Same-sex marriage push
The Greens have made good on a promise to introduce a private member’s bill to allow same-sex marriage in Australia.
Senator Sarah Hanson-Young introduced the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, which would grant Australian same-sex couples equal marriage rights and recognise unions entered into abroad, in the Senate. The bill seeks to remove all discrimination based on sexuality and gender identity from the Marriage Act 1961.
In an accompanying speech, Hanson-Young said the Greens believe discrimination espoused by the current Marriage Act must be overturned to ensure freedom of sexuality and gender identity are recognised as fundamental human rights.
Hanson-Young referred to a Victorian gay couple, Jeff and Rodney, who had contacted her to say they are so determined to marry they are forced to go overseas, only to have the marriage not recognised on home soil.
[We] urge that you pass this message on to your colleagues in the House and Senate, and remind them that we are real people, with real families, we pay real taxes and contribute to our community -¦ and we deserve equality, the couple wrote.
A 30,000-strong petition, collected last year in support of legalising same-sex marriage was also presented with the bill.
While last year we saw some historic leaps and bounds in removing discrimination against same-sex couples within this country’s federal laws, there was a glaring omission from that suite of legislation: marriage, Hanson-Young said.
It’s well and truly time our Parliament rights this wrong and legislates for true equality.
It is the second time the Greens have lodged an amendment bill on the issue -” the last, which was unsuccessful, was tabled two years ago by former Senator Kerry Nettle.
The Marriage Act was amended in 2004 by the Howard Government, with the ALP’s support, to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only.
The Greens decision to move the bill has been boosted by a recent Galaxy Poll, commissioned by Australian Marriage Equality, which shows 60 percent of Australians support same-sex marriage.
The Greens bill would also repeal the ban on recognising same-sex marriages entered into overseas.
It’s ridiculous that a same-sex couple married in Canada, for example, can step off the plane at Sydney International Airport and have their marriage considered invalid, Hanson-Young said.
You May Also Like
ALDRIN stated -” JASON- how could you say that the senate needs to vote on this bill. dont you know that having a third sex couple is an insult, especially in the catholic church, because God does’nt created the gays.I think it is very lusty if the gays would be married. then, one thing how could they have their own children?”
Aldrin, For the law to come into force then the senate is going to have to vote on the bill and even though it wont pass, the fact the senate is voting on bill is ground breaking and its likely to gain media attention which is good in my opinion. Also I don’t give a toss about the catholic church, fuck them. I also find it an insult to consider same-sex couples a third sex. I was born gay and good luck on trying to convince me I was born straight, its going to happen.
Aldrin – inaccurate science and beliefs – what is ideology but a belief system – you either imply or infer that there is something wrong with homosexuality and homosexuals – I infer or induce from your comments that you believe that homosexuality is wrong because of the doctrines you were taught at a religious institution.
What makes you think the doctrines that you were taught are correct?
My understanding of Christianity is that all of the doctrines of Christianity are taken directly from the doctrines of the Jewish Faith.
The doctrines of the Jewish Faith are based on revelations from an unseen god. Christians follow that tradition.
Why do Christians hate homosexuals and homosexuality?
Because 6000 years ago a Jewish Prophet received a revelation from an unseen god who told him that homosexuality and homosexuals were bad.
Aldrin – your belief system is based on false information inspired by prejudice.
For 6000 years the Jewish people have persecuted homosexuals because a homophobic Rabbi inserted his own prejudices into Jewish Scripture.
For 2000 years Christians have persecuted homosexuals because they chose to adopt the Jewish Faith as their main religion, and Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi followed the ancient tradition of accepting and promoting homophobic beliefs.
Aldrin – your reasons for hating homosexuals and homosexuality are based on the prejudices of a man who died thousands of years ago.
Get a life of your own Aldrin
chilisauce100-uh. did you say that the gays are heterosexual. hmm, may be. but dont compare your experience to others we have our different experiences.because everything has their scientific basis but,not all of them are accurate, others are only beliefs.
JASON- how could you say that the senate needs to vote on this
bill. dont you know that having a third sex couple is an insult, especially in the catholic church, because God does’nt created the gays.I think it is very lusty if the gays would be married. then, one thing how could they have their own children?
