Victorian same-sex relationships survey

[flexibeast]

The Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby has just released a survey regarding same-sex relationships. Amongst other things, the survey found that:

• Over 98% of respondents supported legal recognition of same sex relationships.
  This level has been demonstrated repeatedly in Victorian LGBTI surveys over the
  past four years
• Over three quarters felt that domestic partnership (currently available in Victoria) and federal same sex marriage should be available to same sex couples
• 60% felt that registration of same sex relationships should be available

Although i feel that the demographics of the survey respondents should be kept in mind when considering the results of the survey - 59.4% of respondents came across the survey via the Melbourne Midsumma Carnival, 17.6% via a VGLRL mailout, and 7.5% via the Melbourne Rainbow Families conference - it would seem that it's fairly reasonable to conclude that the majority of people in same-sex relationships do want the right to marry. More dubious, however, is the claim by Rodney Croome in his latest blog entry in which he says that this survey indicates that same-sex marriage is indeed the priority for queers. As i wrote in my response:

i also don't think it's necessarily valid to assume that people who want marriage equality think that this issue is the highest priority in their lives, because where in the report does it actually /ask/ respondents what they feel is the main issue facing them as queers? As far as i can see, it doesn't, because, after all, this is a survey about queer relationships, not a survey about queer issues in general. i mean, if i had done the survey, i would certainly have agreed that same-sex marriage should be on the same legal footing as differing-sex marriage - but that doesn't mean it's a priority for me.

i then went on to note:

In any event, i must say that, even if same-sex marriage is /the/ issue for the majority of queers:

a) i wouldn't be surprised. People tend to rate what's presented to them by the media as 'important'. As far as i can tell, the media has given far more coverage to the issue of same-sex marriage than it has to any other queer issue.

b) That's fine. Still, it's not a priority for me (and perhaps not a priority for a substantial minority of the queer communities), and although i definitely support the right to same-sex marriage, and will continue to push that opinion in public fora, i will continue to try to raise the profile of other queer-related issues that i think deserve more attention than they're currently getting.

Rodney also noted in his entry that:

Even though they [i.e. queers] are the ones experiencing abuse at ever greater levels, they are also supporting marriage equality in quite astounding numbers.

So have i been wrong to argue that a higher priority needs to be given to the issue of queerphobia? What do people think of all this?
 
[ Cross-posted to the Pleasure Activism Australia email list. ]
 

Comments

[ms-le-fey.livejournal.com]

No, I don't think so. The issue of queerphobia is directly linked to the marriage issue, in my opinion. I look at it this way: when the issue of interracial marriage comes up, specifically black-white, then the racism experienced (especially) by blacks has to be brought up because there is a direct correlation between the issues.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Well, i guess that's the thing: the argument is being made that being gaining legal recognition of same-sex marriage will increase respect for queer relationships and decrease queerphobia . . . . would you agree with that?

[cheshire-bitten.livejournal.com]

I think that it will decrease queer phobia, as interracial marriage at the same time, I am not sure it should be the highest priority, interracial marriage didn’t end racism and neither will gay marriage end homophobia.
And that is only for the gays who want to get married, I don't ever want to be married, either to a male or female partner.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

*nod*

Excellent analogy, by the way. :-)

[cheshire-bitten.livejournal.com]

Well it isn't all mine,

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Perhaps not, but even so, it was well expressed. :-)

[ms-le-fey.livejournal.com]

Yes I would, but also general respect for queers needs to be established because not everyone will be in a relationship. I think it's a step in the right direction, though.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Okay, see, this is the thing that i don't understand, so please bear with me, because it seems that everyone else can see something that i don't . . . . i really don't understand the process via which, once same-sex marriage is legalised, people who previously didn't respect same-sex relationships suddenly start doing so. How do you see this happening?

[ms-le-fey.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't see it happening right away and for a few diehards nothing will ever make them think positively on this subject.. I think, however, for those people who say, "Well it MUST be indecent because there's a law against it" might begin to reconsider the way they think.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Hmm . . . . but do you think there are really that many people who think that way? My gut feeling is that the overwhelming majority of people feel that the law merely 'enshrines' the 'natural way of things' - that is, they think it's 'indecent' regardless of the legal status of the thing. Possibly backing up this notion is the fact that, although same-sex sexual activity involving consenting adults is now legal everywhere in Australia (afaik), around 1 in 3 people (up to 1 in 2 people in some parts of the country) nevertheless think that homosexuality is 'immoral'.

[ms-le-fey.livejournal.com]

That's a good question and I honestly don't know. But I know I have spoken to people on any number of controversial topics such as homosexuality and decriminalizing prostitution and they reflect the previous example I gave. These people are the ones who just go with the flow. If the law says it's illegal or 'immoral' then fine, they won't do it. If it changes then fine they'll change too.

But as you just said there's the people who think the law reflects the 'natural way of things' but I consider those to be diehards who will never change their minds.

