(Aside
from the carrot cake have things really changed since Peter gave this
speech 4 years ago? How far have we really come--in Australia or
America?)



You’ve been a dreadful influence on me, Martin.

Yesterday we went
to Brisbane, I had to give a talk to the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission of the Federal Government, so Hans spent the
afternoon buying records. I passed a coffee shop and there on the
counter was a carrot cake. I've never eaten a carrot cake before, so
because of your lavish praise, I indulged and it was, I must say, very,
very nice, but oh so sweet and calorie filled!!!!!

Does yours have white icing on it as well?
******************************************************

THE SPEECH--PART 1



It
created quite a stir. The dreadful thing was that for the first time in
our lives, in a gay gathering, we were the oldest people present. I
wore the same suit I was wearing on the day we met. Pleased I could
still fit it.
Cheers, Peter

Page 1 of speech given October 10, 2006

In
1966, I was working in Paris and Hans was studying in Amsterdam. We met
at the house of a mutual friend, fell in love, and spent the next eight
months writing daily letters and visiting each other as often as we
could afford. Europe was not yet united and our partnership had no legal
standing, so on the completion of his degree it was impossible for us
to live together. I couldn’t get a residence permit for The Netherlands,
and Hans couldn’t get one for France. The only solution was emigration
for him, and an unwelcome return home for me.
I brought him from a
land of freedom, to a country where it was a criminal offence for two
men to have a sexual relationship. Offenders could be taken to court,
imprisoned for years, have details of their sordid behaviour reported in
the papers, be fired from their jobs, and disowned by wives, families
and friends.
If it was a young man’s first offence, a lenient judge
might recommend a psychiatric ward instead of prison, with electric
shock aversion therapy to ‘cure’ the depraved fellow before he could
lead other young men astray.
‘Offenders’ could be reported
anonymously, and police entrapment was common, as was the invasion of
houses of suspected perverts, who if caught in the same bed were bashed,
imprisoned, brought before the courts and humiliated in the media.
Blackmail triggered many suicides of closeted gay victims after their
financial ruin. Queer-bashers were praised by judges, and the murder of
homos was excused if the felon said he had been approached for sex.
In
our forty years together, we’ve managed to avoid the law, but have
experienced all the usual forms of harassment from our fellow citizens
that gays still endure. Despite this, we’ve led interesting and
enjoyable lives, weaving between enemy lines, so to speak, and there’s
nothing I’d change. However, it might have been even better if we’d had
the support heterosexuals get from friends, relations and the
government.
Now retired on acreage near Noosa, we maintain the old
habits – keep our heads down, never go to the village together, and if
anything is delivered, only one of us is there to greet the carrier in
case he tells his mates that a couple of queers live up there, and one
night we’ll have unpleasant visitors. It’s not our imagination; teenage
attacks on gays are an unpleasant fact, and, living within coo-ee of the
bible belt, we’d be foolish to let our guard down.
We never tell
heterosexuals we’re gay. To us it’s irrelevant. No one is defined by
their sexual orientation, that’s a bizarre religious notion. We’re
defined by such things as honesty, diligence, reliability, concern for
the welfare of others and the environment… these are the important
things, not the sex of the person with whom we fall in love!
I wrote
to Mr. Ruddock during the ACT attempt to introduce civil unions,
explaining that the proposed laws were not about sex. They were about
the State valuing, protecting and fostering the most worthwhile, if not
the only worthwhile attribute humans have – the ability to love another
person; to share unselfishly with them; to place the other before
oneself; and to care deeply for them until death.
In his reply, Mr
Ruddock stated; ‘the government believes the denial of same-sex-unions
reflects the views of the majority of Australian citizens. I hope that
makes you all shudder!
The purpose of democratic government is to
prevent mob rule. It is to ensure that every one, not just the majority,
gets fair treatment. It is alarming indeed that the Attorney General
does not realize this. If he had a shred of decency, he would understand
that he has a duty to ensure no group or individual is disadvantaged at
the whim of the biggest gang on the block!
He also wrote: ‘Same-sex relationships do not have the same character as marriages’
Apart
from the obvious problem with making babies, what’s he talking about?
What's the difference between my forty years with Hans, and the
relationship of any childless heterosexual couple, or the remarriage of
two older people who have no intention of raising another family? What
is there about the ‘character’ of our relationship that sets it apart?
Because
the government refuses to recognise our union, Commonwealth law
considers us to be strangers. This is a problem when it comes to
inheritance, as our wills can be disputed successfully by family
members. To avoid this we own everything as joint tenants. The house,
car, bank accounts, investments… everything. We’ve also completed
Advanced Health Directives, and Enduring Powers of Attorney, in which we
expressly deny the right of anyone except our partner, to make
decisions for us in the event of accident or death. We hope we’ve
covered all bases, but you can never be sure.

Page 2 (to be continued)