Labor’s gays miss out
Advocates of federal civil unions and same-sex marriage were dealt a blow with the release of the ALP’s draft new policy platform on Monday which keeps the policy of state-based relationship registers.
If the draft is adopted at the national conference in July, Labor will commit to harmonising anti-discrimination laws and act to eliminate discrimination, vilification and disadvantage, including those based on sexuality.
We oppose all attempts to divide Australians by pandering to prejudice, it states.
Cementing the ALP’s opposition to marriage equality, the draft also states there will be no support for creating schemes that mimic marriage or undermine existing laws that define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Rainbow Labor and many individual party members had made submissions during the first round of consultations calling for stronger relationship recognition.
Despite the setback, Rainbow Labor spokesman Michael Vaughan said the issues could be tabled during open consultations in each capital city.
After the reforms that passed recently the Labor Party is prepared to talk about queer issues and act. The challenge we face is putting issues like relationship recognition on the table because wins are achievable, he told Sydney Star Observer.
Australian Marriage Equality were disappointed at the document’s contradiction of supporting equality but opposing same-sex marriage.
We urge ALP members who believe in equality not to quibble over details about civil union schemes, but to make a clear and strong statement in favour of marriage for all, AME spokesman Peter Furness said.
Australian Coalition for Equality spokesperson Corey Irlam said stronger wording was needed to demand federal anti-discrimination laws be introduced.
Meanwhile, the same-sex marriage movement Equal Love announced it will coordinate a national day of action on 1 August to coincide with the final day of the ALP national conference and attempt to hold the world’s largest mass illegal wedding.
Well said, Brendan. Please go away James, you have never walked a mile in a Gay man’s shoes. The discrimination is very real.
The all-too-simple fact that “the Marriage Act also prevents [heteros] from marrying someone of the same sex” makes it non-discriminatory, James? That is a crude, misleading, incorrect analysis which entirely misses the salient point.
The more notable nuanced fact is that a discrimination obviously arises from the explicit denial of a fully equivalent entitlement to civil marriage for gays. The right of an adult person to marry consistent with their innate sexual orientation inheres in that principle of equivalence.
The real question is not “is it discrimination?” but “is that discrimination reasonable and legitimate?”. The natural answer is, of course, no. On any comparison of any same-sex relationship with an equivalent opposite-sex relationship, there is no objectively reasonable legitimate basis for preventing the former from marrying while permitting the latter to do so.
Since you admit you are not a member of the group explicitly prevented from marrying their freely chosen adult partner, you are hardly in the best position to prescribe who is *not* being discriminated against. But just imagine: if instead of equal access only to strictly heterosexual marriage, Australia had equal access only to strictly homosexual marriage, would you and other heterosexuals be and feel discriminated against? Damn straight, you would.
By your highly disingenuous sophist “reasoning”, apartheid was not discriminatory because it applied “equally” to blacks and whites. Ergo, your prior equivalent comment about marriage discrimination WAS indeed ridiculous. QED.
EDITOR…..please take up James’s offer and send him the e-mail!
why are you enabling this religious bigot by allowing him a voice on this site..trivialising our community concerns and making a joke our our requests for equal relationship rights etc,
EDITOR: Chris, several of James’ previous posts have been deemed offensive and as a result have not been posted. However, a difference of opinion does not provide grounds for censorship.
Chris, sorry you are correct. It was Jason not Ronson who accused me of being a member of salt shakers. Apologies Ronson.
Chris – in my post regarding “the Marriage Act”, I was simply stating a fact. You may consider it ridiculous, but it is still a fact.
If the Editor wants to ban me from this site, all he has to do is email me and request (or demand) that I stop posting to this site. My legitimate email address is included in every post I make. If he does make this request or demand, I will certainly abide by his wishes and you’ll never hear from me again.
Finally just to make it clear, I’ve got nothing to do with salt shakers. I’d never heard of them until Ronson mentioned them in his post.
CORRECTION….it was Jason ( in another subject) ,not Ronson who accused James of representing saltshakers on this forum .Jason i believe you are correct !
JAMES…
“Chris, Ronson, the Marriage Act also prevents me from marrying someone of the same sex. You are not suffering from discrimination any more or less than anyone else.’
what a ridiculus and trivialising statement! Since you James ‘are not gay ‘why would you have any interest or emotional desire to marry a person of the same sex’
EDITOR…..enough is enough why is this James person allowed to continue to post on this site?
he does nothing but trivialise our community concerns and insult our community, I believe Ronson could be correct he probably represents Saltshakers..why are you continuing to give a voice to this bigot on a forum for the gay and lesbian community and their friends.
it is the equivalent of giving voice to a member of the kkk to peddle his insulting and bigoted anti black views on a site for the black community.
EDITOR… in the interest of reasonable debate please ban this bigot from this site.WHY ARE YOU CONTINUING TO ENABLE
THIS ENEMY OF OUR COMMUNITY TO HAVE A VOICE ON THIS SITE?
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!
Chris, Ronson, the Marriage Act also prevents me from marrying someone of the same sex. You are not suffering from discrimination any more or less than anyone else.
BTW, although you may wish otherwise, I’m not gay. Plus, insinuating that I am in a condescending manner doesn’t really say much about the comfort factor you have with your own sexuality.
who happens to be the person we love.
James, I’ve asked you before: why do you loiter around this site? I think you seriously need to question your motives: apparent and hidden.
james…you jerk…….