Either way changing minds on this topic is going to be difficult. I would say for the next 10-20 years, especially with the resurgence of certain fundamentalist religious groups dragging us all back to the Dark Ages.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Hmm, okay . . . . so these people won't themselves do it if it's illegal or 'immoral', and they also think that, on that basis, other people shouldn't do it?

Re. those who think the law reflects the 'natural way of things' - see, in my experience, that's the majority of anti-queer people. But that's just my experience, and i can appreciate that yours may be (or is) different.

i certainly agree that changing minds on this topic is going to be difficult, which is why i tend to think it's absurd to campaign for the right to same-sex marriage in the absence of a complementary campaign against queerphobia in general . . . . i think it's really putting the cart before the horse. *shrug*

[ms-le-fey.livejournal.com]

Hmm, okay . . . . so these people won't themselves do it if it's illegal or 'immoral', and they also think that, on that basis, other people shouldn't do it?

That seems to be the case. Believe me, I've racked my brain trying to figure out their thought process.

i certainly agree that changing minds on this topic is going to be difficult, which is why i tend to think it's absurd to campaign for the right to same-sex marriage in the absence of a complementary campaign against queerphobia in general . . . . i think it's really putting the cart before the horse. *shrug*

Ah, okay now I see what you're saying. So if they are campaigning for same-sex marriage before first campaigning for concurrent anti-hate crime/anti-queerphobia legislation then the push for the marriage legalization will be for naught? You're right, completely right, it is putting the cart before the horse.

Just like with my example of the miscengenation laws here in the US. The Civil Rights Act to ensure due protection regardless of race under the law was signed by LBJ in 1964 and Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967. While the Civil Rights Act did begin to help dissipate racism we still battle with it here and interracial couples are still harrassed. They can of course file charges if the shouting of insults escalates into physical violence.

Both in interracial marriage and same-sex marriage there will always be the diehards.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

That seems to be the case. Believe me, I've racked my brain trying to figure out their thought process.

Weird indeed . . . . but thanks for explaining it to me!

Ah, okay now I see what you're saying. So if they are campaigning for same-sex marriage before first campaigning for concurrent anti-hate crime/anti-queerphobia legislation then the push for the marriage legalization will be for naught? You're right, completely right, it is putting the cart before the horse.

Well, actually, no, i don't mean campaigning for concurrent anti-hate crime/anti-queerphobia legislation - i mean campaigning for actual changes in societal attitudes, through outreach campaigns, education, etc. Here in Australia, we actually have the sort of legislation you're talking about - and yet we still have the statistics i mentioned above, we still have queerphobic bullying in schools (which has, broadly speaking, either - at the least - not decreased, and if anything, has increased slightly), we have the major political parties actively passing legislation against same-sex marriage. So from my perspective, this all shows the limitations of merely passing legislation - it doesn't necessarily effect a change in societal attitudes. i think queer campaigns focus far too much on ensuring that legislation gets passed and nowhere near enough on general campaigns (both inside and outside of government) to change societal attitudes towards queers.

[ms-le-fey.livejournal.com]

Oh okay, I'm understanding fully now.

we still have queerphobic bullying in schools (which has, broadly speaking, either - at the least - not decreased, and if anything, has increased slightly)

Yes I've noticed a continued rise in the US also, despite all the legislation. I remember when I was in elementary school a little more than ten years ago I was called a lesbian because I wasn't dating anyone. Well, true enough I came to discover that I'm bisexual after becoming more comfortable with my sexuality. However, even before then I knew that being a lesbian wasn't a bad thing so I took offense to them using it as something that's worthy of shame. Of course there was no getting through to these girls and boys that the pool of boys to choose from was, by me, weighed, measured and found wanting. *shrugs*

I get what you're saying now. That we need to, especially, change our speech in reference to gays. For example when kids say, "Oh, that's so gay" which, from what I've been told, is supposed to translate to 'stupid'. Instead of laughing we need to express our dislike at the way the word was used, etc.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Of course there was no getting through to these girls and boys that the pool of boys to choose from was, by me, weighed, measured and found wanting.

Heh, yep, i think i know what you mean. :-)

That we need to, especially, change our speech in reference to gays.

Well, that's certainly one part of it; but i think that what needs to change is the underlying attitude towards non-heteronormative identities and behaviour. To wit: as long as it involves consenting adults, it should be regarded as a natural manifestation of the diversity of humanity, and as something worthy of celebration, not merely 'tolerance', and certainly not worthy of assaulting someone for, either verbally or physically. i realise this is a huge task; but a start has already been made, and it would be a shame (to say the least!) to see what has already been achieved go to waste . . . .

[ms-le-fey.livejournal.com]

Right on. I finally got onto your page. I don't know why I was so slow in realizing what you were saying. I'm going to blame it on the ridiculous heat here in Chicago. :P

To wit: as long as it involves consenting adults, it should be regarded as a natural manifestation of the diversity of humanity, and as something worthy of celebration, not merely 'tolerance', and certainly not worthy of assaulting someone for, either verbally or physically.

