Doug PollardYou Can't Always Get What You Want
August 16th 2009 06:10
Denby Imperial Blue
Mum and Dad had come on a visit, and we’d had a pleasant Sunday lunch. But mother was clearly working up to something.
“We know what you two are”, she said abruptly, ending the polite avoidance she’d practised for the last four years, “and so long as you’re happy . . . well, there’s not a lot we can do about it, is there?”
“Anyway, obviously there isn’t going to be a wedding, so your father and I would like to give you something for the house. You haven’t got any decent china. Pick something you like, and then we can buy pieces for you, like at Christmas and Easter. We never know what to get you anyway.”
I opened my mouth to say thank you, but she powered on.
“I’ve had a word with your sister, and your Auntie Audrey, and they’ll do likewise. Then you’ll have some decent stuff for when folk come over,” she said, looking askance at my Ironstone Dinner Set for Four, GBP19.99 from Woolworths. “Well, that were a grand lunch, but we must be getting back.”
“Mind you let us know about that china before Christmas,” said Dad.
Now I am the worlds worst klutz, so fine bone china was out. I’d break pieces as fast as they bought them. I chose some good but robust Denby Imperial Blue.
“That’s not what I meant,” said Mother, “I meant NICE china. What about some Royal Albert?”
“Mother, no. Thank you, but no. I hate all that frou-frou stuff with flowers all over it, and anyway it’s too delicate. I like the Denby. If it makes you feel any better, it’s more expensive than the Royal Albert.”
“I know,” she said grimly, “I priced some.”
She sent me a 4-place Royal Albert tea set “so you can get used to it.”
When I told my sister, she laughed.
“Well, SHE likes it, that’s why. She thinks your Denby looks too much like roadside café stuff. Anyway she’s had that tea-set for yonks – I think she got it with some vouchers or something.”
My sister then sent me some plain white Noritake with silver edging.
“I can’t afford that stuff you like,” she explained, “and we’re having this at home, so I got a bulk discount.”
My aunt sent me a calendar and a couple of tea towels. As she does every year.
With my family you don’t get what you need, you get what they think you ought to have. So long as it doesn’t take too much trouble or cost too much.
As my father always put it, “You’ll get what you’re given. And like it. And be grateful for it.”
Uncle Kevin’s the same. When I asked him for equality, he gave me a matching set of 84 legal changes.
“What do you mean, they’re not what you asked for? Those were very expensive”, he said crossly.
“You needn’t think you’re getting anything else this parliament. You’ll just have to make do.”
Thank you, Uncle Kevin. They’re very nice, Uncle Kevin. By the way, Uncle Kevin – you know that big hall in Parliament House? The one where they have private functions? I want it for a giant same-sex wedding breakfast, say, ooh, next August 13?
And can you ask Auntie Julia – you know, Minister for Social Inclusion – to pop along? Thanks.
She doesn’t have to buy me any Denby – I’ve bought my own.
PS Can I have a discount?
| 49 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Greg Adkins
I'm not saying that we've reached the end of needed reform, but simply suggest that momentum for equality is now present in all groups including the ALP and it should be nurtured and encouraged rather than used as a pawn in the games fringe political parties like to play. Now lets get back to the real discussion of equality in our relationships.
What are "Marriage Equality", the "Aust Coalition for Equality" or your "Greens" doing to bring our G&L community together around what equality actually means to our community? This would include whether the "marriage" word is adequate to describe the bottom line for equality or whether the actual and tangible facts of equality rate higher than the word "marriage".
By all means have a working group to practice "chants: and design "slogans" and paint "banners", and narrow the focus down to issues that split rather than join G&L interests. Alternatively paint a bigger picture and work to bring us all together on the same page. Engage Rainbow Labor, establish workable and broad links outside the protest lobby and into the bulk of the G&L community and lets move forward.
I and many others would be happy to work with you on building bridges linking our community and give voice to the many who are currently silent; many who are not sold that "marriage" is the best phrase to describe the eventual outcome we seek, an outcome which would be where relationships are equal under law regardless of the gender of those within those relationships.
I'd like to see you and your creative efforts commit to becoming a bridge between the various interest groups and the G&L community for a shared outcome.
