Same sex support – a pictorial petition
 Baw Baw Features   Baw Baw News   Gippsland  

By // 08:50, Wednesday 30 September 2015

baw baw says i do big photo warragul warragul baw baw citizen by william pj kulich

GIPPSLAND // WHEN most people think of a petition they imagine clipboards, pens and spreadsheets, but for one group of Gippslanders a petition can be a much bigger statement.

Above: Corey Alexander, Kevin O'Bryan, Gia Collacchi, Martin Baldock and Pollyannar Gibson at the photo shoot. The chalk on the pavement reads 'I do support gay marriage in Gippsland.' Photo: William PJ Kulich.

First published in the 28 August 2015 edition of the Warragul & Baw Baw Citizen.


ADVERTISEMENT

How big? Try a potentially record breaking 40 metre photo print of people from Gippsland who support same sex marriage.

Led by photographer Pollyannar Gibson, who grew up assembling family photos for people who could not be together by using a plain white background, the Sale-based group has photographed supporters in their home town, Traralgon, Bairnsdale, Walhalla and, last weekend, Warragul.

Over 50 people were photographed for the Warragul shoot, adding to Walhalla’s five and Sale’s 100.

“The response has been overwhelming and it’s been people from all demographics,” Pollyannar told the Warragul & Baw Baw Citizen.


ADVERTISEMENT

“We never anticipated such a diverse group of people would come out and support.

“There have been a lot of families, which has just been great.”

The group set out with a plan to photograph people from across Gippsland, and will soon set up in Kilcunda, between Phillip Island and Wonthaggi.

“We definitely want to cover as much of Gippsland as possible. We all have jobs, so this is done in our spare time,” Pollyannar explained.

“This is my second big picture. I do them to help put a face to the statistics and give the general public an opportunity to just look at pictures and think ‘oh, well how actually do I feel about this

issue, and these are the people who support it, so maybe it’s not so bad.’

“We’ve been invited to most towns, so it’s not like we’re banging on doors.

“It’s about starting a movement and giving it to the people, and saying ‘well we’re here, let us know what you want.


ADVERTISEMENT

Unsurprisingly, the group has recieved harsh criticism from conservative parts of society, but that has not shaken their motivation.

“Haters are gonna hate,” Pollyannar said.

“We have actually had a really positive response on Facebook, and we are not anti- anyone who doesn’t support gay marriage at all, we’re here to support gay marriage.

“We’re not here to change anyone’s opinion, we’re just here to inspire a bit more understanding and to support our local gay, bi, transexual, transgender community by showing them that they are loved and everyone supports them.”

Fellow campaigner Martin Baldock added: “everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and I think some of the haters they want to focus on the children, but it’s about marriage equality plain and simple, it’s not about how children are being brought up because that argument, even within straight society, is not a good argument.”

“There is absolutely no research to back it up. I’m in a same sex relationship and I have a nine year old son who understands exactly what we’re doing and supports what we’re doing.

“He’s nine, but he understands that both his parents want to get married and he wants to be like the other kids at school. And he wants to wear a blue suit at the wedding.”

That feeling of inclusion is a common theme; the group recently met a mother of two gay children who wanted “the same right as the woman next to her to go to her children’s weddings.”

The campaign has a strong social element to it, but also has a political role. Recently Gippsland Nationals MP Darren Chester and Gippsland-based independent senator for Victoria Ricky Muir have expressed their support for marriage equality. The big picture and associated traditional petition – Martin said “the photo itself is a petition, but we also wanted to get a hard copy; the petition is just confirming… the people are locals” – are intended to support those MPs while empowering the community.

“We have behind it Darren Chester and Ricky Muir, who basically did the right thing and asked the people of Gippsland what they wanted, and a huge amount showed they wanted marriage equality,” Martin told the Warragul & Baw Baw Citizen.

Asked about McMillan MP Russell Broadbent’s opposition to changing the marriage act, Martin said: “Again, it’s people’s opinions. It’s what he believes in.

“It’s about giving all the Australian people the right to marry who they love, and everyone having the same rights.”

Mr Broadbent does, however, support a conscience vote on the issue.

The big picture campaign using the images the group has taken will launch in November.

“Originally this was just a digital campaign through social media. We’re now going to try to print the print,” Pollyanar said.

“It will be a 40 metre print, it will be one of the world’s longest photographs, and it will probably be the most photographs in a photograph.

“It’s pretty exciting stuff. I’m still not 100 per cent sure my printers can print a photo like this but we will give it a shot.”

