Voters Guide to Marriage Equality in Jewish Melbourne

This guide is aimed to assist voters living in the main Jewish neighbourhoods in Melbourne best select candidates who have comprehensively demonstrated or pledged their full support for marriage equality.

Levels of support for “same-sex marriage” listed for each electorate in this guide are taken from the “News Ltd 2010 Same-Sex Marriage Poll”.  The raw data is available in the resources section below.

Incumbent candidates are listed in capital letters.

Feedback, corrections and updates are invited via the form below.  Information is provided here in good faith and on the understanding that it is correct.

This page is optimised for viewing on a full-screen browser.

Candidates & Electorates


Higgins

Support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:

  • For: 57%
  • Against: 27%
  • Don’t Care: 17%

Candidates who fully support marriage equality and are allowed by their party to vote for it:

Candidates who support marriage equality but are prevented by their party from voting for it:

Candidates who oppose marriage equality:


Goldstein

Support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:

  • For: 50%
  • Against: 28%
  • Don’t Care: 22%

Candidates who fully support marriage equality and are allowed by their party to vote for it:

Candidates who oppose marriage equality:


Melbourne Ports

Support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:

  • For: 61%
  • Against: 20%
  • Don’t Care: 19%

Candidates who support marriage equality and are allowed by their party to vote for it:

Candidates who support marriage equality but are prevented by their party from voting for it:

Candidates who oppose marriage equality:


Hotham

Support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:

  • For: 44%
  • Against: 32%
  • Don’t Care: 24%

Candidates who fully support marriage equality and are allowed by their party to vote for it:

Candidates who oppose marriage equality:


Kooyong

Support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:

  • For: 54%
  • Against: 29%
  • Don’t Care: 18%

Candidates who fully support marriage equality and are allowed by their party to vote for it:

Candidates who oppose marriage equality:


✡ Candidate has declared a Jewish identity
Candidate has declared a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender or Intersex identity


Parties

Parties that support marriage equality in their policy platform and require their candidates to vote accordingly:

Parties that support marriage equality in their policy platform but allow their candidates to vote on their conscience:

Parties that don’t currently have a position on marriage equality but allow their candidates to vote on their conscience:

Parties that oppose marriage equality in their policy platform and require their candidates to vote accordingly:

Independent candidates may vote for or against marriage equality as they choose.


Resources


Mount Scopus continues to ignore the needs of its LGBTQ students

Posted on Facebook by Daniel Baker on August 20, 2013 and reproduced with permission:

Mount Scopus continues to ignore the needs of its LGBTQ students. Here is my most recent letter to the Principal and the head of the Board:

Dear Rabbi Kennard and Ms Kennett,

Thank you for your email dated August 12.

I must say that I am disappointed with your response. My emails dated 24 June and 25 July were responses to and questions on Rabbi Kennard’s letter dated 18 February, and it seems disingenuous to suggest that that letter could somehow provide the answers to the very comments and questions it raised. I have explained in a number of emails why Rabbi Kennard’s response was insufficient and, in some cases, erroneous – for instance, in its comparison of homosexuality to Shabbat violation. The school’s refusal to respond to these concerns raises serious questions about its commitment to equality and student well-being.

Additionally, and beyond the immediate issue of same-sex attracted students, I must say that your response raises concerns about the way the School treats concerned stake-holders. When I began calling on Mount Scopus to join the SSCV, and when my campaign was gaining significant public attention, Rabbi Kennard urged me to keep this matter private. He promised a constructive and meaningful dialogue in the interests of protecting the safety and well-being of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer students. While I appreciated his letter dated 18 February, I do not think that a single letter followed by continued refusals to engage further constitutes real dialogue. To the contrary, it seems to reflect a lack of good faith on the part of the Principal.

As I have acknowledged on numerous occasions, it is of course the prerogative of the Principal and the Board to determine the school’s direction. What I seek is not an immediate policy change along the lines I have suggested, but a considered response to the 5 key points I raised in my email of 25 July. Those points are directly raised by Rabbi Kennard’s letter of 18 February, and the School’s claim to care about its same-sex attracted students cannot be taken seriously until they have been addressed.

I note that according to your email the correspondence between me and Rabbi Kennard was addressed at a recent meeting of the Board. Are you willing to make the notes of this meeting available to the public?

