Simon Copland

The SCOTUS decision on marriage equality has been heralded as a win for love. But is it really?

Originally published in Junkee.com, 30 June, 2015.

#Lovewins.

From marriage advocates to the President of the United States, that was the message from the Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) decision on same-sex marriage on Friday. In fact, the message came straight from the horse’s mouth:  the Court itself. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the court’s decision, wrote what some described as “a love letter to marriage — and gay marriage”. Kennedy’s final passage was shared widely throughout social media, reading:

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people becomesomething greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

A Brief History Of Love And Marriage

For many, Kennedy’s ruling was a beautiful passage that highlighted everything good about marriage. But for me, it highlighted every reason we need to radically overhaul this archaic institution.

It’s worth, for a minute, thinking about the history of love and marriage.

Up until about the 19th Century, love had nothing to do with marriage. Marriage was entirely an economic institution, designed to further the economic interests of families and the state. It was a contract, one in which women traded their fidelity for economic security. Men could guarantee their inheritance would be passed on to their children instead of another man’s (a system that was essential in the new world of private property), while women were given the means to survive. This is the oppressive history of the nuclear family — a system constructed to benefit men and, more broadly, the ruling classes.

Yet in the 19th and 20th Century, things began to change. As people moved into the cities and started working in factories, they became more economically independent. They could throw away the old bonds of marriage and start entering the institution for love instead. This was true for both men and women.

But it created a problem. Monogamous marriage was still needed for our economic system to work, in order to both continue the passage of inheritance (which was essential to continue the passage of wealth between generations), and to ensure people continued breeding to provide workers for growing industry. Many in the ruling classes saw love as a threat; it was far too volatile for an institution as important as marriage.

In doing so a new norm of love was created, one based on fidelity and sacrifice. To love, women in particular were told to devote themselves entirely to their “other half”. This charge was lead by Queen Victoria, who in 1840 famously set the trend for the white wedding, and for female puritanism. The Queen pushed a norm of fidelity, framed largely around the desexualisation of women, that ensured the continuation of the nuclear family (and the economic necessities behind it).

Marriage — Abolish It

And herein lies the problem.

Marriage is without doubt an expression of love for many of us. But that is not what it was designed for. When it comes to the law, love actually has nothing to do with it — hence why people can get married in Las Vegas to a person they’ve never met, and enjoy the legal benefits. Marriage is a contract, simple as that.

And as a legal institution, marriage is broken. It has been designed around particular economic needs — needs that can oppress women, and leave many others out in the cold. While gays and lesbians are able to access the benefits of marriage in Australia through de facto relationships, there is an increasing array of people in different relationships who are missing out. This includes people in polyamorous unions (like mine), open marriages, friends living communally and sharing finances, couples and their sperm donors raising children together, and single people living happily alone. This system, along with continuing the oppressive nature of the past, does not meet the realities of relationships as they exist today.

So I think we should abolish marriage. But what does that actually mean?

I’m not suggesting we abolish the ideas of monogamy and force everyone into a world of polyamory (although I  do think that more free love would be great for our society). But the state should not be backing up this one form of love as the epitome of relationships.

Marriage, as a social and religious institution, needs to be disconnected from our law. You could still have your white wedding in your church if you wanted, but this would not come with a legal backing. It would be a social and/or religious institution, as it should be.

How would the state be involved? Rights and responsibilities around relationships need to be treated as exactly what they are: a contract. As with other contracts, we should — as consenting adults — be able to enter into them with whoever we want, and with as many people as we want.

At the same time, a lot of the benefits provided by marriage should be decoupled from relationships. One of the big issues spoken about in the same-sex marriage campaign, for instance, has been around hospital visitation rights. We’ve heard awful stories from people who have not been able to sit by the bed of their dying partner because their relationship is not legally recognised. But why should this right be limited to family and partners in the first place? As an adult why should I not be able to decide who does and doesn’t get to visit me in hospital, whether they are a loving partner, a family member, or simply a good friend?

Another good example is immigration. Many of our immigration benefits are connected directly to relationships; it’s far easier to immigrate to most countries if you are married to a citizen of that country. I’m not saying we should deny these people the right to immigrate, but we should question why these rights are only open to those who are monogamous? The case for open immigration is extremely clear: immigration provides significant economic and social benefits to a society and, despite the scare tactics of groups like UKIP in the UK, open immigration does not lead to economic ruin. So why not decouple these rights from relationships, and make them available to everyone?

