Loading ...- Category:
- News
- Author:
- Contributor
- Posted:
- Tuesday, 28 April 2009
- Summit community and social inclusion branch co-chair Tanya Plibersek. Image courtesy of the Australian Government, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
- Discuss
- Smaller -
- Larger +
Related articles
A key proposal from the Australia 2020 Summit that civil unions be offered to same-sex couples has been officially rejected by the Rudd Government.
The Government’s response equated the proposal with same-sex marriage equality, saying the no gay unions policy reflects the widely held view in the community that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But the Government confirmed it still intends to recognise and support same-sex families through its community and social inclusion strategies, and convince NSW, QLD, SA, WA and NT to implement relationship registers.
One step towards eliminating discrimination against same-sex couples is for their relationships to be legally recognised, the response states.
As part of the Government’s same-sex law reforms, registered relationships will also be recognised in many Commonwealth laws to provide a more consistent approach to the recognition of relationships.
National PFLAG spokeswoman Shelley Argent was a part of the summit branch that recommended civil unions.
Regardless of what type of relationship recognition it is, we need uniformity across the country so the confusion is taken away when a couple go from one state to another, Argent told SSO.
But we’re being totally ignored by the [Queensland] Bligh Government.
Australian Marriage Equality advocates disputed the Government’s claim that marriage discrimination was strongly supported.
Opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Australians support same-sex marriage, making a nonsense of the Government’s stated belief that its policy -˜reflects a widely held view in the community’, AME spokesman Peter Furness said.
The Rudd Government has shown that its vision for the future is blinkered by prejudices from the past.
Coalition for Equality spokesman Corey Irlam said there were some positive aspects to the Government’s response, such as support for gay and lesbian families.
Human rights advocates including Amnesty International were disappointed there will be no non-discriminatory clause in the Australian Constitution, a proposal that had received wide support at the summit so it could be enforceable by the High Court.
The Government rejected that idea also, saying the National Human Rights Consultation had been charged to come up with a non-constitutional proposal, such as a human rights act or charter.
[T]he Government has made it clear that any proposals must preserve the sovereignty of Parliament, its report stated.
Tags: equality reforms, relationship registers, same-sex marriage
April 28th, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
And here I was reading posts from Jason about the supposed tidal wave of gay marriage legislation sweeping the world, with Australia set to join the club.
Last time I checked, there were about 6 countries that have legalised gay marriage and a couple of rogue states in the US.
April 28th, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
Kevin07 is soooo far behind the times on this issue, that he doesn’t even realise that civil unions themselves are now outdated & are being replaced with civil marriage in countries all around the world at lightening speed- even just in the last month or so. Civil unions are now so far out the window, they are not even worth discussing- we should be talking about civil marriage in government registry offices like any straight person can.
The reason he does not want any type of “marriage-like” anything, is because of a creepy promise he made to the Australian Christian Lobby that he would ban all “gay ceremonies” (ie keep the gays out of sight & invisible). Only a Greens dominated balance of power will start to tip the scales- so remember that if a gay votes Labor they are taken for granted with all first policy preference given to Family First / ACL. (Btw- before you give Kev all the credit for the recent defacto reforms… the ACL approved the defacto recognition as a trade off for banning any ceremonies, to maintain the invisibility of gays). Mmmm, bring on the next election, with a Labor government under the thumb of the Greens instead of AustralianChristianExtremist Lobby.
April 29th, 2009 @ 12:28 am
Let us have a referendum on the matter.
Then we will know for certain if the majority of the Australian community disapproves of the legal recognition of same sex relationships.
April 29th, 2009 @ 7:30 am
Great idea Chillisauce!
Once we get that referendum out of the way then we can vote on whether or not we want to legally discriminate against Asians, and then Aboriginals, and then Muslims and then other minority groups who have been traditionally oppressed by the majority in Australia.
The majority should always have the right to vote on whether or not minority citizens should have equal access to the institutions, rights, responsibilities and benefits that their money and blood pay for.
Civil rights should be a matter of majority rule. If minorities were meant to have rights God would have made them the majority.
April 29th, 2009 @ 7:35 am
Homosexual aussies would have more chance of winning the lottery than being given recognition of their civil union or gay marriage from the Commonwealth Government.
