ALP hit by internal marriage backlash

ALP hit by internal marriage backlash

The push for a parliamentary debate on marriage equality is growing, with the ALP’s left faction pushing for a policy reversal on the issue and independent Senator Nick Xenophon adding his voice to those calling for a conscience vote.

Last week in Canberra, 130 members of the national Left of the ALP came together to demand key policy shifts of the Government as polls showed the party was continuing to bleed votes to the Greens.

The Labor Left have called for the party to reverse its opposition to same-sex marriage, to allow MPs more leeway in speaking their minds, and for the rank and file of the party to have a greater say in forming policies.

Later in the week Left faction co-convenor Senator Doug Cameron told Fairfax papers that there would be a “huge push” for the party to support same-sex marriage at the next Federal ALP conference in June next year.

Cameron called the ALP’s current policy on the issue “bizarre”, and said governments and parties should not be telling people how to live their lives.

Australian Marriage Equality (AME) campaign coordinator Rodney Croome told Sydney Star Observer he was finding private support for marriage equality across the parliament and political lines.

“Last week representatives of AME spoke with many Labor, Coalition and independent MPs, and we were encouraged by the increased level of support for marriage equality,” he said.

“We were pleased with the outcome of a meeting with Senator Xenophon, who indicated strong support for a conscience vote on marriage equality and openness to discussing the need for that reform although his preference is for a national civil union scheme.

“AME believes a national civil union scheme will not provide same-sex partners with equal rights and recognition and will be a road block to marriage equality rather than a step towards it, but we respect Senator Xenophon’s serious consideration of the issues and look forward to talking with him further.”

Senator Xenophon confirmed the meeting and said he understood support for civil unions in the GLBTI community was mixed.

“Some feel it’s at least a step in the right direction, others say that it would hold back the cause of equality in terms of same-sex marriage,” he told Sydney Star Observer.

“My position is not that of the Greens and others, but my position is still much further than the two major parties.”

Xenophon left open the possibility that he might be persuaded by arguments for marriage equality.

“This should be a conscience vote for the major parties. I will keep an open mind to the arguments, but what I am sure of is that at the very least we need to go down the path of civil unions,” he said.

You May Also Like

35 responses to “ALP hit by internal marriage backlash”

  1. Lets get the ball rolling on equal marriage for same sex couples – well into 2012 the next federal election at the Labor Conference!!!!!!!

    Show the pollies who’s boss – we the people here in Australia want gays to be given a FAIR GO!!!!!

    Long overdue Julia Gillard – who by the way is an atheist and someone on the left faction of Labor?????

  2. The timing & intensity of Mark Arbib’s comments are interesting.
    First & foremost he is a Labor party “fixer”.

    Problem- a few days ago Tasmania & Victoria announce possibly implementing state-based marriage. (which will emabarres Labor, and be a springboard for the Greens in the upcoming VIC election).

    Fixer- a few days later Mark Arbib diffuses it by giving “hope” for federal marriage, with a very passionate & uncharacteristic speech, even wanting to “rush through” this “urgent human rights issue” by bringing forward the 2012 Labor conference to 2011. It all sounds good… but the timing needs to be questioned. Not only can it attempt to stamp out state based marriage initiatives, but he also released his statement the same day as the VIC Greens campaign launch. Mmmm

  3. I can’t believe that 3 or 4 years ago I thought that Gillard would be PM one day and would rank up there amongst the best PMs the country ever produced instead of one of the worst.

  4. Don’t forget that this effects Transgender and Intersex people too. The California win came from a Transgender persons fight for marriage in the court.

    So remember that Marriage Equality MUST cover Transgender and Intersex people.

  5. At the end of the day, she (Julia Gillard) is only going to be shooting herself in the foot by playing “Little Miss Stubborn” to the rest of the cabinet ministers. Does she really expect to get their votes for anything she wants to pass? And does she expect to get the votes of the Australian public again. People in her own party are turning against her and the future doesn’t look very bright for her.

    At the end of the day it is “Discrimination” and maybe it’s time for the GLBT community in Australia to take out a class action against to the anti discriminatory board because in a nutshell, that is all she is doing to us.

  6. I meant to add: Gillard now seems to be backing herself into a corner over the issue.

  7. I’m not calling her one- but Julia Gillard certainly comes across as a heartless bitch towards gays when it comes to this issue.
    Again, she’s cold heartedly hosed down Mark Arbib’s comments, like a robotic puppet as though Hillsong have a gun to her head.

    Every time she speaks about us like this, you just feel like calling her a bitch under your breath, and voting Green. It’s “war” girlfriend!

  8. Norway calling: Forget the civil unions – go for marriage! We started the process here with civil unions but that was back in the early 90s where gay marriage would not have been possible even here. So yes, it was a stepping stone towards full equality, which we were granted with the new marriage law in 2008 – one law for all. This is 2010 and you should not aim for anything less the full equality. I am happily married to my australian man here in Norway and we can even apply to adopt if we so desire. Once we enter Australian territory though, we are no longer considered married but only de facto. It is ridiculous and blatant discrimination. There is only one solution – forget ALP and the Libs and vote for the only party which truly treat us as equals, the Greens.

  9. “Just over 50% of Australian marriages are now non-religious ones.”

    I think that says it all. Marriage these days is a civil function first foremost. A civil function that we as tax payers should have access to. The wishy washy civil union experient has past it’s used by date, it’s time for full civil marriage.

  10. Ron (Blue Mountains) you are incorrect.

    In 2004, it is true that the Marriage Act 1961 did get amended to say the usual “a union between a man and a woman” – but remember the common law already bans same sex marriage prior to 2004.

    Also the Family law Act 1975 also bans same sex marriage (in section 41; 1(A)).

    So in the reality of Australian Commonwealth law does that mean that there are 3 bans on same sex marriage in Australia???????

  11. Gay marriage party amendment:

    Add –

    1.5 civil marriages, Civil unions, civil partnerships, unregistered cohabitation or de facto status, relationship registers from overseas or interstate must be recognised in the same way as opposite-sex couples.

  12. “I would prefer a Civil Union because I don’t believe in God.”

    That’s where you have been tricked- what you need is not a civil union but a Civil Marriage, in a government registry office like every other non-religious straight Australian tax payer can already access.

    It’s a play on words… but an important one. If we settle for civil unions instead of non-religious civil marriage we are relegated to aparteid discrimination (ie we can’t access something everyone else can… even if the union scheme is also open to straights too).

    The U.K. fell for this play on words & many were left dissappointed. Most people, gay and straight thought they were getting civil marriage. Even editors of UK straight newspapers loosely referred to it as civil “unions” as a description, presuming it meant civil marriage- but many gays and straights were shocked to discover the play on words meant they were delivered an aparteid scheme.
    On the upside, it is now before the courts to challenge the outdated aparteid UK law, to grant full equal rights to non-religious Civil Marriage.

  13. Paul, the Marriage Act didn’t include ‘between a man and women’ until 2004. This change was enacted by Howard’s government with the support of the ALP.

    Just over 50% of Australian marriages are now non-religious ones. There is just no argument for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage and the use of that term.

    Civil unions in countries such as the UK & NZ have been found to be an impediment to full marriage equality rather than a stepping stone to it.

    We have to fight for full marriage rights and to those who don’t want to get married, we should still be fighting for the rights of others who feel differently.

  14. The law banning same sex marriage is so outdated and the laws were written in 1961 under the Marriage Act 1961!!!!

    For goodness sake it is 2010, 10 years into the 21st century – lets really “move forward” just like other countries have done Julia Gillard!!!!

    Why do both the ALP and the Liberals have to “ponder” to religious, bigoted, right-wing and red-neck voters?????

    The Liberals are anything but liberal!!!!

    It is so true what the Scottish-talking senator that quoted recently: “Politicians have become zombies”!!!!

    Repeal the ban now!!!! Or I will start a political party in 2011 called the “gay marriage party” and our developing 4 part platform is:

    1.1 Allowing both same sex couples and Transgender couples the fundamental right to marry their partner.

    1.2 Adoption of children should be legally allowed for same sex couples on the exact same merits as opposite sex couples.

    1.3 Gay men, lesbians and bisexual men and women who practice safe sex on the same merits as heterosexual men and women should be allowed to donate blood to the red cross for increasing the much-needed blood donation rate – which Australia is the lowest in the western world.

    1.4 Hate crime legislation based in the Victorian state model needs to be implemented all across Australia, on the same basis as sex, religion, race, etc.

    A website will be launched soon and we are still developing as a political party because lots of people what gays men, lesbians and same sex couples the same equal rights as straight couples and individuals and in 2010 it is time to turn the much-needed policies into ACTION!!!!

  15. Over a million Australians have had a Civil Marriage. You hire a celebrant, have your celebration with your family and friends and sign off. The Government should have Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions for people not based on the sexuality of the individual.

    Some people do see Marriage as to Churchy and would like a Civil Union option. This option should not be based on your sexuality and open to all. Not to be used to single out or persecute us.

    Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard give a terrorist more rights then we have. They give Australia’s worst Serial Killers the right to marry but do not give us rights simply due to our sexuality, as our relationships are seen as less worthy. Those that carry out acts of mass murder are seen as more worthy by Gillard and Abbott. Well I am more worthy, we are more worthy and deserve equality in the law. Not to be persecuted as we currently are if we dare to even have a marriage like celebration.