These examples highlight the significant problems with marriage as we know it today. As Hugh Ryan argues in The Guardian, marriage allows the state — i.e. our society — to stop caring for people, and places that responsibility in the hands of a partner. I would much rather a system that provides care for everyone, whether coupled or otherwise.

This is not just about law, either. We also need to break down the norm of monogamous relationships as being the epitome of relationship structures. This not only leaves people in alternate relationships open to discrimination, but also places huge pressure on those who do try and fit. The global rates of infidelity remain quite high, suggesting the norm of monogamy just doesn’t work for everyone. Wouldn’t we be better questioning that norm, rather than pushing people into something many don’t want to do and facilitating pain in the process?

A Win For Marriage And Equality, But Not A Win For Love

I don’t think love won last week. In fact, I think it lost. The SCOTUS decision defined love even more narrowly than before, and brought more people into the fold of a limiting and outdated norm.

If we really wanted love to win, we’d decouple it from our legal system. That would make it fairer for all of us.
Read more at http://junkee.com/the-scotus-decision-was-a-win-for-marriage-not-a-win-for-love/60275#8uywpcE2TGtZ1FR7.99

What is the point of Pride anymore?

This weekend I went to Edinburgh Pride. Edinburgh Pride is not a big affair. It started with a march along the Royal Mile followed by a ‘festival’ — an afternoon of bands and drinking. I had no interest in the festival at all, so decided to head to the march instead.

I am not surprised, but in the end, it was rather disappointing. The crowd was actually a decent size, but I couldn’t help but wonder, why were we all there? There was hardly a political message to be heard, with no one even bothering to chant along the march. We walked very quietly, expressing our pride and politely as possible. Instead, the majority of flags and banners were those provided by the corporate sponsors — banks such as Barclays, RBS and the Bank of Scotland, as well as the restaurant Nandos.

It seemed a crazy contrast to the huge anti-austerity protests that were happening around the United Kingdom on the same day. While tens of thousands of people took to the streets to protest harsh cuts by the Tory Government, the gay community in Edinburgh were “celebrating” the work of our proud sponsors — the UK financial sector. On a day of huge anti-austerity protests there was not a single austerity message to be found.

Is this seriously what we’ve come to?

In London it has been noted that the pivotal group, Gays and Lesbians Supporting the Miners, will be leading the London Pride this year. GLSM was so important because it realised that the fights for gay and lesbian rights matches the fight against conservative attacks on unions and workers.

And that fight continues in earnest today. Conservative austerity is going to have a huge impact in the UK — hitting the poorest hardest. And that means hitting LGBTIQ people as well. Gays, lesbians, and trans* people often face severe poverty (particularly those who find themselves homeless due to queerphobia) and they will bear the brunt of austerity cuts coming under this Government.

Yet, instead of standing with those fighting against austerity during the protests this week, Edinburgh Pride instead celebrated our proud financial sponsors. We waved the flag of where our allegiances lie — with the capitalist class instead of those fighting against their oppression.

In the end I wished I had ended up getting on the train and heading to the protest in Glasgow this weekend instead of Pride. And that feels really sad to me. It’s sad parts of the queer movement have lost the important connections we once built with the working class, along with so many other movements fighting oppression today. It’s sad that we find more space for banks to sponsor our events rather than to question their dodgy practices (the sorts of practices that created the financial crisis that Conservatives are using as an excuse for austerity).

Pride used to be something political and radical. It used to be a locus for change. Not it seems just to be a big party, backed up by our corporate sponsors.

There is still a point to pride. But sometimes I don’t think we realise that anymore. 

Recent revelations about post-9/11 practice remind us that doctors’ ethical guidelines are only as good the society that has allowed a variety of shocking human experimentation.

New documents released by the Guardian have shown the CIA may have broken its own internal ethics policies during their controversial torture programme following 9/11. In particular the CIA breached its guidelines for “human experimentation”, which specifically state that research should not occur without a subject’s informed consent.

While these breaches may not be surprising to the cynical, the involvement of medical doctors and psychologists in the programme still has the capacity to shock. Doctors from the Office of Medical Services (OMS) were active throughout the torture programme – with some even being present and participating in the interrogations themselves. This, according to many medical professionals, it a major breach of medical ethics – procedures based at their heart on the principle of “do no harm”.

But is this really such a shock? Unfortunately, probably not. Look at the history of medical science and these breaches are more common than we’d like to admit.

