Rudd rejects civil unions
A key proposal from the Australia 2020 Summit that civil unions be offered to same-sex couples has been officially rejected by the Rudd Government.
The Government’s response equated the proposal with same-sex marriage equality, saying the no gay unions policy reflects the widely held view in the community that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But the Government confirmed it still intends to recognise and support same-sex families through its community and social inclusion strategies, and convince NSW, QLD, SA, WA and NT to implement relationship registers.
One step towards eliminating discrimination against same-sex couples is for their relationships to be legally recognised, the response states.
As part of the Government’s same-sex law reforms, registered relationships will also be recognised in many Commonwealth laws to provide a more consistent approach to the recognition of relationships.
National PFLAG spokeswoman Shelley Argent was a part of the summit branch that recommended civil unions.
Regardless of what type of relationship recognition it is, we need uniformity across the country so the confusion is taken away when a couple go from one state to another, Argent told SSO.
But we’re being totally ignored by the [Queensland] Bligh Government.
Australian Marriage Equality advocates disputed the Government’s claim that marriage discrimination was strongly supported.
Opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Australians support same-sex marriage, making a nonsense of the Government’s stated belief that its policy -˜reflects a widely held view in the community’, AME spokesman Peter Furness said.
The Rudd Government has shown that its vision for the future is blinkered by prejudices from the past.
Coalition for Equality spokesman Corey Irlam said there were some positive aspects to the Government’s response, such as support for gay and lesbian families.
Human rights advocates including Amnesty International were disappointed there will be no non-discriminatory clause in the Australian Constitution, a proposal that had received wide support at the summit so it could be enforceable by the High Court.
The Government rejected that idea also, saying the National Human Rights Consultation had been charged to come up with a non-constitutional proposal, such as a human rights act or charter.
[T]he Government has made it clear that any proposals must preserve the sovereignty of Parliament, its report stated.
Baz- that’s cause the term “civil union” is a very loose term (is actually an American term, coined in state of Vermont), that covers many different definitions. In this country the definition is controllled by the Australian Christian Lobby who have the lend of Rudds ear & told him that civil unions have a ceremony. This has been a tactic of theirs to keep gay ceremonies (or any display of gays being happy outside of MardiGras). So, using the genuine loose multi-function definition of civil unions, then yes we do have them in this country- but at state level, not at federal level where it would count more (but again the Australian Christian Lobby have a lend of Rudds ear to ban not only marriage but also national civil unions, as they would “mimic marriage”- they even cornered Rudd into saying it was part of a core election promise to them.
btw- in the USA state of Vermont where term civil unions was invented way back in 2000, they are now scrapping it & replacing with full equal Civil Marriage.
Um, some of us are a little confused here. The Commonwealth Marriage Act that states marriage is the union of a man and a woman (to the exclusion of all others) was passed into law with bipartisan support in 2004. Section 45 and 46 set out the form of ceremony and the celebrant has to say: -œMarriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.; or words to that effect. A registered celebrant is not permitted to conduct legally binding commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples, the ceremony is not a legal marriage. The Commonwealth has the power to override any state or territory law, as they did with the ACT Civil Unions Bill in 2006.
I know of an excellent idea, add “you can not discriminate on the basis of race or creed, gender, gender idenity, sexual orientation, marital or relationship status, ethnic origon, religion, color, nationality, etc” into the Consitution of Australia – then the Government will be FORCED into legalizing same-sex marriage – just like South Africa did recently!!!!
If there are no civil unions then why does the rather professional looking organisation at the link below throw the term around with – dare I say – gay abandon?
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/civilunions.htm
In the United States they have the The Defense of Marriage Act which was passed back in 1996, Which bascially means No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. Despite the Act there is three states in the USA where gay marriage is legal.
Scott – Yes a same-sex marriage would not be reconised federally, only at state level. My argument is that if we cant have marriage or civil unions at federal level then why not at state level, afterall there is relationship registers, and if I could choose between state same-sex marriage or registering my relationship, I know what option I would choose.
Editor: As pointed out in my previous post Jason, the reson why we can’t have ‘marriage’ at a state level is because it falls outside the Constitution.
Scott
Web Posters – ‘marriage’ as we know it comes under federal law.
There is some argument that because the Commonwealth Marriage Act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, that individual states could pass laws allowing other forms of ‘marriage’ eg: same-sex marriage.
However it is generally agreed such a move would be outside the Australian Constitution and therefore not recognised.
As it stands, two Australian states (Tasmania and Victoria) have relationship registers open to same-sex couples. The ACT has a similar register.
In no instance are these registers recognised as civil unions.
Baz – Yes its not ideal to have marriage at state level and not reconised at federal level, but for arguments sake I was stating that even though Kevin Rudd is against same-sex marriage it does not mean that it cant happen here in Australia. And the state registers are not civil unions in my eyes, but some people believe that the state registers are civil unions.
There IS civil union law in 3 States. Read the link in my last post. It even has the exact wording of the various legal Acts. Having one type of marriage at a state level and another at a federal level (which technically overrules the states) is not equality. Not even close.
Baz – In regards to the Australian marriage equality website and civil unions, well in my opinion it is not civil unions because you only need to compare the UK partnership law and NZ civil union law to see that there is a clear difference. In my eyes a civil unions is marriage with another name and offers ALL the same rights as a marriage, the registers currently here in Australia dont.
It might interest people to know that in Tasmania the Greens MP has tabled a bill for same-sex marriage and if that passed which I sadly doubt it would be the first state to legalise same-sex marriage. Here is a copy of the bill: http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/bills/pdf/43_of_2008.pdf
Baz – In some state laws it does not expand to defacto same-sex partners, So if a state legalised same-sex marriage then most if not all discrimination in that states law would then be removed, so that equals equality. Also if a state legalised same-sex marriage I dont see how Rudd could prevent it. No where in the constitution does it say marriage has to be between a male and a female, its only the federal marriage act which states marriage is legal for hetrosexuals only, and currently there is no civil union law in Australia.
Well Ben, this is the site where I got my 1nformation:
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/civilunions.htm
But Jason, which States have legalised marriage between a man and a woman? None. So if they were to legalise same sex marriage where’s the equality? Seems to me State marriage just emphasise the inequality.
Baz:-
The state’s don’t have civil unions – they have registers.
The difference (as I understand) is a register is open to you after a certain period of time – it recognises a de facto relationship.
Civil unions you can bowl up, have a ceremony and you are hitched regardless of time spent together.
Baz “Jason, the Australian legal system is very different to the United States’. Here marriage comes under a Federal Law – the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961. The States cannot make their own laws in this regard” – No Baz the states in Australia CAN legalise same-sex marriage. However the federal government would not reconise a couples same-sex marriage only a hetrosexual couples marriage would be reconised.
Jason – my opinion in “striking a balance” is probably different to yours. Also, “governing for the whole country” is a throw away line used by desperates in election campaign mode, and is impossible to achieve given the diversity of opinion on various issues in society.
James – Ronson (katoomba) is correct when he states “The role of government is to govern for the whole of the country not the majority” – All too often James the government favours the majority and you only need to look in the history books to know that a government that allways sides with the majority can easily lead to disaster, just like if a government only favoured the minority. The key in my opinion James is striking a balance with issues in society, James is Australian society roughly balanced ?
That is an excellent point James – remember it was only in 1 May 1997 that male homosexuality became legal in bigot island Tassie (or Tasmania bigot island). I FULLY support the right for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples for the right to choose to get married!!! Personally, I will NEVER marry anyone in my lifetime.
Jason, the Australian legal system is very different to the United States’. Here marriage comes under a Federal Law – the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961. The States cannot make their own laws in this regard. The best they can do is offer civil unions which the ACT, Victoria and Tasmania have done. At a local government level the City of Sydney also has a relationships register. The Rudd Government is recognising these unions to allow access to Federal entitlements which is a big step in the right direction but I believe it’s still open to a legal challenge as these unions still cant’ be defined as marriage. I’m no lawyer so stand to be corrected here, but if a Commonwealth and a State law clash then the Commonwealth law is the overruling one. So let’s not get over-confident, these civil unions from the States may not be worth the paper they are written on.
A referendum is overkill. I’d like to see a conscience vote on a bill before the federal parliament to simply undo Howard’s 2004 same-gender marriage ban.
Let our representatives individually vote on that according to their own conscience — without the usual binding caucus and “party line” bulldust — and justify their position by standing up, addressing parliament, and having their views on this issue put on public record (Hansard).
At the very least, we will know where we really stand and what we are up against in the here and now. At most, it may result in a good legislative outcome.
Ronson (Katoomba) says,
“-œWhat if the majority of people thought that torture should legal or that we should be able to own slaves or that the Islamic faith should be outlawed? Do you believe that the government should enact those laws just because the -œmajority believed it? Of course not. The role of government is to govern for the whole of the country not the majority.”
So what if the government wants to make homosexual acts illegal, but the majority of the people disagree with the government. Would you want the majority to rule then?
What if a new, more conservative government is elected and they wanted to catch homosexuals and lock them up, but the majority of the people disagreed with the government. Would you want the majority to rule then?
Be very careful when you want a system other than “majority rule”. It’s these other systems that have got the world into the mess that it’s found itself in over the centuries. Don’t think that the other “minority” is going to be on your side.
James – “And here I was reading posts from Jason about the supposed tidal wave of gay marriage legislation sweeping the world, with Australia set to join the club”
– James, George Bush was against gay marriage and did that stop the likes of Connecticut legalising gay marriage, No. So just because Kevin Rudd is against gay marriage and civil unions does not necessarily mean that a state in Australia wont legalise gay marriage and, its likely to happen sooner than later as opinion polls show the majority support gay marriage.
Let each man and woman make their own choice in this matter.
If you are gay and Australian and you believe you should have the same legal rights as every other Australian then you must speak up and object if you believe that your rights are being denied because the current laws will not allow people our gender to legally marry someone of the same gender.
Aw now Oliver, is ‘petty’ a nice look? I already said you should be allowed to get married like Trev and Kylene of Mount Mediocrity if you want to. But I just think it’s a step backward in the continuum of gay rights to have to act like them to be accepted by them. And I think we should at least get our facts straight about gay rights first; we got ’em all ‘cept that one. And one of the rights we fought for was the right to be different, (including the right to have a different opinion to you and Ronson.)
I turn 50 next year so know how different things were back in the 70s but, as I recollect, it used to be about the freedom to be yourself (ie different to other people). Somehow over the decades freedom seems to have transfigured into a right to be equal (ie same as everyone else). Perhaps necessity brought about some pragmatism but it baffles me why marriage was extracted and put on a pedestal as a measure of equality. Since unmarried gays have no where near the same rights as unmarried straights (although things are improving in that regard) exactly what is marriage supposed to achieve? I think the lobbyists have got it back to front.
Yes, as usual, Shayne will give you all the answers.
Shane,
I’m grew up in the 50s and 60s so I’m old now. I’ve seen the progress from where we were criminals* (just a little over 20 years ago in NSW) to the present state of affairs. It’s too late for me to take advantage of same-sex marriage but it’s the final step in ‘gay liberation’ which started in the late 60s/early 70s and I want to see it before I die.
If you’re not interested then good on you, mate,but why belittle people who do want to be able to get married and celebrate it with family and friends?
*I’ve never forgotten going to court on a real estate matter and seeing the sign outside a court specifying the offence of the current trial in that court – buggery.
Cripes, I’m sure same sex couples should have the right to marry if they want, whatever ‘married’ means. But do we have to be such professional victims about it? I mean, our species may survive climate change for a couple more generations, terrorists are about to get their hands on a hundred nukes in Pakistan, the swine/chicken/human flu might totally fuck society and kill millions, whole countries are going broke etc. etc., and in your own community 1000’s of glbqti dependent on welfare are headed up shit creek…and all I hear from this community is ‘gay marriage’ ‘gay marriage’ ‘gay marriage’ .
First, assuming you are older than six, didn’t your mummy tell you that won’t get everything you want just by throwing a tantrum?
And second, just because you think something is right, doesn’t make it right for the whole country. Its only right for you. Otherwise, it’d be a dictatorship.
And last, for gawds sake, do something for someone else in this needy sad desperate world and stop worrying about the gift registry at Myers.
Ronson….very well said! Lets hear James’ reply to this!