Comments on: Rudd rejects civil unions

By: commiemum

commiemum — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 04:35:54 +0000

I reckon we just rescind all marriages. That’ll put everyone on an equal footing!

By: Kevin Hardwick

Kevin Hardwick — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:00:39 +0000

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

By: luke

luke — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:27:30 +0000

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

By: James

James — Fri, 08 May 2009 00:55:34 +0000

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”.

By: James

James — Fri, 08 May 2009 00:51:24 +0000

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.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:08:54 +0000

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.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 07 May 2009 11:43:41 +0000

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.

By: Brendan of Wollongong NSW

Brendan of Wollongong NSW — Thu, 07 May 2009 06:32:06 +0000

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).

By: James

James — Thu, 07 May 2009 03:42:14 +0000

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.

By: Brendan of Wollongong NSW

Brendan of Wollongong NSW — Wed, 06 May 2009 11:27:04 +0000

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.

By: Baz

Baz — Wed, 06 May 2009 00:19:49 +0000

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?

By: David

David — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:50:11 +0000

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.

By: shayne chester

shayne chester — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:32:34 +0000

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.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 04 May 2009 08:53:38 +0000

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!!!!

By: Baz

Baz — Mon, 04 May 2009 05:08:21 +0000

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

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 04 May 2009 04:58:44 +0000

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.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 04 May 2009 04:34:45 +0000

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

By: Scott Abrahams - Editor SSO

Scott Abrahams - Editor SSO — Mon, 04 May 2009 04:15:01 +0000

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.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 04 May 2009 03:43:32 +0000

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.

By: Baz

Baz — Mon, 04 May 2009 03:05:52 +0000

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.