I look forward to your response.


Comment by Jonathan Barnett on letter by Daniel Baker

 

Gay Ketubah Offerings Let Same-Sex Couples Enjoy Jewish Marriage Tradition | Huffington Post

Gay Ketubah Offerings Let Same-Sex Couples Enjoy Jewish Marriage Tradition | Huffington Post.

Why Intermarriage Poses Threat to Jewish Life — But Gay Marriage Doesn’t | Forward.com

Why Intermarriage Poses Threat to Jewish Life — But Gay Marriage Doesn’t | Forward.com.

Madrid Chief Rabbi Calls Gays ‘Deviants’ | Forward.com

Madrid Chief Rabbi Calls Gays ‘Deviants’ | Forward.com.

Danby defends silence on gay marriage | Star Observer

Danby defends silence on gay marriage | Star Observer.

By on July 31, 2013

Michael Danby

Federal Labor MP for Melbourne Ports Michael Danby has justified his decision to abstain from last September’s marriage equality vote and subsequent refusal for more than six months to reiterate his support for the issue as “political gravitas or timing”.

Danby did not vote at all when Labor’s marriage equality bill was put to the House of Representatives last year despite indicating his support for equality before the 2010 election, angering many in the LGBTI community. Following the vote he was silent about his reasons until later this year, ignoring numerous requests for comment by the Star Observer.

Danby broke his silence and clarified the issue publicly in an interview on LGBTI radio station JOY 94.9 on May 25. He stated he would support any future marriage equality bills and justified his abstention under the conscience vote granted Labor members, saying that “my assessment was it wasn’t going to get through”.

The MP has now gone into detail with the Star Observer about his refusal to comment on the abstention for the first time, justifying his actions in terms of the current political climate.

“It’s the worst political crisis and ugliest Parliament I’ve ever been in, and there are lots of issues that people are involved in…the leadership in particular, and they took priority over some other issues. I can’t apologise for it because that’s just what happened,” Danby said, explaining Labor’s internal leadership struggles prevented him from engaging with the LGBTI community.

“It’s not that I didn’t have time, I prioritised what I thought was important. Survival of the government was — it was obvious at any minute that we could go under, and I was concentrating on stability inside the government and on other issues, which didn’t give this the priority that people in the LGBTI community wanted.”

A month prior to his interview on JOY 94.9 Danby sent a letter to a constituent named Tony Pitman explaining he abstained on the basis of “fairness,” not political manoeuvring.

In the letter dated April 11 he wrote that “I abstained from the vote on that bill because I did not think it fair that half the Parliament — the Labor Party — had a free vote, while the other half — the Coalition parties — were ordered by their Leader Mr Abbott to vote against the bill”.

Danby told the Star Observer his decision was primarily about politics.

“You can call it political expediency, I call it political gravitas or timing. You can have people who make their views — it just has to be done now or whatever — as clear as they like…it’s the MPs who understand how Parliament works who are the best judge of that,” Danby said.

“And I’m not saying we’re any superior breed but you have to make a judgement in our own circumstances and in this parliament, with Tony Abbot breathing down our necks and leadership challenges, I made the judgement that this was not going through.”

When the Star Observer asked what prompted his eventual decision to comment on the radio, Danby offered the following:

“When it became clear to me that people in the community were agitated about this…I thought, let’s strike while the iron’s hot. The issue was quiet, over, and it was time to make clear to people where I stood.”

Marriage equality groups and the Star Observer have lobbied Danby since the vote to comment on his decision. Although the statement on JOY 94.9 came just days after then-backbencher Kevin Rudd announced his support for marriage equality, Danby said his actions were “in spite of” Rudd, not because of him.

Danby said most of the lobbying on marriage equality in his electorate was in support, but said he was also being lobbied to oppose it by some religious groups, notably the Greek Orthodox community. However, Danby reiterated his support for marriage equality going into this year’s federal election, promising again to vote for future bills. He said he believes Labor would be able to pass marriage equality in the next government if elected.

“Now the opportunity is for Labor being elected and holding people like me to our pledges, and it’ll happen,” he said.

Danby is facing openly gay Liberal Party candidate and marriage equality supporter Kevin Ekendahl in the election, who he defeated in 2010 with an increased majority.