The Truth about Equality
I have worked in the wedding industry for near a decade now. During this time there has been much change and growth. As all these elements have shifted and changed, so too have we and our voices.
Recently, something extraordinary happened in our community. After a very long and very difficult fight, same-sex couples were finally granted equal rights to marriage in Australia, and as an industry built on a fundamental belief in love, we [the industry] rejoiced alongside them.
But the celebration has been short-lived.
The welcoming of this change has not been as embraced by those who proport to believe in love above all else as we might have expected. Particularly where the industry voice is loudest…in publication and media.
There is a major magazine in our industry, that has played a pivotal role in its growth, development and indeed evolution. This heart focussed, content-rich publication has taught us much about love and even more about what we do as vendors, by allowing us a platform to learn from each other as creatives and people. As early change agents, they inspired an entire generation of lovers preparing to commit their lives to each other and helped to produce creatives eager to capture those moments with a unique narrative.
In recent times, however, the magazine has come under serious fire for its lack of diversity amongst featured couples…choosing, visually at least, to play squarely within the ‘straight [most often white] privilege’ space. But when equal rights to marriage were [finally] granted to the LGBTQ community, the magazine could no longer hide behind the cloak of the law to excuse this lack of representation. What has followed is a proverbial shit storm fuelled by the #unveilyourvalues movement… which eventually resulted in this incredible magazine choosing to close its doors. A family [of real people] who dedicated their lives to their passion and voice, losing their life’s work in the aftermath, and an industry torn apart in more ways than one. For a collective that proclaims the cornerstone of its existence to be held in place by the power of love, this whole unfolding disaster [particularly the public media circus that followed] is quite perplexing to me.
I want to make it clear before I continue, that I have no alliance to anyone in this story. I have never been featured in the magazine and never paid for advertising of any kind with them. I would also like to make it clear that I have captured the lives and relationships of many same-sex couples, both before and after the change of law. Some of these couples are now lifelong friends.
Within my direct family alone, I have at least two members who are in long term same-sex relationships, one of which married her longtime partner in London some years ago and whom I supported in the early days of her ‘coming out’ … and the cascade of [ethnic family] drama that followed.
I was raised in a very Christian family with a long lineage of service to God’s word and direct family members who serve in varying positions of power in the church [both past and present]…so I understand the teachings of Jesus. But today, whilst I believe in a greater universal power, I strongly reject organised religion, primarily for its use by followers as a cloak of excuse for poor behaviour.
All that being said, I am seeking here to restart the conversation in an effort to better understand the events of the last few months and to try to give voice to all sides of this situation in the true spirit of love.
So let’s break it down. As I see it, we first require
An understanding of the true meaning of ‘equality’ and ‘freedom of choice.’
Should any individual or group have the right to force their beliefs on anyone else? If we argue for our own freedoms of choice and freedoms of speech, is it not fair to say that those around us should be allowed the same privilege…even if it does not align with our own? Isn’t that exactly what we are fighting for? So often we let the battle obscure the border between a win and another war. The winning of freedoms only mean something if none are lost along the way.
Secondly, we need to define
What constitutes a human right?
For this I would like to draw your attention to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, these primary ones of relevance:
1. We Are All Born Free & Equal. We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas. We should all be treated in the same way.
2. Don’t Discriminate. These rights [the human rights] belong to everybody, whatever our differences.
7. We’re All Equal Before the Law. The law is the same for everyone. It must treat us all fairly.
16. Marriage and Family. Every grown-up has the right to marry and have a family if they want to.
18. Freedom of Thought. We all have the right to believe in what we want to believe, to have a religion, or to change it if we want.
19. Freedom of Expression. We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people.
29. Responsibility. We have a duty to other people, and we should protect their rights and freedoms.
In all of the above documented human rights [as well as the larger list] there isn’t a single mention of the right to demand inclusivity to a particular group. What these do provide is a compass for navigating the muddy water… and the only way to travel safely through it, is to share the map so that multiple minds may come together to navigate the pitfalls of the chartered course. This is how we learn and grow. It’s why we are at the top of the food chain today. Both sides must come together to reach the summit. What’s most important to remind ourselves regarding the list above, is that we can’t pick and choose. It’s black and white, you either believe in human rights or you don’t. And if you do, and you wish these to apply to you, then you must also practice them in reciprocate.