The lesson the gay community has to learn,is if you get too far in front of the lay folk they can’t see you.
And if they can’t see you you’ve lost them.
We have to bring fellow Australians with us when lobbying for same-sex couple recognition.
I personally have no desire to copy a heterosexuality lifestyle that is flawed.
I also acknowledge that I have no right to deny others in our community who desire the trimmings and recognition of marriage or civil union.
I have learnt the simple lesson of patience when working toward full legislative equality for homosexual Australians.
It’s a step by step issue which will take time.
Maybe it’s because I came from a school of hard knocks and have learnt the pragmatism of the struggle of being homosexual.
You can’t fatten a pig on market day folks !
April 29th, 2009 @ 10:23 am
It is really hard winning a referendum due to the fact that a majority in a majority of states and territories have to vote in favour of the issue – not just a majority of Australian electors. Moreover, what if you do lose? How will it be possible (for sometime, at least) to keep raising same-sex marriage? Do you keep raising it on a ballot until the voters get it right? As Gary Burns said, it is a step by step process. It requires more lobbying of all parties, more talking to those not convinced that same-sex marriage is a just cause. That’s how same-sex marriage was achieved overseas – not by popular vote all of a sudden.
April 29th, 2009 @ 10:39 am
“step by step issue”. Maybe then if a renegade state actually implemented same sex marriage at a state level, this would be a very interesting “step”.
That way, the general public would get used to the idea on a small scale, to pave the way for it to be rolled out nationally.
Although the Feds can interfere in Territory law (NT & ACT), if a progressive state such as W.A. or TAS implemented it, they couldn’t really stop it. TAS already has no religious exemptions from anti-discrimination & WA has some progessive parenting laws, both of which the Feds couldn’t stop.
April 29th, 2009 @ 11:22 am
-œOpinion polls consistently show that a majority of Australians support same-sex marriage…” And The Human Beliefs and Values Survey found that 24.7 per cent of Australian respondents said they did not want homosexuals living next door. In 2004, more than 51% of Australians thought the death penalty should be reintroduced.
The problem with democracy is that it’s wonderful until you find you don’t agree with the majority. And as there are always more ignorant and stoopit people than ‘enlightened’ ones, the result of any referendum is probably going to be the wrong choice. Unless you agree with it…
April 29th, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Zeke the majority of the world people are not white and or christian.
April 29th, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Zeke’s comment is right on the money. Kevin Rudd’s statement that the no gay unions policy “reflects the widely held view in the community that marriage is between a man and a woman,” is not only factually incorrect, but entirely misses the point! Since when has majority opinion been acceptable justification for depriving people of their rights? The belief of the majority has no bearing on the moral acceptability of an action or situation. If 99% of the population supported ethnic cleansing it would still be wrong.
April 29th, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
The power to create laws relating to Marriage is vested in the Federal Parliament under section 51 (xxi) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
If the Federal Parliament wants to change the laws relating to marriage they need a mandate from the Australian people.
One way the Federal government could get that mandate is to ask the Australian people for that mandate in the form of a referendum.
Many people have expressed the view in this forum that,
‘we should not dare ask for a referendum because the majority of Australians hate gay people and they would never vote for a referendum to allow gay marriage’
People who hold such views are cowards.
Cowardice attracts persecution.
I advocate that gay people assert their rights by calling for a referendum to give the Federal Parliament the mandate to change the law to allow the legal recognition of same sex relationships.
April 29th, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
Um, the laws to allow the legal recognition of same sex relationships HAVE been changed. 100 of them. Nearly dounble waht we asked for. And some that we didn’t want, like the changes for welfare recipients.
You’re talking about gay marriage, which is a church issue. The big religions see marriage as being about procreation, not love. That’s why they oppose couples with the same genitals being invited into their scared institute. That, and the fact that marriage is one of the last bastions of power they have over the state (education being another). I say, they should stick their ‘marriage’ up their crusty jaxies.