Comment by Doug Pollard
Current Affairs
Rainbow Reporter
2) They're not 'my' Greens, or 'my' AME, my 'Equal Love, 'my' ACE or 'my' anyone
3) The suggestion re the great hall of parliament is serious although presented lightly - and Rainbow Labor ought to be the lead organisers
4) If you all want to know what everyone else is doing, ask them, not me
5) If you want to pull everyone together, feel free, no-one's stopping you
6) The goal is not, and has never been, marriage per se. It is equality. If you know a way to achieve that equality in fact, symbol and social status without including marriage, I'd love to hear it, but I don't believe it can be done
7) I agree that marriage is a roadblock: therefore we should all put aside our misgivings and doubts about marriage, get that done, and then look at a more comprehensive overhaul of relationship recognition for all. It cannot be done the other way round. The recognition that same-sex couples are equals to married couples must be acknowledged and enacted first.. The momentum is there.
8) I am, and will remain, non-aligned to any group. I'm an independent writer and will remain so.
Comment by Rodney Cruise
It is incredibly annoying to have labor party people and supporters constantly saying (a) don't rock the boat (b) be thankful for what WE (read Labor) have given you and (c) stop supporting other "fringe"groups (eg Greens, AME, etc in agitating as they don't / can't do anything. It totally pisses me off. Yes, it is good that Labor FINALLY after all these years removed discrimination against same sex couples in a range of legislation. Well done. But you didn't do it willing, you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it over at least 2 full decades. It was a large number of grass roots regular people who kept this on the radar constantly which forced Labor to finally act. And it is "fringe" elements like the Greens who bring this up in parliament and force Labor to declare their hand (and the Coalition). And it is that which mobilises and energises regular people to get pissed off. Just like they did after they supported and voted for the amendment to the marriage act. So Labor people stop hiding behind your party rules and secret meetings and stop claiming that you alone are the saviors. You are not. Start making principled stands and then, only then will the regular people who seem to fall in to your "fringe" groups, only then will they say WELL THANK YOU LABOR for standing up on PRINCIPLE for our RIGHTS. The reality is that LABOR still does not support full equality for same sex couples. There is no denying this. There is no hiding from this. They DO NOT believe in equality. Until they do, they rightly deserved to get criticised at every opportunity. END OF RANT
Comment by Wilson Pon
Health 2 Know
Adventure Toes
Techno Stuffs
boxing sound
Business Rope
"PS Can I have a discount?" Yep, and you can get it 100 free, as long as you show off your humor! Lol
Comment by Greg Adkins
Now you and your ACE or Greens buddies might not agree with the speed of change (bye the way many in Rainbow Labor and also within the broader Labor movement stand alongside you wanting more change sooner), but for you to use our LGBT rights discussions in the media and through blogs to distort issues and split our community instead of engaging the vast majority of LGBT people thus far not engaged is not these best way of moving forward.
I know its hard Rodney. How can a committee of a couple of people reflect the views of around 2 million LGBT Aussies? Bounce the word "marriage" around and there are many and varied opinions on this from within the LGBT community that have not been incorporated by ACE or the Greens thus far.
Get out into the LGBT communities and find a path which resonates with most of the diverse views and interests we hold within the LGBT community. It might mean you need to park the word "marriage" and your other lobbyist/Greens colleagues at Australian Marriage Equality find themselves casting around for a replacement for the "m" word (Australian Relationship Equality sounds nice!).
Don't ignore in your new and broader consultations the many LGBT for whom "marriage" does not define the be all and end all of long term and sustained same gender relationships.
Focusing on "marriage" as a way of defining the equality campaign language splits the LGBT community, gives ammunition to the religious fundamentalists to be able to keep pressure on the more supporting people of various faiths/beliefs to "toe the line" and reeks of raw politicking by the Greens and allies in what some would see as a blatant attempt to wedge the government and win marginal seats held by very talented Labor MPs who have been very supportive to the LGBT communities.
OK if thats your agenda, fine. But be a little more transparent and don't believe for one instant that LGBT people are sheep who will blindly follow a "lobby" group aligned with a fringe political party.
To give Doug credit, he always seeks different views from his own and provides space in his radio editorials commentaries for these. He is best served from your side of the discussion Roddles by you caucusing wider than your interest groups and using this to better inform the Greens side of the discussion in Doug's shows and blogs.
