Committee says no to marriage
Gay marriage advocates’ hopes were deflated today with the long-awaited Committee of Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill report recommending against same-sex marriage.
“The Committee recommends that the Bill not be passed,” the report stated.
The Committee said it believes the definition of marriage in the current Marriage Act is appropriate, however, it said other types of relationships play an important part in Australia and deserve recognition.
“For this reason, the Committee’s recommendation not to alter the definition of marriage should not be taken as a lack of support for same-sex couples,” the report stated.
“However, the Committee considers that the current definition is a clear and well-recognised legal term which should be preserved.”
Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said she was disappointed that “compelling” arguments in favour of same-sex marriage were not supported.
“We are disappointed that despite supporting evidence to the inquiry the Committee’s report has recommended that my Bill, which would provide marriage equality for all Australians, should not be passed,” Hanson-Young said.
“The Greens renew the call for the Prime Minister to show leadership on this issue rather than continuing to stand in the way of necessary reform.”
The Committee recommended the Federal Government review relationship recognition arrangements in the states and territories to develop a nationally consistent system of recognition for same-sex couples.
Hanson-Young said the Greens would still pursue the Bill’s passage through Federal Parliament in the new year.
WHAT A LOAD OF [email protected] Rudd etc etc should be ashamed of themselves.(and the committee whatever or whoever they are)what a DISGRACE AUSTRALIA is to the rest of the civilised world.We may have the biggest and most fabulous G+L MG in the world but some good its done.We should be boycotting the MG in Sydney and encourage overseas visitors to do the same.RUDD etc and the G+L politicians in Canberra who have not supported this legislation WHAT A DISGRACE you are to Australia and Human rights!we have voted for you expecting change and all we get is a shameful display of contempt for G+L rights.Lets spend our money elsewhere in 2010.Certainly not here in Australia.
This is the actual legal quote in the Family Law Act 1975:
“(a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life;”
I just found it in The Family Law Act, I believe this may have been ammended in 2006? It is clearly coming from the same definition, which once again, is unconstitutional. To the High Court! ;)
…government get away with blatently acting in violation to the constitution?
Paul Mitchell: I have just glanced over the Family Law Act, but could find no such “ban”. Where are you referring to?
The Marriage Ammendment Act 2004, was and still is unconstitutional. Plain and simple.
What are we fighting for? All they have to do is have it challenged as it should be and deemed an act that directly violates the constitution. And have it removed.
Hello? Is anyone home???
Has anyone read the report from The Senate Committee on The Green’s latest Bill? It is filled with members of religion imposing thier observances into how the law should be.
Since when does our
It’s time for a movement like they have not seen in thier lifetimes. There are definitely enough people in Australia that support this. I’m talking about a concert. Free, live, outdoors. Who’s with me?
Perhaps we should consider a total ban on ALL heterosexual [straight] marriages – take that you bigoted scum buckets!!!
You heard right, there a 2 bans on same sex marriage in Australia:
* Marriage Act 1961
* Family Law Act 1975
That is very true Lin that the 2004 ban on same-sex marriage under the Marriage Act 1961, section 5 is unconstitutional and outdated for 2009!
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html
Also the Marriage Act 1961 section 88 (ea) prevents the recognition of foreign marriages here in Australia as well as banning the performance of marriage. For example a same sex couple from Australia flies of to Canada to get married and comes back home to Australia there marriage will be ‘null and void’ and will not be recognized as a marriage – however it will be proof of a de facto relationship which is fully recognized in all of Australian laws (at a Commonwealth, territory and state level) between both opposite sex couples and same sex couples.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s88ea.html
Remember also the Family Law Act 1975 in section 43 (1a) bans same sex marriage (as well as the Marriage Act 1961).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s43.html
The other compelling truth about the definition that was placed in The Marriage Act by the Howard Governement in 2004, is that if we take a look at the actual quote from Lord Penzance:
“I conceive marriage, as understood in Christendom, may be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of others”
We can see that:
1. It is what he “concieved” which means it it what he “imagined”, it was his opinion.
2. “As understood in Christondom” This is the most crucial part of the definition as he declared it.
Christondem is Christian. It is a religious definition of the term marriage.
How then, did The Government get away with using this definition in 2004, when The Australian Consitution forbids it? The Commonwealth Of Australia’s Consitutional Act, Chapter 5 v 116. states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance.
In other words, the definition MUST be changed, to reflect what the majority of Australian Citizens support, and that is that “Marriage is the voluntary union of two person’s, to the exclusion of all others, intended for life”
Paul Mitchell – You are absolutely right! But what no one in politics is willing to admit, and why it needs to be repealed, is that this definition by Lord (Judge) Penzance in Hyde vs. Hyde and Woodmansee in 1866: “The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.” was inaccurate at the time that he gave it and remains inaccurate today.
People – It is difficult to understand how, even in 1866, marriage could have been defined as a union for life after the passage of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act in England in 1857.
Not only that, but, this ruling of Lord Penzance, was the direct ruling in a court case he had been the judge for on BIGAMY!
It had nothing to do with defining marriage in relation to whether or not GLBT citizens should have the same rights as Hetero folk in Australia in 2009!
Just like the women’s movements before us, we will not stop fighting until true justice is served, and that is marriage equality for all Australian Citizens.
Poor Darren and Joe,
Those two pretend they are not gay but go to gay websites like this. Each time they try and convince themselves they are not gay by abusing us with insulting arguements with no base at all.
I am fed up of closets with emotional problems comming here. they should go back to the stupid hate websites like the ALC one they came from.
If gays want to live together ok. If they want the benefits of living together ok . But not marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman only.
Good call. It’s not about equality. It’s about homos wanting to force society to say it’s ok so they don’t have to feel guilty about it anymore.
Paul there was a definition of marriage in the Australian common-law (brought from England) way back in 1866 on Hyde vs. Hyde case!!!!!
http://www.uniset.ca/other/ths/LR1PD130.html
The common-law (not written law, but Court ruling interperetations of the law) was just written into the marriage Act 1961 in 2004 to reflect that definition.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn17.htm
Kevin Rudd and his wife got what they wanted. Evil Fuckers should rot in hell.
Not at all surprising. It ignores the fact that from 1961 to 2003 there was no definition of marriage in the Marriage Act, no definition was needed as it was up to the courts to determine that…you could go on at length, but those in power will not listen. That’s politics at work for you. If it is ever going to occur in this country, then it will most likley be with incremental steps, some of which we are already seeing, such as relationship registers, and then civil unions. The silly thing is that when you strip away the words “civil union” and “marriage” and look at what they actually are and what benefits or priviliges flow with them, they are more or less the same. I’m tired of the bullshit rhetoric and propaganda from the right whingers over this issue.
Well, we have to keep fighting until we get what we want. We also must remember that the Netherlands and other countries didn’t get same-sex marriage over night. Not getting disheartened is easier said than done. But the best way to avoid defeatism is to see what we can do now to further the cause of same-sex marriage and do it.