The controversy over the CIA torture is very similar to another debate raging within the US medical community – that over doctor involvement in the death penalty. With the growing use of the lethal injection, doctors have been increasingly involved in this form of punishment, developing and implementing drugs for the purpose of killing. As Jonathan Groner explains (PDF):

“Even without physician participation, the lethal injection process so closely mimics medical practice that the entire medical community is tied to the death chamber.”

This is highly problematic. As we’ve seen recently, the lethal injection has at times been akin to torture. In 2014 in Oklahoma for example, convicted rapist and murderer Clayton Lockett was submitted to what was called a “botched execution”. In what was the state’s first attempt at using a new three-drug cocktail, Lockett ended up living for 43 minutes after he was injected, writhing in pain as he was strapped to the gurney.

Even if lethal injections can be more “humane” approach, they represent a significant threat to the medical profession. Jonathan Groner argues:

“Not only does lethal injection induce physicians to perform unethical activities, but lethal injection also ‘medicalises’ executions, meaning that its veneer of medical respectability allows the imagery of healing to be used to justify killing.”

It is the “imagery of healing” that has often been used for some of the other worst examples of medical practice. The most obvious example relates to sexuality. Up until 1973 the American Psychiatric Association – and similar associations around the world – considered homosexuality a mental illness. This is part of what Michel Foucault described as “scientia sexualis”, or the scientification of sexuality. Within this ideology “divergent” sexualities were identified scientifically, with doctors then conducting ‘conversion therapy’ to cure people of these illnesses. Techniques included forced hospitalisation, electro-shock therapy, castration, torture drugs and lobotomies.

Perhaps the most famous case of this is the treatment of Alan Turing – the father of computing. After it was discovered that Turing had a homosexual lover in the 1950s he was punished through chemical castration, given hormones to suppress his sexual urges. Turing died of cyanide poisoning only two years later in 1954 at the age of 41. It was at the time put down to a suicide, although recent evidence has suggested that may not have been the case. Either way the story represents potentially the most high-profile unethical medical treatment of homosexuals to date.

And while this may sound like old news, unfortunately that’s not the case. A committee of the Australian Senate for example recently heard evidence from the Organisation Intersex International Australia (OII), who stated that every member of their organisation had at some point experienced a form on non-consensual medical intervention. One story from OII was particularly shocking — a person who agreed to hormone therapy after his doctor insisted that it would “turn him into a real man”:

“It was insinuated, even blatantly stated on occasions, that my life would be worthless; that I would be a freak; that I would never achieve my potential, and that I would never have any self-esteem … So, eventually, from the age of 28, after about six years of constant threats and ‘counselling’ by my medical specialists, I began testosterone therapy. And I found it to be a horrifying experience.”

All of these cases have been based on a desire to do some form of good, but have resulted in what has often been the traumatic and horrible treatment of people against their will. This does not just relate to the treatment of medical patients, but to medical research as well.

For example, from 1951 to 1974 Dr Albert Kligman conducted a range of medical experiments at the Holmesburg Prison in Pennsylvania in the United States on behalf of the Dow Chemical Company, the US Army and Johnson & Johnson. In one study Kligman injected dioxin – a highly toxic and carcinogenic compound found in Agent Orange – into 70 prisoners. He did so because Dow Chemical employees were being exposed to the chemical and the company wanted to know what effect it had on the skin. Prisoners developed severe lesions, with many being left untreated for months.

In another example, from 1946-48 American public health officials conducted a range of unethical medical experiments in Guatemala, infecting soldiers, prostitutes, prisoners, and mental health patients with syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases without their knowledge or consent. Researchers wanted to test the effectiveness of penicillin in both preventing, and curing syphilis, something they were struggling to do in the laboratory. In doing so they infected people without their consent, with a number dying as a result.

What’s shocking about these examples is they came so closely after the discovery of Nazi medical abuses during the second world war. Throughout the war Nazi doctors conducted a range of horrible medical experiments on people in concentration camps. Perhaps the most notorious of these were conducted by Josef Mengele – known as the Angel of Death. Mengele was particularly fascinated in twins and conducted a range of brutal experiments including injecting dyes into people’s eyes, amputating limbs, intentionally infecting one twin with a disease to test the impact, and transferring blood from one twin to another. In a particularly gruesome example, he sewed two children together in an attempt to create conjoined twins. They both died several days later after developing gangrene.

It was these atrocities that lead to the development of the Nuremberg Code of human experimentation, which outlines the research ethics principles for human experimentation. The code has similar principles to broader ethical guidelines for medical practice — primarily based on the ideal of “do no harm”. This is how we all see medical practice — it is primarily a healer, and helper. Yet unfortunately what we’re finding is this isn’t always the case. Often, medicine is used for other ends.

Of course this is the exception to the broader rule. Medical practitioners around the world are overwhelmingly focused on the treatment of illness, the finding of cures of diseases, and ensuring people live long and happy lives. The Nuremberg Code, along with other medical ethical guidelines, have become central to medical practice.

Yet, what the CIA examples highlights is that we must remain wary. While of course these crimes do not match those of the Nazi era, they still highlight a major breach in medical practice. The CIA’s policies were in line with best practice medical ethics. Yet the organisation, and the doctors involved, continued anyway. They crossed the boundaries and clearly thought that was an acceptable thing to do.

There are two things we need to learn from this. First, ethics are only useful when they are actually understood and enforced. While the CIA clearly had good guidelines, they were not followed. In that instance, what is the point?

But secondly, and more importantly, these examples highlight that while we often treat the medical profession as if it is an inherent “good”, in reality it is only as good as the society and organisation that builds it. Of course many breaches of medical ethics are due to rogue practitioners acting outside the boundaries, but each of the examples above were allowed to happen because of the values of the society at the time — from governments turning a blind eye to unethical medical experiments, to a society that supports torture and the death penalty.

Our society is built within particular power structures and whether we like it or not, medicine – and the broader sciences – have been developed, and act, within these structures. That does not mean that all medical practitioners are destined towards breaching their ethics, but rather that, just like with any other profession, we have to keep a constant check on how medicine operates. Medicine is just as likely to be used as a method of implementing power as any other profession.

We see medicine in our society as an inherent good. But as these examples show, it is often only as good as the society that uses it. It is our job as a society therefore to make sure these sorts of breaches do not occur again.

This was published as part of the Guardian’s Comment is Free weekly videos.

To see the video visit the The Guardian’s website. 

Eugh! I have been sick the last week. Just a rotten cold, but it has really hit me. I’ve been out for a few days now. 

Everyone gets sick. But over the past few days I’ve noticed some a bit of a unique challenge it brings as a writer.

One of the frustrating things about being a freelance writer is the lack of security. I literally have no secure job at the moment and therefore no guaranteed future pay. I love what I do, but at times like this, it’s a real pain. What this means is that unfortunately I’ve been working while sick. I took all of the weekend off (I’ve been trying to work less on weekend) — but unfortunately I’ve had to do quite a bit of work at the start of this week (including writing this blog post).

It’s the unfortunate nature of the work these days. I know lots of people who would never take time off work if they were sick — even those with good sick leave provisions. Our work culture has become so engrained that we can’t even look after ourselves properly when we get ill.

I’m definitely trying to get better at taking time off. I had an amazing sleep last night and didn’t get up until 11 today. And I’m going to stop writing this in a minute so I can relax. But I probably will have to keep working before this cold goes away.

I’d love to be a position where that doesn’t have to happen, but that’s probably not going to be the case for a while yet. Oh well.

Now I’m going to have a nap.

Originally published in Junkee.com, 2 June 2015

Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten introduced his marriage equality legislation to the Federal Parliament. As the first leader of one of the two major parties to actively support reform, Shorten’s move is being seen as a major step in the march towards equality. And with the momentum from the successful Irish referendum, it now seems even more inevitable that Australia will soon legislate for same-sex marriage.

But while I really want to believe Shorten introduced the bill with the sole motive of making reform a reality, I cannot.

To me, this feels not just like a publicity stunt, but one that has the potential to significantly hurt our chances for reform this year.

Why This Bill? Why Now?

It is strange to watch Shorten and his colleagues act as if they are heroes on marriage equality, when the ALP have been one of the biggest blockers for change over the last decade. The ALP voted with the Howard Government in 2004 to change the definition of The Marriage Act 1961 and ensure same sex marriages were not recognised in Australia; and the ALP defeated The Greens’ marriage equality legislation twice, in 2009 and 2012. Six years in Government, and they could not achieve reform.

With this in mind I have to ask: why this bill, and why now?