“stuck in 1961 values”- No, it is a new milenium 2004 “Hillsong values” law that is our biggest hurdle to overcome first in this issue. A law that swept onto the law books far too easily & far too quickly, with no public referendum, and left our own community clamouring for years to even realise what had actually happened.
The cynical immediate purpose of the 2004 marriage ban law was to immediatley extinguish several court cases that were IN PROGRESS in Australia to actually recognise same sex marriages of Australians performed overseas.
The day the August 13th 2004 marriage ban law was rushed through, those court cases were immediately invalid & remain so until Labor grows some b…s to have it repealed.
I draw readers’ attention to the policy constructed by -˜Paul Mitchell’;
-¢ a religious organisation, association, or society, or any individual or any non-profit institution or organisation operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organisation
-¢ shall not be required to provide services -“ (medical services, legal services, educational services, emergency services, counter services -“ (I wont serve you because you are a homosexual and it is against my religious beliefs to promote homosexuality)
-¢ if such request for such services, facilities or privileges to an individual
-¢ is related to
-¢ the promotion of marriage, and
-¢ such promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith.
Any refusal to provide services facilities or privileges in accordance with this section -“ (I won’t provide you with any services because you are a homosexual and it is against my religious beliefs to promote homosexuality)
-¢ shall not create any civil claim or cause of action
-¢ or result in any state action to penalise or withhold benefits from such religious organisation, association or society, or any individual
(the policy seeks to restrict the Crown from enforcing anti-discrimination laws -“ -œnotwithstanding any other provision of the law -“ of course)
-¢ or any non-profit institution or organisation operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organisation, association or society.
This policy might bear consideration except for one thing;
-¢ All the religious organisations and the organisations associated with them receive government subsidy and tax concessions
-¢ Paid for by the Australian taxpayers
-¢Some of whom are homosexuals and gays
II. The marriage laws of the Commonwealth of Australia shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organisation to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society’s free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution of Australia.
-¢ The admission of members -“ no gays or homosexuals please, we are a fraternity and we believe in the brotherhood of all men and women
-¢ shall not require a fraternal benefit society to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society’s free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution of Australia
(providing insurance benefits to homosexuals and gays would violate our free exercise of religion)
-¢ The policy might bear consideration if the Fraternal Benefit Society and the religious organisation to which it is connected did not solicit and receive government subsidies and tax concessions
-¢ Paid for by the Australian taxpayers, some of whom are homosexuals and gays
Many people who read the articles on this website criticise the comments made by -œJames.
I criticise the policy written by Paul Mitchell. My analysis is that the policy seeks to grant immunity from the Anti-Discrimination Act to religious organisations that want to discriminate against people because of their gender.
The problem is Kevin Rudd is so old and “stuck in 1961 values” when this law was implemented!!!!
“Full civil (not religious) marriage for both opposite sex and same sex couples”.
1. There are a number of churches that already welcome & perform same sex weddings inside thier church- including the 4million strong Uniting Church of Canada. The reason you don’t see them performed by Australian churches is because in Australia it’s illegal to perform them.
2. We just need access to simple equality… this is not the time to hijack the cause for other agendas (such as getting rid of religious marriage for straights) & “use” gays as a political pawn.
We need three systems of relationship recognition:
1. Unregistered cohabitation (the system we have now since 1 July 2009)
2. Domestic partnership (only current in VIC, ACT and TAS)
NSW and QLD are considering implementing these soon. SA, NT and WA have “conservative Governments” and of course as usual support NOTHING!
3. Full civil (not religious) marriage for both opposite sex and same sex couples over 18.
When same-sex marriage is ever legalized in Australia this “provision” should be included:
“I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.
II. The marriage laws of the Commonwealth of Australia shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society’s free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution of Australia.”
Don’t hold your breath on this one.
In the name of the father – MPs flock to Jesus
“The research shows that the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has been the politician most likely to cite his Christianity in public speeches, followed by the former treasurer Peter Costello and the current Treasurer, Wayne Swan.”
http://www.smh.com.au/national/in-the-name-of-the-father–mps-flock-to-jesus-20090629-d2ih.html
It’s all about equality:
1. exisitng citizens born here in Australia pay the same taxes yet don’t have the equal choices/rights as a same gender couple vs opposite gender couple.
but also, 2. We are part of the Commonwealth (not the Saudi monarchy), and as such it is downright obscene that we refuse to recognise both the civil partnerships performed in OUR MOTHER COUNTRY BRITIAN, and equal civil marriages performed in our sister-Commonwealth country Canada. When people from those two countries step off the plane, we invalidate & spit on thier marriage & spit on the laws of Britain.