*claps* As odd as this may sound to some, I bristle at the word 'tolerance'. It's so damn condescending and holier-than-thou. It makes you feel as though you have to walk on eggshells around a person who is 'tolerating' you and one false move puts you back on the 'bad side' of things.

i realise this is a huge task; but a start has already been made, and it would be a shame (to say the least!) to see what has already been achieved go to waste . . .

Aye, it would. Sometimes I waver in my various activisms but I have to remember that I'm not necessarily doing it for today but for tomorrow.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Right on. I finally got onto your page. I don't know why I was so slow in realizing what you were saying. I'm going to blame it on the ridiculous heat here in Chicago. :P

Heh, that's okay - thanks for being patient with me! i really appreciate you taking the time to elaborate on ideas that elsewhere seem to be presented as 'obvious' or 'common sense'; it's helped me understand those ideas better.

What's the temperature there at the moment?

*claps* As odd as this may sound to some, I bristle at the word 'tolerance'. It's so damn condescending and holier-than-thou. It makes you feel as though you have to walk on eggshells around a person who is 'tolerating' you and one false move puts you back on the 'bad side' of things.

*claps in return* Exactly! This is one of the reasons i'm not so fussed about assimilationist politics, because it's relying on queers accepting 'straight' notions of what is acceptable and what is not (as though 'straight' is a homogenous category anyway!) . . . . but why should we have to play by their (sometimes capricious) rulebook?

Sometimes I waver in my various activisms but I have to remember that I'm not necessarily doing it for today but for tomorrow.

Well said - i would do well to remember that too.

[ms-le-fey.livejournal.com]

Heh, that's okay - thanks for being patient with me! i really appreciate you taking the time to elaborate on ideas that elsewhere seem to be presented as 'obvious' or 'common sense'; it's helped me understand those ideas better.

No problem! I love to swap ideas and theories with other deep thinkers. :)

What's the temperature there at the moment?

Is too damn hot a temperature? :P Seriously though, yesterday it was 95 degrees F (35 degrees C), with about 40%+ humidity. Anything over 75 degrees F and 20% humidity drives me nuts.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

No problem! I love to swap ideas and theories with other deep thinkers. :)

:-D

Is too damn hot a temperature? :P Seriously though, yesterday it was 95 degrees F (35 degrees C), with about 40%+ humidity. Anything over 75 degrees F and 20% humidity drives me nuts.

*nod* Being a June baby, i very much prefer cooler weather too . . . . a number of years ago i went out letterboxing on a really hot day, in a newly-established suburbs with very little vegetation, and by the end of the day, i was just wrecked. Prior to that, i'd been able to tolerate hot weather reasonably well - i'd coped with 48°C (~118°F) at my parents' place during the drought of '83 - but after that, my tolerance for hotter weather dropped precipitously.

[ms-le-fey.livejournal.com]

Ah, a June baby! I was down in Australia (Sydney and Epping) ten years ago during July. I was so happy it was winter because I don't think I could tolerate 48*C weather! I'm a January baby, so I understand!

We're having a drought up here in Chicago. Water bans, brown grass, the works.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Heh, well, 48° is not that common in urban areas; but during summer, mid-to-high 30s is reasonably common.

We're in the midst of a long drought here in .au too, which is putting a lot of farmers in great difficulty . . . . Melbourne, however, which recently had permanent water saving rules (http://www.yarravalleywater.com.au/environment/water-saving-measures.html) put in place, has been getting a fair bit of rain recently, which has helped our water storage levels.

[birkentree.livejournal.com]

RE: the demographic of the survey?
So basically, this is just the community patting itself on the back? Jolly good, carry on.

I think each piece of legislation passed in favour of equal rights for all humans is another contribution to the overall shift in society. There still needs to be a movement from the grassroots up, but legislation also helps to set a trend, or at the very least open communication regarding the issues. Basically, the gay marriage issue contributes to the wider discussion of equality in society, but currently it seems to be garnering more atention that things like violence against queers, homelessness in queer youth, substance abuse and so on.

The point you made regarding it's importance is a good one. Yes, gay marriage is an issue to many queerfolk. But then so are IVF rights, parenting and adoption rights, environmental issues etc. etc.

I can also see that for some the marriage issue may not be a huge one, many people don't desire to get married. Or we're involved in relationships that don't fit into the marriage framework.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Re. the demographics of the survey: well, i was basically thinking that, for example, people who attend a 'Rainbow Families' conference are probably more likely to be concerned about same-sex relationship status than people who don't; that people on the VGLRL mailing list might be relatively conservative politically (since the VGLRL is hardly a radical queer organisation); and that the demographics of the Midsumma Carnival would be interesting to examine. For example, what's the average income of Carnival attendees? Are attendees primarily from inner urban areas? And so on.

Re. the rest of your comment: i basically agree with most of what you said; the main point of difference would be that i don't think that legislation necessarily sets a positive trend (although i note the qualification you made on this point). i certainly agree that it can do so; but i think that it can also fail to make any substantial impact and society, and in some cases, if legislation is passed which is perceived as being contrary to 'general public opinion', it may even create negative trends, as people come to resent a minority ordering the majority to behave in ways they don't actually agree with. Anti-vilification legislation is my favourite example of this.