Shorten’s legislation came at the heels of the successful Irish referendum a couple of weeks ago. When it comes to timing, the ALP’s motives were clear: to maximise on momentum from the vote, and push for a groundswell of support for a similar change in Australia. It is a good strategy.

But there’s more to it than that. The ALP also wants to use this legislation as an attempt to “own” the issue of marriage equality. This is why Shorten has made such a big deal over the bill, and why my Facebook feed has been full of advertisements about the party’s position in the last week. Yesterday, Senator Penny Wong suggested the ALP had to introduce the legislation because “no one stepped up” — a ridiculous allegation if you think about the ten other marriage equality bills currently sitting in our Parliament.

The ALP are trying to position themselves as taking a brave and courageous lead on the issue, rather than simply catching up with public sentiment that has supported marriage equality for years.

Marriage Equality Needs Bipartisanship

‘So what?’, you ask. Who cares if the ALP tries to “own” this issue? It doesn’t matter what they did in the past, as long as they are doing the right thing now.

That’s how I would normally feel as well. That’s politics after all. The problem, though, is that Shorten’s posturing actually has the potential to set back the cause of marriage equality.

While Shorten was making his move last week, Prime Minister Tony Abbott was too. Speaking in Parliament, Abbott finally acknowledged there was momentum for change, and that a vote would come to Parliament at some point this year. But he gave one caveat:

“If our Parliament were to make a big decision on a matter such as this, I want it to be owned by the Parliament, and not by any particular party.”

This is a major concession. For the first time Abbott has admitted, even begrudgingly, that marriage reform is on its way — and, even more importantly, that the Coalition will be a part of the change. Not only has the PM opened the door to a Coalition conscience vote, which would likely lead to the passage of the legislation this year, but he has also made a move that could encourage his party’s more conservative supporters to finally accept that change is on its way. These are not just empty words; in the past week Alan Jones came out in support of marriage equality and Andrew Bolt appeared to have given up, and on Friday Liberal backbencher Warren Entsch announced that he would introduce the legislation (again disproving Wong’s contention on Monday that “no else one stepped up”). It was originally reported that Entsch’s bill would be co-sponsored by ALP MP Graham Perrett, but he has since denied any involvement — and one has to ask whether Shorten’s legislation had anything to do with that.

In making this concession, Abbott and the Coalition have laid out a way forward on marriage equality that could see a positive vote by August. Realising that change is inevitable, Abbott has offered a compromise. He doesn’t want to “own” the legislation himself, let alone vote for it. Yet at the same time he does not want to be further embarrassed on the issue by the ALP or the Greens.

Hence a middle of the road approach, and — given that the Coalition controls the Parliament, meaning any legislation will require their cooperation — a fairly decent one at that.

A Dangerous Publicity Stunt

It is here where the ALP’s posturing becomes so dangerous. Abbott’s change of heart and the potential for bipartisanship it represented was one of the biggest signs of progress there’s been on marriage equality since the last election. Yet instead of working with his compromise, Bill Shorten is using the opportunity to embarrass him even further. In doing so Shorten is potentially pushing Abbott and his supporters back into the closet — shaming him at the very time he indicated a willingness to change.

While I normally have no problem with embarrassing Abbott, this time it seems to be a grave mistake. Just look at the Coalition’s reaction to Shorten’s bill. Only five Coalition MPs turned up to the introduction of the legislation, which to the public makes it look  precisely as though they are against the bill. Meanwhile, Abbott has continued with his claim that the budget is more important, delaying a vote for a number of months.

Whether we like it or not, Tony Abbott and the Coalition have control of the House of Representatives, meaning marriage equality advocates require their cooperation (and some of their support) if we want to see a change to legislation this year. This is why a cross-party approach is the best way to achieve reform in the short term, and why the Greens have said they oppose Shorten’s approach in favour of a slower, more consultative process. “Having individuals going it alone now, having the Opposition Leader going it alone, would be a mistake,” the Greens leader Richard di Natale has said. “I just hope that he recognises that here’s an opportunity to have a rare moment of unity.”

Marriage equality is just around the corner. It is great that Bill Shorten has finally caught up on the issue. Yet by barging in the way he has done, Shorten and the ALP have proven they care more about “owning” the issue than they do about actually achieving reform — and if they continue on their current trajectory, they could harm the chances for marriage equality even more.
Read more at http://junkee.com/bill-shorten-has-taken-the-wrong-approach-to-achieving-marriage-equality-heres-why/58221#5l1ELbS8GIPTdjYk.99