‘Aaron, you can get married. The Marriage Act applies to you and I equally. It applies to everyone equally. What part of this do you not understand? Where exactly are you -œdiscriminated against?
this site is for gay and lesbian people(not religious “straight ” nutters like yourself!)
we gay and lesbian people, for your information are attracted to people of the SAME sex
the marriage act as it stands prevents us from marriage to a person of the same sex
THAT IS DISCRIMINATION..jerk!!!!
My bill is called the -˜EQUAL MARRIAGE FOR GAYS NOW Bill 2009-² (amends the Marriage Act 1961)
I support the Mitchell amendment to the Marriage Act 1961.
“It sickens me that a criminal can get married in jail if he or she wants to, but I can’t get married…”
Aaron, you can get married. The Marriage Act applies to you and I equally. It applies to everyone equally. What part of this do you not understand? Where exactly are you “discriminated against”?
As 4 voting strategies — Queens r perpetually stoopid — they can’t organize themselves because they r selfish/it’s only the ‘showpony’ self-interest salaried officials who get up and speak these days! Back to olf fashioned duck-n-weave tactics!
It sickens me that a criminal can get married in jail if he or she wants to, but I can’t get married despite being a good and loving person. Why does this unfairness and injustice continue and I have been thinking about for some time now that we are constantly told that marriage is not for gays because it’s about “traditional values” or “raising children” – yet lots of couples get married – without children – were is the logic and justification in that? This gets me sooo angry that a scum or thug such as rapists, murderers and others who have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are unfit to be parents have never, not ever been banned in this country or in the past, been barred from marriage, and many jurisdictions allow such individuals to marry while still serving out their sentences. Surely the message that sends to gay kids is that the very worst of heterosexual relationships are better than the very best of ours? My 90 year old grandmother was right “the law is designed to protect the criminal, but innocents suffer injustice and people who work all their life and do the right thing all their life are treated like a bunch of criminals”.
Sweden does not have civil unions – it has had registered partnerships since 1995, NOT civil unions. From 1 May 2009, these will be repealed and replaced with “full marriage” that is genderless and gender-neutral.
Remember that marriages are “universally recognised”, while civil unions are NOT universally recognised and are really a “watered down version of marriage, also a “cheap”, “seperate-but-equal” or “apartheid” versions of marriage. De facto status and registered partnerships are excellent, but what is more excellent is full equality in marriage, surrogacy and adoption as well under the law. Same sex marriage is GOOD for the economy and supported by 55 percent of Australians as well!!!
D – debates about types of recognition are irrelevant without any strategy to achieve it.
A blogger suggest we rely on a Greens controlled Senate to force Labor’s hand. For this to work we need the Greens to give a clear and public commitment before election that the Greens will not allow Government legislation to pass (except money bills) until relationship recognition is granted to gays and lesbians.
I respect that people have differing views on the type of relationship recognition they want. You are clear on what you want, but have no ideas on how to achieve it. Rather important point when Australia has a specific prohibition in its Marriage Act supported by the major parties.
Ben, old outdated Civil Unions schemes are sooooooo yesterday. Get with the times & go for Civil Marriage.
Civil Union schemes are being dismantled/extinguished all over the globe as we speak, & replaced with Equal Civil Marriage.
You really need to educate yourself on the topic & catch up with the times as things are changing soooo fast, full speed into equality. Civil union schemes are filling the trash can, as civil marriage sweeps in at lightening speed.
March 2009- Sweden have replaced civil unions with civil marriage
April 2009- Vermont, the birthplace of the term civil unions has now turfed them aside in favour of equal civil marriage.
“my preferred option”- how selfish! :) Why not just reform the existing system to be inclusive, rather than create your own elitist/aparteid system. The people in the U.K. are having a hard enough time as it is calling themselves “civil unionised” instead of “married”, with Ireland & Scotland now challenging the civil union law to have it extinguished & replaced with equal civil marriage.
David, the strategy of giving support to the Greens to give them the balance of power in the Senate and force Labor’s hand only works if the Greens commit before the next election to block all legislation (excepting money bills) until Labor grants Marriage (or my preferred option, Civil Unions).
Please have your say on my bill.
I have this to say to Kevin Rudd –
“Kevin Rudd, don’t be a Dudd, stop being such a titarse ‘gay-marriage-phobic’ and provide the fair equal treatment we gays fully deserve”. Please consider my bill Kevin Rudd: –
My bill is called the ‘EQUAL MARRIAGE FOR GAYS NOW Bill 2009’ (amends the Marriage Act 1961)
In the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961
Section 6
Omit – “a union between a man and a woman”,
Replace with – “a union between two (2) adult persons”
Section 88EA
Omit – “not” [after must]
[If passed] this act becomes effective from Midnight on 1.1.2010.
Easy! Vote in the pro-equality Greens at the next election to get the full balance of power. That way, when Labor wants support for something that the Libs won’t support, such as the next stimulus package, then the Greens can “force” Labor into all sorts of trade offs such as making them approve equal civil marriage in order to get thier approval to pass the stimulus package. We are almost there, but the Greens need just 1 or 2 more senate seats at the next election to gain the full balance of power. At this stage they only have partial balance of power that they share with 1 independant & with 1 Family First senator.
Ideally to acheive equality, we need a Labor government, operating under the thumb of the Greens. To acheive that, we need to always vote 1 Greens, and 2 Labor.