Magazines of the photos will be printed and the group has just registered its interest in using the image as a float in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

You can keep up with the project on Facebook, just search for “I Do Support Gay Marriage In Gippsland”.

Related: Same sex couples report marriage in census

 Click for the latest Baw Baw Features   Click for the latest Baw Baw News   Click for the latest Gippsland  

26 responses to “Same sex support – a pictorial petition”

  1. Raymond says:

    Why is the WBBC, a local publication, so obsessed with same-sex ‘marriage’, judging by the number of articles dedicated to it? This is a national issue. Why does the WBBC feel the need to push the issue so much?

    It just goes to show how unimportant this issue is, as far as numbers and percentage of the population is concerned, when you see that it concerns a total of less than 34,000 couples out of the Australian population of approximately 23.5 million.

    It’s a beat-up and the WBBC is doing its level best to promote it. Where’s the balanced journalism, for example a mention of searching for ‘I Don’t Support Gay Marriage’ for those that don’t agree with the line WBBC seems so intent on pushing?

  2. Carol says:

    Raymond says this issue only affects 34 thousand couples out of a nation of 23.5 million. I think he’s wrong. All 23.5 million of us are living in a society that discriminates against gay couples, and all 23.5 million of us will be able to celebrate when those 34 thousand couples achieve equality in our country.

    Sidenote: are we counting them as 34 thousand couples to make them sound like an even smaller minority? 34 thousand couples are 68 thousand individuals who have been denied the rights that are enjoyed by most of the rest of the population.

  3. Raymond says:

    Okay, less than 68,000 people out of more than 23,500,000 – that’s still only 0.29 per cent and look how much media attention and coverage this issue gets.

    As for discrimination, there isn’t any. All legal discrimination against same-sex couples has been removed. Regarding marriage, the very definition of marriage itself since the beginning of time has never included two people of the same gender. Therefore there is no such thing as equality when it falls outside of the definition to begin with, and always has.

    I, along with millions of others, do not agree with same-sex ‘marriage’, so don’t claim that all 23.5 million of us will be celebrating if and when this becomes legal. That’s a lie.

    We are determined to continue our socially engineering until we end up in a real mess.

  4. Raymond says:

    If this were true ‘marriage equality’ it would be allowable for everyone and anyone regardless of the circumstances, but we’re only talking about homosexuals. If you are anything else, you don’t get equality, you still get inequality. If two brothers want to marry, for example, they cannot – so is this next for the ‘marriage equality’ brigade? Or polygamy perhaps?

    The real agenda here, if one is honest, is that homosexuals are pushing for complete acceptance that their relationship is perfectly ‘normal’ and to remove anything standing in the way of having sexual licence without regard to anyone or anything else, and marriage is the last frontier for this acceptance.

  5. Jay says:

    Thank you for this article. A fantastic group and a great initiative that is sorely needed in Warragul in particular. There is no excuse for marginalising people from equal access to the law. Marriage Equality in Australia is long overdue and, as the statistics have shown over and over, supported by a greater number of the Australian community than those who oppose it. I look forward to the day when consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation can legalise their union and avail their families of all the benefits and entitlements that legal marriage bestows.

  6. Simon says:

    “The real agenda here, if one is honest, is that homosexuals are pushing for complete acceptance that their relationship is perfectly ‘normal’”

    Well, yes. And the problem is?

  7. Raymond says:

    The problem is that it isn’t normal.

    It’s simple. It is impossible for two males, or two females, to naturally conceive and reproduce together. That alone is enough to tell you this type of relationship couldn’t possibly be normal, without any other arguments.

    Consider if homosexuality were truly normal and, for argument’s sake, you took this to its logical conclusion and 100 per cent of the population were homosexual. It’s fairly obvious that the entire human race would die out in about 100 years.

  8. Roger Marks says:

    Sad to say the usual emotive arguments are being used by the SSM agenda as in “anyone should be allowed to marry the one they love.” So if I love my son, I should be able to marry him? If I love my daughter, I should be able to marry her?

    I love both my son and daughter but I don’t need to marry them to show them that I do.

    The so called marriage equality that is being demanded is not marriage equality at all. Until I can marry my son or daughter it is marriage inequality because it only applies to homosexuals and lesbians. What’s equal about that?

    And for those that want to know the truth, the homosexual agenda is not about marriage equality. it is about destroying marriage as we know it so they can introduce sexual immorality of any kind and make it legal. NAMBLA in the US is already demanding generational sex (man/boy) be legalised because SSM has been legalised.

    How do I know this? I have got their document stating this firmly nestled on my computer.