April 29th, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
Try emigrating to this side of the Tasman. Remember, we’ve had civil unions for the last four years or so. Over here, it’s trying to convince our current centre-right govt to change our 50+ yr old adoption laws that’s the major problem…
Craig Y
New Zealand
April 29th, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
I am a Australian resident and a UK citizen. I am civil partnered (in the UK). I strongly belive it is about time that members of the “gay community” need to see this legal union as positive. The idea that because you are attracted to the same sex means that you should not have the same rights in society or should see heterosexuality as negative is in my opionion is rubish. LGBT peoples are as individual as everyone else. how can we expect “society” to move on when some LGBT people are more homophobic than the homophobes we seek to challenge!
April 29th, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Put it to the people and let them decide. You (or I) may agree or disagree with the result but at least the people will have spoken.
April 29th, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
Chillisauce100,
Didn’t Howard make some change to the Marriage Act in 2004v or thereabouts with the support of the ALP?
Some of those changes were:
a) to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life;
b) to ban the recognition of a same-sex marriage that has taken place in another country;
So why can’t the govt of the day make more changes without having a referendum?
April 30th, 2009 @ 10:28 am
One of the few constitutional rights that Australians have is a right to freedom of as much as freedom from religion. And yet, our governments remain in morbid dread of Christian fundamentalists, who continue to shape legislation and policy to suit their own misguided ends. There is no such thing as half a human right and those people advocating for GLBTI people to tread softly, go quietly, step-by-step, are in fact selling out the inalienable rights that each of us should possess as free citizens in a free country. That includes the right to form legally recognised, civil unions. Yet another reason why Australia needs, at a Federal and State by State level, Charters of Rights.
April 30th, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Stephen, LOL that same Charter of Rights can also protect freedom of religion!! It’s a two edged sword, not a magic wand for gay and lesbian rights.
April 30th, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
Ronson – Prime Minister Howard claimed he was prevented from legally recognising same sex relationships because he did not have constitutional authority to do so.
Prime Minister Rudd will not legally recognise same sex relationships and in defence of that policy he asserts that the policy – -œreflects the widely held view in the community that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The public excuses given by two governments that had to deal with the issue were;
1. Lack of constitutional authority
2. Lack of public support
A referendum would give the Australian people the opportunity to give the government the authority to recognise same sex relationships and if the Australian people voted in favour of giving the government a mandate to recognise same sex relationships it would be evidence that the public would support the legal recognition of same sex relationships by the government.
April 30th, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
“Cowardice”? Good gravy, I just don’t happen to want everything that hetero’s have, I’m a gay man, I’d prefer not be considered in terms of a straight paradigm or have my relationships judged by hetero standards either. Married? No thanks, I’m gay.
I suppose everyone is aware that since November last year, the Australian Parliament passed laws that recognised same-sex couples in federal law, offering them the same rights as unmarried heterosexual couples in areas such as taxation, social security (or the loss of it,)and health, aged care, superannuation, employment hospital/prison visitation rights and inheritance rights? What other ‘inalienable rights’ are you all moaning about?
April 30th, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Civil unions are last century (for example Vermont was the first country to have them, no they have been “updated” or “upgraded” to marriage. Connecticut is another one that did the same thing, Sweden, Iceland and Norways also got rid of their registered partnership laws and fully replaced them with “genderless referencing” or “equal” marriages – WE WANT MARRIAGE, WE WANT MARRIAGE, WE WANT MARRIAGE NOW!!!!!!
April 30th, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
It is clear that Kevin Rudd doesn’t have the courage and the empathy to introduce same-sex marriage. He is a typical politicians, who follows the majority voters.
To do the right thing, some times politicians need to be true leaders. A leader can shape peoples’ opinion to bring a positive change in the society.
Anyway, I personally don’t think unless we can create mass public support for same-sex marriage, our politicians will ever introduce same-sex marriage. Our constitution upholds equal rights for all citizens. The LGBT people cannnot have the equal rights as straight people unless our relationships are also recognized by the state. So we have a case. May be we can take it to the High Court and seek court’s direction to the government to ammend laws to uphold our constitutional rights.
May 1st, 2009 @ 8:21 am
Shayne,
The federal government did make a lot of changes to federal law, but note it’s federal law, not state, and it doesn’t apply to a lot of things such as non-federal government superannuation. With superannuation, it’s up the company whether they discriminate or not – there’s no law which says they have to recognise same-sex couples.
And I would be surprised if the federal law covered all the things you mentioned as many of them are state functions.