Dave – what we, or the Greens, are talking about is the removal of discrimination, respect for the laws of other countries, and according to the article, “fundamental human rights”.
Therefore, the rights of all “humans”, the laws of all countries, and the removal of ALL discrimination needs to be taken into account when making changes to Australia’s marriage laws; not just a change of laws that suits some people and not others.
I’m all for everything that this article states, but I hate the term “Marriage”, the term is a heterosexual/religious invention, lets replace it with “unity” or something – You all know what I mean right?
Aldrin – I am not qualified to answer the question but I assume that the psychological aspects of same sex marriage are the same as the psychological aspects of heterosexual marriage.
Gays and homosexuals are people just like heterosexuals. We have the same strengths and weaknesses and are susceptible to all the dynamics, both good and bad, of interpersonal relationships.
Having said that I can tell you that many, if not most, homosexuals and gays suffer from severe psychological problems which I believe is the result of living in a homophobic society.
I remind you that my opinions are based on personal experience and not on scientific training and I advise people not to draw conclusions from my experiences but that we should all rely on the opinions of people who are trained psychologists.
James – We live in a democracy and the majority determine the social and legal standards. The people in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan have their social and legal standards and we have ours.
At the moment the gay community is trying hard to change the social and legal standards relating to same sex marriage.
Who knows what the Australian community will do in the future with regards to accepting as valid social and legal standards of other countries?
In the future Australians may recognise legal relationships formed in those other countries as being valid in Australia.
Look James what does your comment have to do with the price of fish on Mars? This article is about homosexual relationships being recognized, and not the price of fish on Mars. I do not care for the price of fish on Mars and frankly know one does who is from this planet.
I think it very interesting that Labor Governments in the UK, Canada, NZ and other countries around the world can repeal discriminatory laws and allow same-sex unions, but Kevin the bible basher Rudd hasnto got the guts to do the same. As N*SYNC say and I will be saying to Kev and the next election “Bye, Bye, Bye”.
Whats going to happen one day when Gay Marriage is recognised and any Gay person who reaches age 25 will be hassled by their family and peers, “You should be Getting married now! Your not getting any younger!” Then they try to arrange you with a “Bruno” like screaming Queen.
I wonder if anyone is actually listening to hetrosexual James ?
Is it also ridiculous that a polygamous Saudi family can step off the plane and have their marriage considered invalid? What about the Afghani man with his 13 year old bride? Should their marriage be considered illegal?
If the Greens are so interested in catering for foreign marriage laws, then they should put their money where their mouth is and cater for ALL foreign marriage laws or keep their mouths shut.
In 2010, I will be voting 1 for the Greens!!!!! They are the best, I was once a Labor supporter – but now since they are “way-behind-the-times” I NO LONGER support Labor and Rainbow Labor at all. Wake-up Kevin Rudd, you silly Dudd, it is time for our gay and lesbians friends the right to marry in 2009!!!!!
Kevin Rudd is out-of-touch with his “view” on marriage as between the opposite-sex – the Australian community have moved on since 60 percent SUPPORT marriage (Galaxy Poll June 2009) We are still waiting for TRUE equality Mr Kevin Rudd!!!! What an old-fashioned fool and an embarrassment Kevin Rudd really is.
I want to legally marry my partner of 26 years, Travis.
I would like the senate to vote on this bill, even though its not going to pass as I believe that its a step that needs to be taken before gay marriage finally becomes legal, and a vote is pretty much going to be guaranteed media attention and thats a good thing in my opinion even though the bill wont pass.
Good on the Greens! Gay Marriage has been around for thousands of years and owned by the State only recently along with the rise of fundamentalist Christianity. Why should one religion dictate the State recognition of a relationship between two people in love.
WHAT IS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE?
WHAT IS THE BENIFIT, OF BEING A MARRIED IN A SAME SEX?
WHAT IS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE?