Labor sends mixed signals
Same-sex couples are part of the Rudd Government’s vision for social inclusion, but are not quite the same as de facto couples, according to some recent statements from its representatives and departments.
Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion Ursula Stephens put on record that she does consider same-sex couples part of her vision for social inclusion, but continued to deny watering down that message to Christian groups.
In response to constituent demands for her to explain her speech to August’s marriage breakfast at Parliament House, Senator Stephens replied by email saying she wanted to clarify what she said and offered a copy of another speech given by Attorney-General Robert McClelland several weeks earlier.
A recording of the public marriage breakfast, taken by Sydney Star Observer, reveals Stephens read only the first and last lines of the speech. In doing so she skipped over the Rudd Government’s strong statement that “people are entitled to respect, dignity and opportunity to participate in society and receive the protection of the law regardless of sexuality or marital status”.
Stephens did not explain the discrepancy in her words when asked by email and through her office.
However, when asked directly if she believed same-sex families were part of her vision for social inclusion, Stephens’ reply was emphatic: “Yes!”
This comes as federal departments struggle with same-sex couples in de facto terminology since the 58’08 equality laws were passed last year.
The first family services program rolled out since the reforms, ‘My family is separating – What now?’, refers to same-sex couples as if they are not de facto.
“Both de facto and same-sex couples should seek advice from your local Community Legal Centre or a solicitor,” the campaign material at familyseparation.humanservices.gov.au states.
The family law reforms were intended to place same-sex couples within the definition and scope of de facto couples.
Requests for comment to the Human Services Minister Chris Bowen’s office were not returned by time of print.
You May Also Like
mother Helen Highwater OPI – Seperate is not equal. A number of major companies require you to have a spouse to recieve workplace benefits so if we can’t get married because the government does not reconise gay marriage then generally a company is not going to reconise our partner as a spouse. Also whenever your filling in inportant forms/documents, it sometimes asks for your spouse, so what happens then when a same-sex couple who have been together for twenty years and would get married if they could ? Maybe you should think twice before calling us “ratbags”.
smart gays are not cooperating with government/there are no benefits for them whatsoever. homophobia lives!
This just clearly shows ghat whether Labor are in power or Liberal, we will be tested as second class citizens by both, irrespective of their commitments and posturing pre-election. The real issue is the religious right (and all religions) that are well organised, well funded and well connected to peddle their religious oppression of GLBTs through our elected representatives. Support any religion and you support your own oppression. Simple really.
no David, a registry office is certainly not churchy. I do, however, question (pedantically) the use of the word ‘marriage’. Can’t we take legitimise/make acceptable the term ‘civil union’?
Civil Marriage in a government registry office, a right enjoyed by many straights, certainly does not sound “churchy” to me.
Don’t re-invent the wheel to create a separate duplicated aparteid system, just give us access to equal civil marriage in a government registry office.
Actually the definition is in the Commonwealth of Australia’s:
ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 SECTIONS 22A, 22B and 22C.
References to de facto partners
For the purposes of a provision of an Act that is a provision in which de facto partner has the meaning given by this Act, a person is the de facto partner of another person (whether of the same sex or a different sex) if:
(a) the person is in a registered relationship with the other person under section 22B; or
(b) the person is in a de facto relationship with the other person under section 22C.
Registered relationships
For the purposes of paragraph 22A(a), a person is in a registered relationship with another person if the relationship between the persons is registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory as a prescribed kind of relationship
De facto relationships
(1) For the purposes of paragraph 22A(b), a person is in a de facto relationship with another person if the persons:
(a) are not legally married to each other; and
(b) are not related by family (see subsection (6)); and
(c) have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.
(2) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c) whether 2 persons have a relationship as a couple, all the circumstances of their relationship are to be taken into account, including any or all of the following circumstances:
(a) the duration of the relationship;
(b) the nature and extent of their common residence;
(c) whether a sexual relationship exists;
(d) the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between them;
(e) the ownership, use and acquisition of their property;
(f) the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;
(g) the care and support of children;
(h) the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.
(3) No particular finding in relation to any circumstance mentioned in subsection (2) is necessary in determining whether 2 persons have a relationship as a couple for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c).
(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the persons are taken to be living together on a genuine domestic basis if the persons are not living together on a genuine domestic basis only because of:
(a) a temporary absence from each other; or
(b) illness or infirmity of either or both of them.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), a de facto relationship can exist even if one of the persons is legally married to someone else or is in a registered relationship (within the meaning of section 22B) with someone else or is in another de facto relationship.
(6) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), 2 persons are related by family if:
(a) one is the child (including an adopted child) of the other; or
(b) one is another descendant of the other (even if the relationship between them is traced through an adoptive parent); or
(c) they have a parent in common (who may be an adoptive parent of either or both of them).
For this purpose, disregard whether an adoption is declared void or has ceased to have effect.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), adopted means adopted under the law of any place (whether in or out of Australia) relating to the adoption of children.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/index.html
if the gay&lesbian radical ratbags had truly listened to the ‘ordinary’ folk and realised we don’t want the traditionally stifling word ‘marriage’, just basic human rights, none of this pedantic anti-gay prejudice would have occurred. ‘De facto’ always sounded so sinful and ‘marrige’ always sounded so churchy. The Tassie idea of issuing certificates, duly noted and recorded, seems more than enough to validate a couples’ committment and recognition of responsibility to whatever your God is, whatever your state is and whatever your partner is (providing it’s the same species).
The Family Law Act is very clear about the definition of de facto couples as including same sex couples. Upon a breakdown of a same sex relationship, the same law and processes applies to same sex couples as with opposite sex couples in a de facto relationship. What christian groups may think is irrelevant.
In some ways it is better that they specifically use the words “same sex” couple than a more ambiguous term like de facto couple, which some same-sex couples may automatically assume excludes them. Ideally, the term “de facto couple (including same-sex couples)” would clarify the equality in the law.
“couples are couples” for Centrelink de-facto purposes we are told. Centrelink gives us FIRST CLASS maximum recognition…. but when it comes to tax payers filling out thier returns this month, it says that same sex couples are NOT recognised until the 2010 tax return!!!!!!!!!! AND it says they are only recognised if recorded on a state or territory register (registered like a dog), whilst opposite sex defactos DON’T need to be on a register.
The Australian Christian Lobby are getting way too much policy direction decision making power, with many more plans in 2010 to wind our rights back even further, as even the Rudd reforms were structured around the edges of what the Christian Extremists dicated what they would allow, with those “edges” still being bargained with- depending on how much noise us vs the Christian Extremists make.
In an election, every gay person that votes 1 Labor is automatically taken for granted, as Labor woo swinging Evangelical Christian Extremist voters. Gays need to start to become swinging voters, either with an all-gay party, or the 100% pro-gay Greens. That way we are not taken for granted as moaning a bit but will always blindly vote Labor not matter what. At the moment Labor have the perception we can be taken for granted & tossed aside, in the race to woo the Evengelical Christian swinging voters. A vote 1 Labor is a wasted vote for gays in this new Christian Extremist era- vote 2 Labor & watch them start wooing us instead.