow up to be same-sex attracted. Given that Orthodox Jewish couples of strong religious observance do not typically consider homosexuality acceptable, the likelihood of such an inflexible upbringing is high.

Should the child turn out to be other than heterosexual, and assuming it was nonetheless expected to conform to heterosexual norms, there is an increased chance of negative mental health outcomes, self-harm and even suicide. Current Australian scientific research¹ shows that these scenarios are prevalent in religious environments intolerant of homosexuality.

The ethical dilemma for the egg donor, as I see it, is whether she should donate an egg to a couple, with the full knowledge that any child born of her egg and raised by this couple will potentially suffer due to the religious attitudes of the parents, if it turns out to be same-sex attracted.

How would the egg donor feel if this child experienced a life of misery because it was forced to conform to heterosexual norms? Would that be an acceptable outcome to the donor?

Ultimately this decision is one for the egg donor to make. Being party to the creation of life is not a responsibility to be taken lightly, and hopefully the donor would take this situation into account, along with any other considerations she may have. Needless to say, all parties would want the best outcome for the child. I just hope all parties understand the consequences of their actions and attitudes.

Refer Suicide Prevention Australia – GLBT Position Statement (PDF here)

Queer Jewish Crisis | The Stirrer

When is a crisis not a crisis?

Check out “Queer Jewish Crisis“, my first contribution on The Stirrer.

Queer Jewish Crisis

by: Michael Barnett

September 25, 2012 – Family, Religion – Tagged: Jewish, Keshet, suicide – 3 comments

I recently attended a talk by Keshet Australia aimed at getting its message out to the Jewish community. The local Keshet, based on its USA counterpart, advertises itself as “a Jewish GLBTIGQ (Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Transgender, Intersex and Gender Queer) movement to better educate Australian Schools on how to educate a Jewish child on GLBTIGQ.”

At this talk a flyer was distributed, the opening paragraphs of which described a crisis of Queer^[1] departure from the Jewish community and how Keshet is placed to address it. As a seasoned activist this crisis was news to me, with my priorities centring on reduction of isolation, self-harm and suicide.

Legitimate crises in the local Jewish community include the state of aged care and the entrenched and chronic covering up of child sex-abuse.

Other community crises surround alcohol abuse, domestic violence, poverty, private school fees and intermarriage. The cost of keeping kosher is even of concern to some.

Another almost ignored real crisis is the rate of self-harm and suicide in the Melbourne Jewish community. Rough figures were published in 2011 claiming approximately two people a month attempt suicide or self-harm. Taken together with the alarming rate of suicide amongst same-sex attracted people and this issue should be given elevated priority.

My experience of coming out as gay in the Jewish community was one of compassion at best and indifference at worst. I was not strongly religiously observant, but I continued to attend an Orthodox synagogue for some years and my friends and family accepted me and continued to include me and connect with me as they had always done. In fact, for a number of years after coming out my Jewish “identity” actually strengthened.

Individual experiences will no doubt differ to mine, depending on the attitudes of the person’s family, friends and religious community.

I have made a number of observations about what happens when people self-identify as other than heterosexual. If their religious context is accepting, they will open up to their peers and live a full life merging their sexuality and their cultural context. If their religious context is intolerant they will more than likely find a context to express their sexuality at a safe distance from their cultural community, keeping both alive but separate. I have not yet experienced many who give up their entire religious community simply to allow unhindered sexual self-expression.

And so I challenge this perceived “crisis”. I feel it is a phenomenon that is alarmist, unfounded and exaggerated.

If a person departs their Jewish identity due to peer intolerance when they “come out”, it may potentially induce a situational crisis for their friends and family due to a sense of confusion, bewilderment, loss and even grief. But keeping a sense of perspective, these situations are not ubiquitous or universal.

There may be legitimate grounds for concern over people leaving the Jewish community but the reasons for this are potentially varied and complex. One mid-20’s community-minded gay woman recently told me that her university and career choices took her away from much of the Jewish surrounds that she was immersed in during her secondary school years.

Disengagement from the Jewish community may occur for ideological reasons, lack of need for a connection, or prioritising a connection with a different community. All reasons are legitimate.

People leaving the Jewish community is not a crisis or even a problem if they make these choices voluntarily, free from duress.

If a situation arises that drives many away from a community, the crisis should be identified as the underlying reason why people are leaving rather than the fact that people are leaving. We invariably seek the path of least conflict.

As to Keshet’s claim on their flyer “We need to keep Jews, Jewish”, I disagree. We need to keep people in the Jewish community happy and alive.

[1] GLBTIQ / same-sex attracted / gender diverse, etc

20120805-Keshet-flyer