Today, No Award would like to introduce you to Judy Small, a queer, Australian protest song folk singer, who sings about social justice issues, who happens to be a Federal Circuit Court Judge.
No Award is very pleased to bring you a guest post today from Rivqa Rafael about the Problem Daughters anthology, and the processes the editors are going through to create a diverse and inclusive anthology.
Problem Daughters will amplify the voices of women who are sometimes excluded from mainstream feminism. It will be an anthology of beautiful, thoughtful, unconventional speculative fiction and poetry around the theme of intersectional feminism, with a specific focus on the lives and experiences of women of colour, QUILTBAG women, disabled women, sex workers, and any intersection of these.
Hey we dunno if you quokkas noticed, but the USA Supreme Court (abbreviated hilariously to SCOTUS) legalised marriage equality across their entire country. Good work, SCOTUS!
Many people are having feels, and Facebook is a literal rainbow. When a flatmate of No Award asked Steph what she thought, she said “I don’t celebrate other peoples’ wins.” Which is maybe a bit harsh. And yet not actually a lie! Especially because all those Facebook rainbows are just a literal rainbow washing and No Award is made up of curmudgeons who believe in online activism but don’t trust Facie. (And also have odd feelings about confirmed straight people turning their wedding photos rainbow.)
(Also, they are giving Liz a bad headache. Enough with the bright colours and sparkly gifs, guys!)
But the equality movement in Australia is already so, often negatively, impacted by the US-centricity of discussions and actions, and as you know No Award rails against the way US-centricity skews and distorts Australian discussions in irrelevant ways.
Take this tumblr meme for example:
(That bottom image of Judge Judy is usually a gif of her tapping her watch as if to say ‘get on with it.’)
This post, and others that we’ve seen much like it, have hundreds of thousands of notes. But the important thing to remember is that this couple is Australian, as you quokkas know, and therefore three things:
- SCOTUS has no implications for them.
- Marriage equality is still not legal in Australia, where all marriages must be officiated over by a person who then says “Marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others,” out loud, in public, how embarrassing, in order for that marriage to be legal.
- Actually, legally, this couple will not be granted a divorce by the Family Court of Australia. Section 48 of the Family Law Act 1975 has some excellent (in this instance) clauses around when a divorce will be granted and, having stated that they intend to keep living together and having children together, they don’t formally qualify for a divorce in Australia. Plus, you have to live separately for a year and a day, and swear an oath (or make an affirmation) that your marriage has irretrievably broken down. If these two tried that, after what they’ve been saying to the media, they’d be at risk of perjury.
(Please note, No Award is not qualified to give legal advice.)
In terms of the role of the High Court of Australia in legalising/upholding marriage equality, the HCA can’t rule on this because there’s no Constitutional right to marriage or similar that could be used as that basis. S51(xxi) does hold that laws relating to marriage exclusively come under the Federal Government – which is why the Federal Government has been able to overturn those States and Territories that have legalised marriage equality. The Federal Government can also legislate to make marriage equality legal. It is in fact the only body in Australia that can make that magic happen.
There are some Equal Love marriage equality rallies coming up across Australia, if that’s your jam. Melbourne, Perth so far. This piece on tumblr is an interesting piece of grassroots history around recent marriage equality stuff in Australia.
It’s awesome for the USA that this decision has been handed down. But it doesn’t impact us directly, and placing too much importance on it means we’re missing the specifics of how our situation is impacted and how our situation can change.
(Endnote: please note that anyone who says ‘gay marriage’ is going to get in very big trouble. It’s marriage equality, because it impacts more than just gay people. We are bi and queer and asexual and intersex and trans and a whole rainbow of stuff)
ETA: Please read the comments! They are filled with relevant comments from constitutional law geeks and the children of religious ministers.