Changes to the marriage act to allow same-sex marriage would automatically change things so that all couples, same-sex or straight, had the same rights.
May 1st, 2009 @ 9:13 am
Ronson, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Report identified 58 laws to be amended to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples and their children in the area of federal financial and work-related entitlements. The Commonwealth govt. went on to find a total of 100 amendments in areas such as Employment, Workers’ Compensation, Taxation, Social Security, Veterans’ Entitlements, Health Care Costs, Family Law, Superannuation, Aged Care and Migration. Federal, not state functions.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland said, “The reforms in this bill will make a practical difference to the lives of a group of fellow Australians, who for far too long have suffered discrimination in superannuation at a Commonwealth level.”
In 2004, the Federal Government passed their Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Act which allowed same-sex couples to nominate their partner as an ‘interdependent’, thereby making them eligible to receive superannuation entitlements tax-free, although I understand that there were exclusions for public servants. If your super fund refuses to recognise the beneficiary of your choice, change your fund.
The reforms reflected the fact that diversity of sexuality and gender identity are part of our community. For me, I celebrate that we now have our rights without the need to assimilate with the mainstream hetero culture. If I was in a long term relationship, I would consider THAT a gay marriage, without the need to have it dressed up as a straight one. I like being gay, I enjoy our differences to the straighties and whether the service is performed by a celebrant or the church, I find such an anachronistic relic about as appealing as a night with Malcolm Turnbull or a nasty case of rubella. But I will come to the reception so long as you don’t serve passionfruit pavlova, play ABBA or read any corny telegram jokes.
May 1st, 2009 @ 9:35 am
“gay marriage, which is a church issue” – um, no it’s not.
- In Australia we have a separation of church & state.
- In Australia you can married in a government registry office.
- In Australia, recent figures have been released to show that there are now more non-religious marriages being performed than religious marriages & the trend is continuing.
- In Australia don’t forget that there are actually a number of churches/religions who WANT to perform same sex marriages, but are BANNED from doing so by KRudds continued 2004 Marriage Ban. If they defy the ban they risk losing thier celebrants licence.
- In Australia, marriage is a government funtion, not a church function. Remove the ban, & open the flood gates for 1. recognition of marriages performed overseas, and 2. challenge the discrimination & reform Australian Marriage.
May 1st, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Ronson:
Shayne is basically right re legal and financial entitlements – and state things were done here in NSW years ago under Carr.
Occupational superannuation (the compuslory 9%) is covered by a Federal Act, so that is okay too.
So, the legal and financials are okay…the argument now is over how formal recognition takes place.
May 1st, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
Dunno where Chillisauce is getting his info from but it’s wrong! The laws governing marriage in Australia are under the Marriage Act 1961, amended by John Howard’s government in August 2004 to specifically exclude same sex couples. It has nothing to do with the constitution. Howard’s changes were supported by the ALP at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Australia
May 1st, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Thanks, Ben & Shayne for the info.
As for marriage being a religious issue or function: a priest, iman, rabbi or whoever must be licensed by the federal government to perform legally-recognised marriages.
The marriage certificate issued by churches etc are not legal documents but merely mementoes of the ceremony. Only the official marriage certificate issued by the various state departments is legal proof of marriage.
May 1st, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
James wrote “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Put it to the people and let them decide. You (or I) may agree or disagree with the result but at least the people will have spoken.”
I’ll quote from another forum discussing this:
“What if the majority of people thought that torture should legal or that we should be able to own slaves or that the Islamic faith should be outlawed? Do you believe that the government should enact those laws just because the -œmajority believed it? Of course not. The role of government is to govern for the whole of the country not the majority. If your rule held true then in Australia women would not have the vote, Aboriginals would still be second class non-citizens, sexual discrimination would be allowed, the White Australia policy would still rule, etc etc etc. Each step of cultural growth and maturity in every society has resulted from a Government doing the opposite of what the majority wants. The role of government is to lead and to govern not to pander to ignorance.
If it is true that the majority is opposed to gay marriage (and I don’t concede that), then the majority is wrong. Just like it was wrong when blacks could not marry whites and when women were barred from the holding public office. If you are right that the majority of Australians are opposed to gay marriage then shame on my fellow country men and women but even more shame on Kevin Rudd for allowing narrow minded bigotry to rule his leadership.