Understanding discrimination and whether it applies in this situation
The dictionary defines discrimination as ‘the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people.’ When we look deeper into prejudice, we understand its definition as ‘a dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions.’
Many will argue that the magazine’s behaviour comes from preconceived notions and unfounded opinions and therefore constitutes discrimination as per the definition above. They would also argue that their refusal to feature same-sex couples was unjust and prejudicial. Commonwealth Discrimination Laws allow businesses to refuse provision of product or service to a customer except where discrimination is based on protected traits or classes [age, race, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity.] On the surface this law would support the general opinion of discrimination by the magazine. Except for one major point that keeps getting overlooked. The couples are not the customer, images of the couples are a product of the vendor. And the relationship actually plays out like this:
The magazine is the retailer, the photographer is the supplier and the readership are the customers. Let’s get one thing clear right off the bat…the magazine never refused to provide access to product to their customers. They did, choose to curate a collection of work appropriate to their target audience, as any business does. No discrimination here.
That leaves the retailer / supplier relationship. A supplier offers a range of product or body of work for a retailer to purchase or represent. A retailer is free to select from this range, a collection appropriate to their brand. No justification is required for their choice or omissions, and a supplier has no right [unless contractually agreed] to demand purchase of all product in order to have access to some. Again, no discrimination here.
The supplier has no obligation to sell to the retailer if, in their opinion, the retailer’s selection does not represent their brand accurately. They do have the right to curate to their brand, just like any retailer.
Ultimately, this is exactly what the magazine did. For many years the magazine [retailer] advertised and showcased work from many notable vendors [suppliers] — including those of same-sex orientation. They did not discriminate against their suppliers, they simply curated from their offering, a collection of work appropriate to their [magazine] target audience [customer].
In business coaching, we would say “ You can’t succeed by being all things to all people, ” as very few businesses see success with this model. Generally speaking, curation and definition of a niche opportunities drive greater success.
Because of the nature of photographs, we connect to the content [in this case, people] rather than the product [photograph] and this is where the waters get muddy because it appears that what is being curated is the value of people and their lifestyle rather than the merit of the photographs themselves. As a result, it is easy to interpret these choices as a violation of human rights, when really they are simply a practice of right 18 [Freedom of Thought] and 19 [Freedom of Expression].
Ultimately, Curation ≠ Discrimination and inclusivity is not a human right.
The Witch Hunt
Let’s rewind here for a moment. When the publication was called out for not voicing its position on Same-Sex Marriage, under the guise of a fight for human rights [#unveilyourvalues], it continuously chose to stay silent and not respond to its audience. Now in any business operation model of the 21st, this has the potential to mean certain death…remember, brands are not owned by the people who create them, they are owned by those who support and buy them. Anyway… I digress.
When this happened…and the publication did not respond, a fury of fanatical supporters of the cause continued to push with enormous pressure. They not only demanded response but accused the silence of saying more than any words possibly could. Friend turned on friend and before we knew it, the court of popular appeal demanded a burning at the stake for beliefs that did not align with its own. Sound familiar at all?
At this point the magazine did possibly the worst thing they could have done. Nothing.
The issue of publishing integrity
The word Integrity comes from the Latin - ‘integer,’ meaning whole or complete. We know the word to mean “the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.” Now had the publication chosen this path with wholeness and conviction, chances are they would be in a very different place. To openly choose to be the voice for “straight Christian couples” is as fair a freedom as any. The problem is, they weren’t brave enough to do so, knowing there would be large sacrifices to make that would likely mean a return to a less prosperous times. So instead, out of fear, they remained silent hoping it would go away…until it didn’t. Discussion of how they responded will, no doubt, cause a furore at its mention...
A very Christian response
A Cry of Persecution. It’s so ingrained in religion [and human behaviour for that matter] as a go-to card for excusing whitewashed beliefs with no real substance of conviction. Because, God forbid, we should actually have to use our minds and hearts to seek to understand and justify our beliefs beyond what we are fed to be true.