Comment by Rodney Cruise
However, I think you have me confused for someone else. I am not from Tasmania (actually Richmond, Victoria) and my name is not Rodney CROOME.
In any case I am a humble little voter who is gay and wants to have full equality. I don't believe what you said is reflective of the Gay and Lesbian community. Simply because if it was true, there would be a louder movement. The overwhelming movement is for marriage at the moment. Other relationship recognition goes beyond sexuality and will come when those who passionately believe it stand up and agitate for it. A bit like those are doing now for equal marriage.
Question....do I pass this on to Rodney CROOME to let him know what you really think....or does he already know that.
But thanks Greg, I feel honoured that you think I am someone who I actually admire so much.
Rodney CRUISE
Comment by Greg Adkins
The point is we might not all share the same views - but they are entitled to be heard. If we say we reflect the GLBT community viewpoint then logically are we not obliged to seek out and engage as many of our community as we can, with all the diversity of opinion that this might bring and not just those that subscribe top our personal beliefs. The people with the stronger view on relationship equality, without the use of "marriage", are in significant number in our community but not heard.
Comment by Rodney Cruise
They are entitled to be heard ....true. They are also quite capable of speaking up for them selves.
I have not said nor do I represent any GLBTIQ community viewpoint nor organisation. I represent my family and I have my view which I am capable of speaking up about. It relates to marriage in this particular instance. That is the issue that is important to my family.
I have never said that I reflect the GLBTIQ community viewpoint. What i have said is that I am part of the community viewpoint that wants equal marriage. There are a lot of us. We have participated in protests, letter writing, talking to government etc to make our case. But, I don't claim to reflect any community. And no I don't have an obligation to assess the mood of the mythical community, find a lowest common point of agreement and support that. I support equal marriage, if others dont...I don't have a problem with that but I am sure not going to argue on their behalf. They are more than capable of doing it themselves. Maybe they are "not heard" because they are not motivated enough to do so, I don't really know.
If others have different views they are welcome to take the same course I and about 5000 others did in Melbourne recently. They are also capable of starting groups and attracting members to support those views, like those who set up Equal Love and AME. They are capable of joining political parties and the sub groups within them to argue their cases.
They are entitled to be heard. But if they are in significant numbers as you suggest then no doubt we will hear them and see their state and national groups being formed to push for their agenda. Good on them if they do that. These people who don't want marriage but want something else instead are not an disenfanchised group, they have the same capabilities, resources, and energies that those pushing for equal marriage have.
But no, I will probably not be supporting them because it is not a view I hold. To be honest I don't know what the "not heard" people want. I support equality. I believe in the maxim that separate but equal is never equal.
And Greg.....just to make it completely clear to you....I am not Rodney CROOME. You seem to have failed to acknowledge that in your response, so I just want to ensure that you know you are talking to someone very different.
Cheers
Rodney CRUISE
Comment by Greg Adkins
I acknowledge and respect your individual view on the inclusion or otherwise of "marriage" as a defining aspect of equal relationships and that this is an issue of importance to you and your family. I acknowledge that you don't support people who hold different views about "marriage" other that yours. That is a right you have individually.
However, for community orgs to make the claim that they are just that, representatives of a community. The mantle they adopt requires a far greater inclusion of views to truly represent a community, more than you need to do when putting your individual views out there. This is where the various lobbys fall down.
How can they demand access to government and decision making processes and the media claiming to represent ALL of our community, yet "narrow-cast" our community views to such an extent that so many of us do not have a voice?
How can the 1500 at Fed Square... sorry 2000 claimed by organisers a little later... ooops 3500 claimed by them a day or so later.. have greater weight in this debate than the other 496,500 Victorian GLBT who haven't been asked?
Maybe what are really seeing is a convergence of lobby groups that need to dumb-down the many differing GLBT views on "marriage" to justify their existence:
The Greens: they appear to see AME and EL as gravy tickets into inner urban seats and are happy to limit the debate to suit their interests.
AME: need to have "marriage" remain in the argument because some bright spark registered the domain name before discovering that not all GLBT wanted to be saddled with "marriage" to have equal rights in their relationships. I can see the meeting now: "Too late, we printed the letterhead...".