There is no rationale argument for denying two people the right to commit their lives to each other.”
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/04/29/rudd-sides-with-the-bigots/
May 1st, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
I’m glad you posted that Baz because that’s my understanding too. I just didn’t know why this constitutional question was coming up.
I believe it’s a very simple change – reversal of Howard’s change plus adding same sex – to legalise same-sex marriage. The problem is the lack of backbone and the homophobia (using religion as the excuse implied or not) of many of our state and federal politicians.
May 1st, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Ronson….very well said! Lets hear James’ reply to this!
May 1st, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
Cripes, I’m sure same sex couples should have the right to marry if they want, whatever ‘married’ means. But do we have to be such professional victims about it? I mean, our species may survive climate change for a couple more generations, terrorists are about to get their hands on a hundred nukes in Pakistan, the swine/chicken/human flu might totally fuck society and kill millions, whole countries are going broke etc. etc., and in your own community 1000′s of glbqti dependent on welfare are headed up shit creek…and all I hear from this community is ‘gay marriage’ ‘gay marriage’ ‘gay marriage’ .
First, assuming you are older than six, didn’t your mummy tell you that won’t get everything you want just by throwing a tantrum?
And second, just because you think something is right, doesn’t make it right for the whole country. Its only right for you. Otherwise, it’d be a dictatorship.
And last, for gawds sake, do something for someone else in this needy sad desperate world and stop worrying about the gift registry at Myers.
May 1st, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Shane,
I’m grew up in the 50s and 60s so I’m old now. I’ve seen the progress from where we were criminals* (just a little over 20 years ago in NSW) to the present state of affairs. It’s too late for me to take advantage of same-sex marriage but it’s the final step in ‘gay liberation’ which started in the late 60s/early 70s and I want to see it before I die.
If you’re not interested then good on you, mate,but why belittle people who do want to be able to get married and celebrate it with family and friends?
*I’ve never forgotten going to court on a real estate matter and seeing the sign outside a court specifying the offence of the current trial in that court – buggery.
May 1st, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Yes, as usual, Shayne will give you all the answers.
May 1st, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
I turn 50 next year so know how different things were back in the 70s but, as I recollect, it used to be about the freedom to be yourself (ie different to other people). Somehow over the decades freedom seems to have transfigured into a right to be equal (ie same as everyone else). Perhaps necessity brought about some pragmatism but it baffles me why marriage was extracted and put on a pedestal as a measure of equality. Since unmarried gays have no where near the same rights as unmarried straights (although things are improving in that regard) exactly what is marriage supposed to achieve? I think the lobbyists have got it back to front.
May 1st, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
Aw now Oliver, is ‘petty’ a nice look? I already said you should be allowed to get married like Trev and Kylene of Mount Mediocrity if you want to. But I just think it’s a step backward in the continuum of gay rights to have to act like them to be accepted by them. And I think we should at least get our facts straight about gay rights first; we got ‘em all ‘cept that one. And one of the rights we fought for was the right to be different, (including the right to have a different opinion to you and Ronson.)
May 1st, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
Let each man and woman make their own choice in this matter.
If you are gay and Australian and you believe you should have the same legal rights as every other Australian then you must speak up and object if you believe that your rights are being denied because the current laws will not allow people our gender to legally marry someone of the same gender.
May 1st, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
James – “And here I was reading posts from Jason about the supposed tidal wave of gay marriage legislation sweeping the world, with Australia set to join the club”
- James, George Bush was against gay marriage and did that stop the likes of Connecticut legalising gay marriage, No. So just because Kevin Rudd is against gay marriage and civil unions does not necessarily mean that a state in Australia wont legalise gay marriage and, its likely to happen sooner than later as opinion polls show the majority support gay marriage.
May 2nd, 2009 @ 8:13 am
Ronson (Katoomba) says,
“-œWhat if the majority of people thought that torture should legal or that we should be able to own slaves or that the Islamic faith should be outlawed? Do you believe that the government should enact those laws just because the -œmajority believed it? Of course not. The role of government is to govern for the whole of the country not the majority.”
So what if the government wants to make homosexual acts illegal, but the majority of the people disagree with the government. Would you want the majority to rule then?