Following the fallout, the publication announced that ‘due to persecution for their beliefs,’ the magazine would be closing their doors. With the apparent help of a talented publicist and writer, they created an article and emotive video, with just the right amount of good old Christian guilt thrown in, to condemn the behaviour and beliefs of the campaigners. Instead of standing up and owning it so that they may rise again renewed…they decided to shift the blame.
In Matthew 10:38 the bible says “whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” Yet, who ever does? It is no secret that when conversations get tough, the ‘believers’ get going. Was the magazine within their right to close their doors. Absolutely. But yet, the get-out seemed far too easy. A matter of only a few weeks passed between the beginning of the #unveilyourvalues campaign and the final closing statements from the magazine. After 12 years of work, it seems an easy defeat. Safe to say there were more issues at play than this campaign alone. Perhaps they were tired or bored. Perhaps it became too much to handle with a family and all life’s pressures. Who knows?! In the end, it was easier to cry persecution and blame others for the fallout.
As such we should be mindful it also says in Romans 2:1 “For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.”
Freedom of choice as long as it’s popular.
Ultimately, what we really mean when we say we want “Freedom of choice for all” is that we want to be able to have the freedom to convince others of our choice without censorship…and subsequently convert them to our belief systems. For if they hold true to their own, they become an obstacle to our freedom. It is a mindset bred by a combination of fear; and our biologically ingrained ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality. In days gone by, it was easier to avoid those who did not see the world the same way we do…to live and exist in different spaces. Of course, as the world becomes more crowded it will become more important for us to control these instincts and the only way to overcome them is trust and respect for each other… and a good measure of bravery to understand our own convictions and motivations. This brings me to what I see to be the final, and perhaps biggest, issue in this saga…
The issue of who actually cares and why?
Let’s get real…our industry is largely made up of people of straight, [most often white] privilege. This is an issue in itself best saved for another discussion! Never the less, as a group we largely remain unaffected by the magazine’s choices, other than missing out on a bit of bandwagon promo now same-sex weddings are all the rage [horrifyingly undermining the point of the entire fight!].
Hold up! Before you lose your shit about this comment…I have been in the room on many occasions when vendors have been heard to say “ I would love to do a same-sex wedding and get that published” where their entire motivation has been selfish and not at all about bringing joy to couples on their special day. Not only that, but when this storm came down, many members of the wedding community saw fit to grandstand as ‘having always featured/supported’ same-sex couples, but no one was honest about using the opportunity for self-gain.
It has become a badge of honour, much like donating to charity or giving blood, which is actually more about making ourselves feel like wonderful humans than it is about kindness and a belief in human decency. In this context, the outrage unleashed upon the magazine is astonishing considering that the vast majority of the industry is exactly their target market. Perhaps we all need to reflect as to our true motivations for why we’re fighting so hard here. Is this about Responsibility (UN Declaration of Human Rights #29) or Reward?
In conclusion, here are my key take-aways from this disappointing drama, that will hopefully begin a more positive and useful discussion on the real nature of equality. Something that is relevant far beyond our industry.
- If you’re going to fight in a war, understand the power and impact of every weapon you yield…people’s lives are at stake on both sides.
- Have the courage of conviction to live and die by your beliefs if they mean so much to you…especially if you cannot see reason in the dreams and voices of others
- Work hard to understand your motivations. It’s the only way to truly know who you are and what you stand for.
- A belief in equality demands a belief and understanding of human rights — all of them!
- For everyone’s sake…be fearless and forgiving. We are all on different paths but we all meet at the same ending… so let kindness and acceptance lead your heart. You never know when a foe may become a friend.
“Only through these lessons can we get back to a place where love truly wins. #unvileyourvalues
If you’re interested in finding out more about the saga, here’s the original post from the Magazine.
Below are others (in no particular order) who wanted to partake in the issue… but didn’t really want to talk about it.
The Australian
New York Post
News.com.au
ABC News
9 NEWS
Daily Telegraph
BBC News
SBS News
Premier
Australian Newsagency Blog
Radion NZ
Gay Nation
Q News Mag
MAMBA
JUNKEE
Mumbrella
Christian News
Catholic Leader