Equal Love: equal so long as no-one wants to suggest that equality in rights and legal recognition is not about having a barney with the religions and those following these faiths (shock, horror.. some of these happen to be GLBT themselves)....
I'd ;ile to come back to Doug's comments and support them but in a slightly different order:
1. The recognition that same-sex couples are equal to married couples must be acknowledged and enacted first (bringing our relationships up to par).
2. Have a more comprehensive overhaul of relationship recognition for all - ie should a state legislate for a religious process at all?
3. Bring the WHOLE GLBT community along on the same journey, valuing the diversity in relationships, the views and opinions that never quite match, but work towards where we agree rather than where we disagree.
4. Then lets address "marriage" within the religions/faiths. Assist with education, information and the fact that gays and lesbians do make bloody marvelous role models and parents, provide them the opportunity to meet some of our finest couples and their well balanced and brilliant kids.
Lets put the Equal back in Equal Love and let us all have an equal say. Whether we're a Rodney, or not a Rodney.
Comment by Rodney Cruise
1. I assume you were at Fed Square and counted the numbers of people. But whether there was 1500 or 5000 they were all there for marriage equality. I can't seem to recall where the alternate rally was held for "lets have something other than marriage" group.
2. You are Rainbow Labor, maybe that is something you should admit in each post so your views are seen in the context of the group you belong to. It would seem reasonable seeing you specifically take aim at the Greens at any opportunity it seems.
3. Lobby groups are exactly that. They lobby for a particular point of view. People with different points of view are fully entitled to start their own lobby groups to push their own barrow if they like. There is one called Rainbow Labor which certain doesn't represent me, nor has bothered to ask me my view or "take me on the same journey".
4. Marriage is civil NOT religious in Australia. If religions don't want to support same sex marriage that is their right.
5. Your arguments seem to be more concerned with worrying about Labor losing inner city seats to the Greens, than "bringing the GLBTI community along".
6. You continue to fail to recognise that other people in the GLBTI community are perfectly capable of setting up other lobby groups to represent their views and interests. It is not AME or EL job to modify their lobby efforts to accomodate everyone in the community. As it is Rainbow Labor does not do that so tell me why should AME or EL?
7. So is Rainbow Labor representative of the GLBTI community any more than AME or EL is? I would be curious to know if you think they are. If they are not, then why isn't your rant directed to RL as well?
8. In the end, if people want other forms of relationships recognised then it is up to them to demand it. If you see other forms of relationship recognition that is missing from what is currently available (obviously other than marriage) then maybe you could explain what they are. Or maybe those "not heard" GLBTI people can make their view heard so the rest of us can consider whether we want to support it or not.
Greg, I honestly could take what you have said a bit more seriously if your own Rainbow Labor group did what you keep criticising other groups about. But you don't and Rainbow Labor doesn't either. You are like them a lobby group. you lobby for your interests that tie in with your objectives. That is the reality of the process.
Oh yes....one final thing. As much as I think Lindsay Tanner is a top bloke, he has voted against my equality so he doesn't deserve my vote at the next election. It really is that simple - If Anthony Albanese can speak out in favour of same sex marriage then the arguement that LT can't speak against labor policy is inconsistent. he can if he wants but he doesn't and actually votes against GLBTI equality (ie marriage amnedment act). You as a Labor person may not like my logic but so what. It is my vote and I can and should vote according to my beliefs. And I suspect there are many in LT seat that will be doing the same at the next election.
Cheers
Rodney (Not CROOME) Cruise.
Comment by Anonymous
This is the real Rodney Croome with a couple of quick responses.
1. Different models for recognition
I have always actively supported different models for relationship recognition to allow couples choice. What I don't support is political parties opting only for the politically-safer option at the expense of full equality and real choice.
2. Lobby groups
AME was established specifically to lobby for marriage equality. It has no mandate to speak on other issues, although it does support state civil union schemes. Tellingly, AME now has the biggest membership of any Australian LGBT human rights organisation.
3. Inner-city seats
It is utterly irrelevant to me or any of my community-based marriage-equality colleagues who wins seats where. Our motive is legal equality. When others raise this issue, it says more about their motives than ours.
Rodney Croome.
PS: What's with the anti-Tasmanian bias? Why do some mainlanders feel so threatened by the island they have to constantly belittle it? Seems like infantile projection to me.