What if a new, more conservative government is elected and they wanted to catch homosexuals and lock them up, but the majority of the people disagreed with the government. Would you want the majority to rule then?
Be very careful when you want a system other than “majority rule”. It’s these other systems that have got the world into the mess that it’s found itself in over the centuries. Don’t think that the other “minority” is going to be on your side.
May 3rd, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
A referendum is overkill. I’d like to see a conscience vote on a bill before the federal parliament to simply undo Howard’s 2004 same-gender marriage ban.
Let our representatives individually vote on that according to their own conscience — without the usual binding caucus and “party line” bulldust — and justify their position by standing up, addressing parliament, and having their views on this issue put on public record (Hansard).
At the very least, we will know where we really stand and what we are up against in the here and now. At most, it may result in a good legislative outcome.
May 3rd, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
Jason, the Australian legal system is very different to the United States’. Here marriage comes under a Federal Law – the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961. The States cannot make their own laws in this regard. The best they can do is offer civil unions which the ACT, Victoria and Tasmania have done. At a local government level the City of Sydney also has a relationships register. The Rudd Government is recognising these unions to allow access to Federal entitlements which is a big step in the right direction but I believe it’s still open to a legal challenge as these unions still cant’ be defined as marriage. I’m no lawyer so stand to be corrected here, but if a Commonwealth and a State law clash then the Commonwealth law is the overruling one. So let’s not get over-confident, these civil unions from the States may not be worth the paper they are written on.
May 3rd, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
That is an excellent point James – remember it was only in 1 May 1997 that male homosexuality became legal in bigot island Tassie (or Tasmania bigot island). I FULLY support the right for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples for the right to choose to get married!!! Personally, I will NEVER marry anyone in my lifetime.
May 3rd, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
James – Ronson (katoomba) is correct when he states “The role of government is to govern for the whole of the country not the majority” – All too often James the government favours the majority and you only need to look in the history books to know that a government that allways sides with the majority can easily lead to disaster, just like if a government only favoured the minority. The key in my opinion James is striking a balance with issues in society, James is Australian society roughly balanced ?
May 4th, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Jason – my opinion in “striking a balance” is probably different to yours. Also, “governing for the whole country” is a throw away line used by desperates in election campaign mode, and is impossible to achieve given the diversity of opinion on various issues in society.
May 4th, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Baz “Jason, the Australian legal system is very different to the United States’. Here marriage comes under a Federal Law – the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961. The States cannot make their own laws in this regard” – No Baz the states in Australia CAN legalise same-sex marriage. However the federal government would not reconise a couples same-sex marriage only a hetrosexual couples marriage would be reconised.
May 4th, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Baz:-
The state’s don’t have civil unions – they have registers.
The difference (as I understand) is a register is open to you after a certain period of time – it recognises a de facto relationship.
Civil unions you can bowl up, have a ceremony and you are hitched regardless of time spent together.
May 4th, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
But Jason, which States have legalised marriage between a man and a woman? None. So if they were to legalise same sex marriage where’s the equality? Seems to me State marriage just emphasise the inequality.
May 4th, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Well Ben, this is the site where I got my 1nformation:
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/civilunions.htm
May 4th, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Baz – In some state laws it does not expand to defacto same-sex partners, So if a state legalised same-sex marriage then most if not all discrimination in that states law would then be removed, so that equals equality. Also if a state legalised same-sex marriage I dont see how Rudd could prevent it. No where in the constitution does it say marriage has to be between a male and a female, its only the federal marriage act which states marriage is legal for hetrosexuals only, and currently there is no civil union law in Australia.
May 4th, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
It might interest people to know that in Tasmania the Greens MP has tabled a bill for same-sex marriage and if that passed which I sadly doubt it would be the first state to legalise same-sex marriage. Here is a copy of the bill: http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/bills/pdf/43_of_2008.pdf
May 4th, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
Baz – In regards to the Australian marriage equality website and civil unions, well in my opinion it is not civil unions because you only need to compare the UK partnership law and NZ civil union law to see that there is a clear difference. In my eyes a civil unions is marriage with another name and offers ALL the same rights as a marriage, the registers currently here in Australia dont.