  9. Roger Marks says:

    As for “it is not about how children are brought up” that is total baloney. It has been stated again and again and again and again that children do best when raised by their biological parents. Research document after research document after research document has said this consistently.

    The marriage equality agenda is telling us that having second class parenting which is what SSM will produce is OK. In other words, what is important to the kids is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what we want.

    If we really care about the needs of children and they should come first, we will voter no to homosexual marriage in the plebiscite coming up.

    And another thing. We are now at the stage where some children raised by homosexuals are adults so they can speak for themselves. Bit by bit, their stories have the same ring about them. They hated it. How do I know? It’s all there on my computer.

  10. Roger Marks says:

    “I look forward to the day when consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation can legalise their union and avail their families of all the benefits and entitlements that legal marriage bestows’ so Jay said.

    If you look at the facts Jay instead of just parroting what the SSM lot are saying, you will find that any homosexual can already legalise their union.

    But the fact is they don’t want to legalise their union. They want to destroy marriage as we know it.

    if they wanted a legalise union, they would go right ahead and get it legalised. There is nothing to stop them. No, the fact is they have made it clear that marriage equality is only a sprat to catch a mackerel.

    Have you thought Jay that lawyers will have a field day if SSM is legalised? The average length of a homosexual relationship is two years. So, the divorce rate is going to climb dramatically. I read of two lesbians in the USA who couldn’t wait for SSM to be legalized….so they could get divorced.

  11. Roger Marks says:

    “Haters are going to hate” said Polyannar. That is right and most of the hate is coming from homosexuals and lesbians who want so called “marriage equality.”

    On an Insight programme discussing marriage equality which included Penny Wong, every time someone told the truth about it her stock reply was “I find that very offensive.”

    Obviously she was not too keen on the truth being told and judging by the news coming out of the USA, the homosexuals there have gone overboard on the hate thing. People have lost jobs, been sent to prison, had their businesses destroyed because they did not support SSM.

    Even here you are subject to the hate of homosexuals. Jeff Kennett wrote an article for the Herald Sun in which he said that children do best when raised by a biological mum and dad.

    All hell was let loose. They demanded he retracted what he said and if he didn’t they were going to demand his sacking from Beyond Blue. What you might call hate 101.

  12. Roger Marks says:

    A huge amount showed they wanted SSM legalized. I doubt it if the Irish situation is anything to go by.

    It is being hailed as a vindication for SSM but in fact the majority did not want it. 62% of the 63% that voted wanted SSM. That means of the total population only 23% wanted it.

    I do not consider 23% an overwhelming endorsement.

  13. Roger Marks says:

    “The response has been overwhelming” said Pollyannar. Fifty people out of 9,000 overwhelming? You do have the gift of exaggeration Pollyannar.

  14. Roger Marks says:

    If you want to inspire a bit more understanding Pollyannar, I suggest you call a public forum where people can hear both sides of the argument, not just yours. But I don’t think that is going to happen as those supporting SSM don’t want the truth to be known which is what would happen in a public forum.

  15. Jan Stuut says:

    It appears that Raymond and Roger Marks have a lot in common.They should get together to explore their conspiracy theories and world view in the privacy of their own homes and not rub our noses in their verbal excrement.

  16. Raymond says:

    Jan, what a ridiculous and malicious comment.

    How about staying on topic instead of engaging in purely a personal attack?

    It is ironic that those that preach and screech tolerance the most are so often completely intolerant when it comes to those with differing views. This comment is a great example of it.

  17. callout says:

    Raymond, your corruption of the marriage equality definition and apparent hostility toward the majority which wants marriage to not exclude same sex couples opened you up to that. To suggest Jan did anything different to what you did in the first comment on this article is hypocritical.

    How would other people getting married affect your life, Raymond?

  18. Raymond says:

    ‘Callout’, I have not corrupted the debate at all. What will certainly be corrupted is the institution of marriage if this proposal succeeds. I asked a legitimate question and was simply asking for balanced journalism. As to your claim of a majority, there seems to be a significant amount of opposition to a plebiscite from supporters of same-sex ‘marriage’, which suggests this may not be the case.

    It’s not a matter of whether it affects my life or not, it’s the principle of right and wrong. The people it will surely affect are the (non-biological) children. Why should we be able to decide that children aren’t entitled to either a mother or a father? How anyone could argue that two males or two females, impossibly unable to reproduce together, should be married is the sign of a sick society and social engineering gone very wrong. Homosexuality itself was anathema only a short time ago in history.

