ACT ceremony storm expected
Gay marriage advocates have applauded the ACT Government for supporting a bill allowing ceremonial aspects to be included in the territory’s civil union scheme.
Equal Love Canberra spokesman John Kloprogge said the Rudd Government now has little basis for vetoing the legislation since recent changes to ALP policy removed a passage saying state or territory relationship registers should not “mimic marriage”.
“Since the ALP National Conference voted to soften the party’s position on this matter, the Rudd Government has no basis for treading on these laws,” Kloprogge said.
“The ACT Government has the right to make whatever laws it wishes to, without being bullied by the federal Government. While the Rudd Government is still fulminating over this matter, the rest of the country has moved on.”
The move is set to become a headache for the Rudd Government, with the ACT’s Labor Government saying it will support the Greens in its bid to introduce ceremonial aspects for same-sex couples.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Attorney-General Robert McClelland have so far been unwavering in their position that marriage remain between a man and a woman.
The Canberra Times reported ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell confirmed the Government would support the bill after a caucus meeting yesterday. The ACT’s Legislative Assembly now looks set to pass the laws.
The ACT currently has a civil union scheme in place, however, legal ceremonies are excluded.
If the Rudd Government blocks the legislation, it will be the third time a federal Government has stepped in to prevent the ACT making the change.
Federal Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has also spoken out ahead of the bill’s passage, warning the Government to keep away.
“To deny the will of the people three times would demonstrate utter disrespect for the people of the ACT, and in this case, the will of his [Rudd’s] own party,” she said.
“The passing of a motion supporting equal marriage by the Tasmanian ALP State Conference in July showed rebellion is spreading against Mr Rudd’s out-of-touch stance.”
There should be a way to override the veto if it ever happens!!!! – In many US states a two-third majority can override a veto!!!!!
Kevvy needs to rescind his promise to the ACL. He can be helped to realise this by continuing to highlight how religiously partisan, divisive and hateful that promise and its proponents fundamentally are. It won’t be the first Rudd promise whose goalposts have moved. Nor was it ever a promise of any real importance to the nation as a whole. I think most Aussies these days wouldn’t be fussed if two blokes or two shielas could get hitched.
And break that promise Rudd must someday, or it will be a millstone around his neck for the rest of his stewardship. His polite attempts to rationalise injustice resemble trying to be diplomatic with a tidal wave: change will come, whether he accepts it or not. The questions are, on what terms will it come, what politic impact will it have, and what legacy does he wants his name to bear?
Besides, this particular promise is a gross conflict of interest. A Prime Minister who touts his Christianity enforcing promises to a Christian lobby group as policy, refusing to hold a proper debate and conscience vote in Parliament, binding the caucus to this extreme promise despite the fact that so many in his own party quietly support marriage equality.
“Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Attorney-General Robert McClelland have so far been unwavering in their position that marriage remain between a man and a woman”
And also unwavering in thier stance that no ceremonies at all allowed that would commit the “crime” of mimicking marriage. The question must be asked, why is merely “mimicking marriage” classed as a “crime” now- the 2004 marriage ban does not ban “mimicking marriage” it only bans real marriages. So again, where is it in law to say that mimicking marriage is banned??? We’ll, it is not in law- the origin of the phrase can be found in Australian Christian Lobby press releases, which they used to pressure KRudd into making it into a core election promise. So it’s not a law, it’s a promise… a crusade by Rudd to ban all ceremonies, and for the ACL, it means hiding happy homos from view & hiding any examples of successful couples & monogamy (they’d prefer just the images of single guys with HIV to be seen). That is the problem, not a law, but Rudd’s promise. And the ACL are already barking at the heels of Rudd to ensure he carries that core election promise into the next election as well.
I can see what the problem is in this instance in the A.C.T. (the problem is Rudd’s core election promise, not the law), I’m just not sure how to fix it- apart from highlighting it. Any other ideas anyone?