May 4th, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
There IS civil union law in 3 States. Read the link in my last post. It even has the exact wording of the various legal Acts. Having one type of marriage at a state level and another at a federal level (which technically overrules the states) is not equality. Not even close.
May 4th, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Baz – Yes its not ideal to have marriage at state level and not reconised at federal level, but for arguments sake I was stating that even though Kevin Rudd is against same-sex marriage it does not mean that it cant happen here in Australia. And the state registers are not civil unions in my eyes, but some people believe that the state registers are civil unions.
May 4th, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Web Posters – ‘marriage’ as we know it comes under federal law.
There is some argument that because the Commonwealth Marriage Act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, that individual states could pass laws allowing other forms of ‘marriage’ eg: same-sex marriage.
However it is generally agreed such a move would be outside the Australian Constitution and therefore not recognised.
As it stands, two Australian states (Tasmania and Victoria) have relationship registers open to same-sex couples. The ACT has a similar register.
In no instance are these registers recognised as civil unions.
May 4th, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
Scott – Yes a same-sex marriage would not be reconised federally, only at state level. My argument is that if we cant have marriage or civil unions at federal level then why not at state level, afterall there is relationship registers, and if I could choose between state same-sex marriage or registering my relationship, I know what option I would choose.
Editor: As pointed out in my previous post Jason, the reson why we can’t have ‘marriage’ at a state level is because it falls outside the Constitution.
Scott
May 4th, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
In the United States they have the The Defense of Marriage Act which was passed back in 1996, Which bascially means No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. Despite the Act there is three states in the USA where gay marriage is legal.
May 4th, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
If there are no civil unions then why does the rather professional looking organisation at the link below throw the term around with – dare I say – gay abandon?
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/civilunions.htm
May 4th, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
I know of an excellent idea, add “you can not discriminate on the basis of race or creed, gender, gender idenity, sexual orientation, marital or relationship status, ethnic origon, religion, color, nationality, etc” into the Consitution of Australia – then the Government will be FORCED into legalizing same-sex marriage – just like South Africa did recently!!!!
May 6th, 2009 @ 1:32 am
Um, some of us are a little confused here. The Commonwealth Marriage Act that states marriage is the union of a man and a woman (to the exclusion of all others) was passed into law with bipartisan support in 2004. Section 45 and 46 set out the form of ceremony and the celebrant has to say: -œMarriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.; or words to that effect. A registered celebrant is not permitted to conduct legally binding commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples, the ceremony is not a legal marriage. The Commonwealth has the power to override any state or territory law, as they did with the ACT Civil Unions Bill in 2006.
May 6th, 2009 @ 5:50 am
Baz- that’s cause the term “civil union” is a very loose term (is actually an American term, coined in state of Vermont), that covers many different definitions. In this country the definition is controllled by the Australian Christian Lobby who have the lend of Rudds ear & told him that civil unions have a ceremony. This has been a tactic of theirs to keep gay ceremonies (or any display of gays being happy outside of MardiGras). So, using the genuine loose multi-function definition of civil unions, then yes we do have them in this country- but at state level, not at federal level where it would count more (but again the Australian Christian Lobby have a lend of Rudds ear to ban not only marriage but also national civil unions, as they would “mimic marriage”- they even cornered Rudd into saying it was part of a core election promise to them.
btw- in the USA state of Vermont where term civil unions was invented way back in 2000, they are now scrapping it & replacing with full equal Civil Marriage.
May 6th, 2009 @ 11:19 am
Thanks David…. but that begs the question, if the term ‘civil union’ is a definition controlled by the Christian lobby then why are supporters of same sex marriage using it?
May 6th, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Quote James: “governing for the whole country is [merely] a throw away line used by desperates in election campaign mode.
Nonsense. The good governance ethic of striving to act carefully and diligently in the best interests of the whole — ie the whole notion of fiduciary duty — is well established in political *and* corporate philosophy to say the least.
Your apparent contempt for this worthy aim suggests more that you are a disgruntled majoritarian than anything else.
May 7th, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Brendan of Wollongong NSW – in regards to fiduciary duty, I have no “contempt for this aim” whatsoever. I’m just not so sure how, in practical terms, a politician can exercise their fiduciary duties to a group of people who have disparate views unless they act in line with the views of the majority of that group.