    We are opening ourselves up to all sorts of nonsense, including this: Chris Sevier, a man from Florida, believes he should be allowed to wed his Macbook. Mr Sevier argues that if gays should be allowed to marry, then so should other sexual minorities. This is just one example. There are others, and as time goes on there will be more and more.

  19. Roger Marks says:

    Jan you obviously don’t want to know the truth so you don’t have to read it. Just sit back and congratulate yourself on being able to formulate tired and offensive accusations to try and boost your ego and to answer the question that must be nagging you “but what if they are telling the truth, especially the truth that I can’t handle?”

  20. Roger Marks says:

    That is right Raymond. Only this last week I read an article from America where those that want sex between adult and children to be legalised are on the march. It pointed out that their rationale is the fact that they were born that way so it is wrong to rob them of sex with minors.

  21. Roger Marks says:

    Callout, I will call you out for being so callous…towards children. I did not have a biologicaL mother and father and it took its toll on me in so many ways. It was a second class childhood.

    Like so many same sex marriage proponents you don’t seem to give a damn about the children affected by it.

    Why do you constantly ignore the overwhelming evidence that children do best when raised by their mother and father?

    Why don’t you care that you are condemning some children to a second class childhood without a mother and father which they have a right to?

    The facts are out callout. Now that children raised by two men or two women are adults they can speak for themselves. The picture is not pretty. Emotional deprivation is the constant theme. Why don’t you care?

  22. Tim Durrant says:

    Martin Baldock: “He’s nine, but he understands that both his parents want to get married and he wants to be like the other kids at school. And he wants to wear a blue suit at the wedding.”

    Then Jay: “…consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation can legalise their union and avail their families of all the benefits and entitlements that legal marriage bestows.”

    See the problem? You’ve got 2 men in a sexual relationship, telling a 9 year old boy that it’s ok for 2 men to have intercourse.

    And supporters like Jay saying that so long as it involves “consenting adults” (forget the fact that the kids can’t consent to actually being brought up by their biological parents) – “… avail their families of all the benefits…”

    Benefits? How does a child as he grows older, possibly reconcile in their mind that their ‘daddies’ are kissing and having intercourse?

    What exactly is he taught as he enters puberty?

  23. e5g says:

    I don’t see how that’s any different to growing up knowing heterosexual parents are having intercourse, Tim. It’s only a problem if you are taught homosexuality is wrong and if you shame sex.

    To answer your question, what this teaches is reality, not bible bashing bull.

  24. Roger Marks says:

    e5g, you need a lesson in basic biology. History, reality, nature, and plain common sense tells us that children are biologically built to have a mum and dad. That is why it is the norm for 98% of the people on earth.

    Now,what most children are taught is that having a mum and dad is the norm and they are taught that because 98% have a mum and dad give or take.

    So…it is not logical to tell any child that having two men bring them up is normal because all the evidence says otherwise.

    Having studied Social Science for my uni degree which included marriage and divorce I became aware of how much a child was emotionally damaged if they lost their mum and dad through death or divorce.

    An example was given of a 14 y.o. boy who had lost his father through death. He was talking to his mate and he said “I would kill for a Dad.” Losing his Dad obviously devastated him.

    A mother teaches a child certain qualities and a father teaches other qualities because they are different in makeup and emotional input.

    Two men or two women cannot and never will be able to replace a mum and a dad especially as Denis Altman, a lecturer at my Alma Mater and a homosexual said on TV that homosexuals in a relationship do not aspire to monogamy. He said that is a heterosexual concept. Sex on the side is a weekly occurrence.

    So the child has to face his “dad’s” having multiple sex partners. In addition it is well known that male homosexual relationships are very short lived. On average two years. That means the child experiences a succession of “mummies.”

    If they suffer with the loss of one father, how do you think they are going to cope with the loss of two, three, four, five “mummies?”

    All this by the way is not bible bashing bull. It is reality.

  25. Raymond says:

    e5g, this isn’t ‘bible bashing bull’, but attempting to promote something that’s unbiological, has no consideration to the best interests and long-term welfare of the children, and as Roger says, homosexual partners are typically very promiscuous; same-sex ‘marriage’ will do nothing but make a mockery of marriage, pure and simple.

  26. Roger Marks says:

    Thankyou Raymond. Denis Altman a homosexual and lecturer at LaTrobe University said on TV that homosexuals do not aspire to monogamous marriage as it is a heterosexual notion. For a homosexual, being married does not preclude having sex with other men that they are not married to.

    So there you have it straight from the horse’s mouth.