NHJ! reader Sam Butler chimes in (via email) on the 'Howard and Gay Marriage' conversation, with a response to the Peter Hackney/Margo K chat last week. Sam writes:

Margo, first up I want to say 'love your work', I think you're one of the last angry people and a passionate champion of your cause to defend democracy and expose the lies of the Howard regime.

I have to say, however, that I was a little disappointed with your reply to Peter Hackney's inquiry yesterday on the website. You were sounding disturbingly similar to Nicola Roxon with: 'Gay marriage has never been a significant issue in Australia - what gay politics is about here is giving gay partners equal rights re superannuation, tax concessions etc. Howard's change to the law is meaningless - it is already clear in our Marriage Act that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.'

While it is true that gay and lesbian lobby groups in Australia have never focussed on gay marriages to the extent of their American equivalents, I don't think this is really the issue. To me the issue is that this is a piece of legislation that, without precedent, actively seeks, identifies and targets queer people for discrimination as opposed to the indirect discrimination we suffer through other exclusionary legislation. This Bill, if passed, will permanently relegate queer relationships to second-class status, there is no avoiding this.

The response of the ALP pissed me off more than the Howard government to introduce such a mean-spirited Bill, because while we wouldn't expect anything less from him and Ruddock, the ALP is meant to be a socially progressive party that resists conforming to the social status quo and brings about rights and reforms for minority and marginalised groups. But this current ALP Opposition is as shamelessly populist and parochial as the Government in many ways, and that's why they're not racing ahead in the polls the way they should be in the face of an upcoming election.

Anyway, I'm sure I'm preaching to the converted here but I can't agree with you that 'Latham's gay solution...was the best he could do in the circumstances'. The best he could have done is to point out how marriage evolves with the times as it has always done and not to fear the inevitable change. The best he could have done was to say how great it was Play School was showing how lesbian mums are normal and not to be feared, rather than quietly echoing the Government's homohpobic rhetoric.

I would also like to expose another Howard lie, or at least distortion of the truth: where you say Howard has pledged - at long bloody last - to give same sex partners the same supernanuation rights as straight partners, I would like to point out that he has only done this by including same-sex couples in a category of 'interdependence', the same (with super at least) as, for example, a woman looking after her sick sister. Once again, this demonstrates how Howard cannot handle the reality that people have committed, sexual relationships with people of the same sex; heterosexual couples do not have to prove interdependence to obtain one another's super but queer couples do. To use an analogy: Two people working next to each other in different cubicles both keep their jobs, but whereas one can do his or her work without interruption, the second person has their boss coming up to their desk every morning and asking: 'So, why shouldn't I fire you today? Justify your presence here until I am satisfied'. It's just not right and if you could please point this out on your website or the webdiary, it would be greatly appreciated by me at least.

For now though, keep up the great work.