    Gillard and Abbott have to explain why Australia’s worst criminals get the right to marry but we do not. Why they are considered more worthy to some politicians is beyond comprehension. One can only conclude some politicians should resign. They have no place in public office using their powers to oppress people who are good and decent.

    How is Gillard and Abbott different from those that tried to stop inter-racial Marriage, or Marriage of people from a different religious background? How are they different from those that held the view a white skin colour was more superior over another? This was the view of many Christian Churches one upon a time. Thankfully good people had the courage to stop such injustice.

    It is grossly wrong to oppress people simply due to their sexuality and deny basic human rights. Abbott and Gillard foul the air we all breath with the sadistic pleasure they draw from vilifying us through laws that stop us being free.

    The Evil of such people should never be accepted. I hold that we deserve to be free and our diversity celebrated and protected. Gillard and Abbott tell us we should respect those that seek to persecute us, that we should follow the haters of man, that we should adopt their lifestyle pretending we are of a different sexuality. That we should become as Evil an abhorrent as Gillard and Abbott are and oppress others like ourselves who want freedom.

    Well I say we will never give up this good fight. We will never give in to the haters. Gillard and Abbott might well be the haters of good people, but we do not accept their hate and will never accept it. We do not believe in oppressing good people or persecuting them. That is not who we are as Australians.

    Marriage is about love, not laws of hate. We will fight to make Marriage once again about love.

  16. Australia is a secular country Rusty and marriage is under Commonwealth law. Irrespective of whether the ceremony is conducted by a priest, rabbi or civil celebrant, it must be in accordance with the Marriage Act 1961 (amended 2004). The question then is if same-sex marriage is allowed, will the churches perform them? I suspect some won’t. Is that then discriminatory? Probably not because religions already have some exemptions from the Anti-Discrimination Act. Therefore, deeply religious gay people who want to marry may still find themselves on the outer.

  17. Easy do what they do in many countries in Europe you go to the registry to fulfil the legal functions and then you decide where you want to fork out the ceremonial money. A church, a park, a nice dinner for two.

    The term marriage does not imply a religious wedding though that is what our learned theologians have been peddling. I can remember when people were ‘married’ at the registry.

    What ever we call it, all people who wish to partner in this country should be treated equally under the laws of the land, and take on the responsibilities to one another that a partnership entails.

  18. I’m all for Gay Marriage 100% but I’m also for Civil Unions. The reason I’m saying that is because if gay marriage is passed, I would prefer a Civil Union because I don’t believe in God. It would be hypocritical for me to marry my partner in a house of “worship” that I don’t believe in. It would be great if both options were there for people to choose from. But if my partner was catholic and wanted to marry in a church then there would have to be room for compromise so both parties are happy.

  19. “I want equality and not some half measure”

    – Yep, just the option to walk into any government registry office & have a civil marriage just like any other tax payer.

    (then, not to mention the numerous churches that want to perform same sex weddings but are banned from doing so in Australia. eg the Uniting Church performs same sex weddings in Canada for those that want it)

  20. I want equality and not some half measure. I probably would not get married with all the bells and whistles – just the honeymoon would suffice – wham, bam, ty er…sir ;-), but I want the option. I am majorly annoyed with Gilliard, Wong, and the rest of them. I was pleased with the results of voting for the Greens. I think many people felt that it would be a wasted vote last go round, but I think the results will further encourage more people to vote their hearts next time, and that should scare the crap out of of the ALP.
    I was a bit worried about wasting a vote and ending up with Abbot, but honestly I was so fed up that I no longer cared.
    I am not unhappy with the present situation. Things can only get better.

  21. “Forget civil unions, we need full equal rights in civil marriage.”

    I agree 100% with this David.

  22. This is great news, and Labor is starting to realise that it wasn’t just gays & lesbians who voted Green in the election, but also thier FAMILIES and FRIENDS of gays & lesbians who voted Green in protest to this modern day discrimination by Labor. Julie Gillard is not progressive in social justice whilever she supports the 2004 Marriage Ban to continue.
    The wave of Greens support from FAMILY & FRIENDS of gays & lesbians is similar to how could they vote for a party that still supported slavery, or who blocked the right of Aborignals to be able to vote and interracial marriage between Aborigines & whites (granted in 1967).

    Labor is really on the nose with this issue of equal rights now that those rights are sweeping across other civilised countries in Europe- and even South Africa has had equal civil marriage for same sex couples since 2005.

    Forget civil unions, we need full equal rights in civil marriage.
    Civil unions are a failed aparteid experiment from the late 90’s / very early 00’s, to segregate gays. To quote South Africa when the granted equal marriage rights in 2005- why bring in more aparteid.. just bring in equality, where everyone has the equal right to access civil marriage in a government registy office.
    Lets hope Labor don’t try aparteid civil unions in a last minute rush of desperation, but instead grant a conscience vote on full equal rights in civil marriage.