But calling me a “disgruntled majoritarian” is sidestepping the issue. As I said previously, be very careful when you want a system other than -œmajority rule. If a minority groups is willing to dimiss the will of the majority then you do so at your own peril.
“What if a new, more conservative government is elected and they wanted to catch homosexuals and lock them up, but the majority of the people disagreed with the government. Would you want the majority to rule then?”
Please answer the above question.
May 7th, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
In both principle and fact, fiduciary duty is not defined by populist opinion. So James, *you’re* sidestepping the issue or at least your glib dismissals (eg. comment about “a throw away line used by desperates in election campaign mode”) and obscure hypotheticals miss this point.
In human rights matters, I would hope that law and fiduciary duty to the genuine best interests of the Australian people as a whole would rule (because safeguarding those rights IS in the genuine best interests of the Australian people as whole).
May 7th, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
James – “I’m just not so sure how, in practical terms, a politician can exercise their fiduciary duties to a group of people who have disparate views unless they act in line with the views of the majority of that group”
- For a politician James its simply means striking a balance and making tough decisions and not just siding with the majority or minority on all issues. However personally when It comes to issues I believe for most people it comes down to a personal choice of “what seems right and wrong” as I have a suspecion that most people simply dont care what the majority or minority think on certain issues, its really what ones self believes on an issue. But its often interesting to find out what the majority of people believe even if I dont agree with it.
May 7th, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
James, what are you trying to get at with this minority and majority issue on here, its seems your trying to justify to yourself why the likes of the majority support gay marriage or other issues, and your having trouble understanding why the majority or minority side on certain issues. Well my advice to you James is that there’s allways going to be things that you dont agree with, its the same for everyone and you dont have to agree with the majority or minority on certain issues. Like I said in my last post to you, its really what ones self believes in on certain issues. Nobody can publicly declare that they will ONLY believe in what the majority believes in, thats not how a democracy works.
May 8th, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Jason – thanks for your replies. For a politician, “striking a balance” normally means “how many votes will I gain or lose in making a particular decision”? What also happens is that a decision is actually never made, and the entrenched situation or circumstance is simply accepted or tolerated by the population.
I agree with your comment “its really what ones self believes in on certain issues.” There are certainly a lot of things I believe in (and don’t believe in), and viewpoints I have, that tend to polarise people. Still, as you say it’s really only what you believe in yourself that matters.
I don’t, and never will, support gay marriage. But if it’s put to the people I have no choice but to accept the outcome, whether I agree with it or not. To me, that’s exactly how a democracy works. That is; the will of the people, not the will of some of the people.
May 8th, 2009 @ 11:55 am
Brendan of Wollongong NSW – “In human rights matters, I would hope that law and fiduciary duty to the genuine best interests of the Australian people as a whole would rule”
Depends how you define the “people as a whole”. How do you define the “people as a whole”?
Oh, and it’s the “obscure hypotheticals” that you have to be very careful about when you advocate something other than “majority rule”.
May 9th, 2009 @ 7:27 am
what do you expect from a man that throws a hissy fit because some one forgot to pack his hairdryer for the trip to Afghanistan
June 3rd, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
When the Rudd government announced the same sex reforms I was very appreciative at this long overdue legislation providing equality to people in same sex relationships in many areas.
I was very surprised however, to discover that unless you have been paying into a Commonwealth superannuation scheme you won’t be treated with equality. That is if you want to leave your super benefits to your same sex partner following death your wishes aren’t guaranteed. Unless the super scheme which you have been paying into recognises same sex relationships, you can probably forget it.
It is time the government let gay & lesbian people know the fact that superannuation schemes are not required by law to recognise our relationships. In all the publicity the government has put out I have never seen it mentioned that you would need to be paying into a Commonwealth super scheme to get full equality. It should also be noted that in NSW (and probably others) religious organisations do not have to comply with anti discrimination laws. Until we have the same rights as others in our society, most importantly the right to marriage as a human right, we still have a long way to go.
Equality?
Not quite yet.
Kevin Hardwick
editor Pink Mountains Website
http://www.pinkmountains.com.au
August 7th, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
I reckon we just rescind all marriages. That’ll put everyone on an equal footing!