Australia —
Peter FitzSimons asks: Why on earth does the
Attorney-General want to interfere in the lives of an
apparently loving couple trying to bring up their child?
Try this one, then.
It's a true story.
Three decades or so ago,
a girl called Kimberly was born. At least
physiologically, Kimberly was a girl. One way or another
the child always felt masculine, and soon as she was
able, Kimberly began to live as a "he". He dressed as a
male, was accepted by family, friends and work colleagues
as a male, took regular doses of male hormones and became
"Kevin" - in short did everything but go through the
complex operation of constructing male
genitalia.
In October 1996, Kevin
met a woman called Jenny, and the two fell in love. In
September 1997, their commitment to each other was strong
enough that they entered an IVF program and in 1998 Jenny
and Kevin had a son. In August of 1999 they were married
by a celebrant and issued with a certificate to that
effect. All well and good, then? Everybody happy? (I mean
apart from you, Fred and Elaine, [Nile] bless you
both.)
Well, the Federal
Government wasn't. Last year it challenged the legality
of the union before the Family Court <http://www.familycourt.gov.au/>.
For the Commonwealth, Henry Burmester, QC, made the case
that under the Marriage Act of 1961 a "man" could only be
a man if he was a male at birth - and as Kevin did not
meet that definition, the marriage was therefore
invalid.
Last October, Justice
Richard Chisolm sent the Government away with a flea in
its ear, declaring the union was valid
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/family_ct/2001/1074.html>.
His judgement noted that the 1961 law and definition were
clearly out of step with community views about
transsexuals now, and that to define Kevin as a man would
"perpetuate a view that flies in the face of current
medical understanding and practice."
Then to the nub ... "Most
of all," Justice Chisolm wrote, "it would impose
indefensible suffering on people who have already had
more than their share of difficulty, with no benefit to
society."
Now is everybody
happy?
Still not! As reported in
'The Australian' on Thursday, the Attorney-General,
Darryl Williams, has moved to appeal against the decision
on six grounds. That appeal is scheduled for next
month.
My question is simple.
What, pray tell, is the issue?
In terms of properly
allocating its limited resources, why does the Federal
Government think that lobbing legal cannonballs on an
apparently loving couple raising their child is in the
nation's best interests? Just what is the "benefit to
society" that Darryl Williams can see and Justice Chisolm
can't?
As a matter of fact,
isn't this kind of issue something that as a society we
settled back in the 1970s, and have since moved away
from?
Haven't we come to the
conclusion that if two adults love each other, it is
no-one else's damn business the way they choose to sort
themselves out?
These, surely, are
legitimate questions.
Yet when 'The Oz' asked
the Attorney-General last week for reasons for the
appeal, Daryl Williams declined to comment. I received
the same response yesterday. When I asked the reason, a
spokesperson told me it would be "inappropriate" for the
Attorney-General to comment.
Why? Is it asking too
much for Mr Williams to point out to us just why this is
an issue worth fighting for?
As to Justice Chisolm's
claim that the community is now reasonably comfortable
with same-sex and transsexual marriages - and that the
Marriage Act should be brought into line with that - I
believe he is correct. When I put the issue of "Kevin"
and Jenny to commercial radio talkback callers last week,
the response was overwhelming in support of
them.
Only one caller, an older
woman, maintained that as a community we had to have
"standards" and it was good that the Federal Government
was trying to maintain those standards to preserve happy
families. Poppycock, madam. The "happy family" market has
not been cornered by heterosexual couples.
Furthermore, standards
are by their nature subjective, and in a complex,
multi-faceted society like Australia, universal
"standards" we can all agree to are pretty hard to come
by. Not so, however, values - and I cite particularly
values such as honesty, kindness and generosity. More to
the point, we can surely all agree that the central value
of "live and let live" is a sound one that is worth
embracing and fighting to preserve.
So I'll ask again. Why,
Mr Attorney-General, are you - who on every other count
seem to be an entirely reasonable man - going after this
couple so strongly? What is the point?
I think we should be
told.
