Tasmania tempts marriage laws
The same-sex marriage debate took to the states last week, with Tasmanian Greens and gay rights activists appealing for state governments to take up the issue.
State Greens Leader Nick McKim and gay rights activist Rodney Croome said last week Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett was wrong to suggest that only the Federal Government could legislate for same-sex marriage. They said the issue can be dealt with at a state level.
The Tasmanian Greens have twice moved same-sex marriage laws in Tasmanian Parliament and the Tasmanian branch of the ALP passed a motion in favour of same-sex marriage before the party’s national conference last month.
Bartlett however, has ruled out any further move saying it is not part of state politics.
“I’ll tell you this, the state Government will not be moving on same-sex marriage,” he told ABC Radio.
With bipartisan federal opposition, it’s unlikely a state Labor government would challenge the Rudd Government in the near future, and there is outside concern state same-sex marriages would further complicate Australia’s relationship recognition system.
Croome told Sydney Star Observer discussion on states legislating for gay marriage should not confuse, but rather continue, discussion and said it was one way forward for the marriage debate.
“Any discussion, at whatever level of government is good,” Croome said.
“Clearly [the Federal Government] is not responding to public opinion and as they are staunchly opposed to reform at a federal level, given the stalemate, it makes sense to raise it at a state level.”
McKim argues that although the Marriage Act is a Commonwealth statute, there is no law that specifically legislates against same-sex marriage, leaving states with an avenue of possibility.
“It is clear now that the Federal Act only relates to marriage between a man and a woman, and there is nothing that prohibits same-sex marriage in that Act, and indeed there is nothing in any other Federal statute that prohibits same-sex marriage,” McKim told state Parliament on August 18.
“As marriage is a concurrent power in the Australian Constitution, it is entirely legal, right and proper — and, in my view, moral and sensible — for state parliaments to show the lead and pass laws allowing same-sex couples to marry.”
Croome said the issue was worth raising as it was a way to inform the public that the debate will not go away.
“Until the 1960s all Australian states had their own Marriage Acts, and it’s clear from the advice of leading constitutional academics that they are free to go down that path again with same-sex marriage laws,” he said.
McKim and Croome point to advice from constitutional lawyer Professor George Williams which suggests the Australian Constitution does not prevent states from legislating for same-sex marriage.
You should read some of the media releases/propaganda of the Australian Christian Lobby. Referring to same sex adoption as an exercise in social engineering, for instance. Yes that’s right, we are all part of this evil conspiracy called the “gay agenda” whose objective is to turn society gay by experimenting with the family, whatever that is. And my favourite is their assertion that gay relationships are inherently unstable. Really? How many same sex matters do you see down at the Family Court, or worse the Children’s Court. The evidence does not support them on that one. I guess whilst Rudd courts the Australian Christian Lobby, fat chance we will get same sex marriage whilst he is prime minister. I don’t know if state based marriage is the answer, but state based relationship registers is a start. The Dutch started out that way on the road to same sex marriage. Step by step. Next is civil unions. And with each step, society will see the sky will not cave in and the streets will not turn to anarchy. And then finally society will be ready for same sex marriage (as if it isn’t already now). Then hopefully bigotted religious hate groups such as ACL will not have influence when it comes to issues concerning the gay & lesbian community.
State-based same-gender marriage seems an unlikely option for a few reasons.
State governments would generally put it in the Too Hard basket (like a majority of them seem to be doing with Rudd’s “nationally consistent state-based relationship register” policy).
More significantly, the federal Marriage Act doesn’t merely “relate” to marriage between a man and a woman. It legally *defines* marriage that way. So state-based same-gender marriage would be thwarted by this definition and the precedence of federal law over state (where Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia provides that the laws of the Commonwealth shall prevail over those of a State to the extent of any inconsistency).
Quoth Nick McKim, “there is nothing that prohibits same-sex marriage in that Act”. Except, of course, for the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act which defines and restricts it to between a man and a woman.
The deliberate exclusion of same-gender couples from the definition of marriage must be repealed. At least, our parliament ought to have a conscience vote on it. That way we would know where each of our politicians truly stand.
It’s all about interpretation: The 2004 marriage ban was only meant to ban legal marriages performed overseas, as well as a general ban on same sex marriage being performed within Aust. BUT- the ban is now being Re-INTERPRETED & ACTED ON to also ban ANYTHING that even slightly MIMICKS marriage such as the A.C.T. civil union ceremonies!!!! It is unbelievable that KRudd extended the ban on the fly in this way, that I don’t even know if it was legal for him to do so. (the whole thing of mimicking marriage is not even mentioned in the 2004 ban- the “crime” of mimicking marriage is something invented by the Australian Christian Lobby on thier constant barrage of vicious press releases they flood parliamentarians with).
So, it stands to reason that if Kevin Rudd can re-interpret the 2004 marriage ban, then so can we test the waters. I’m all for it- go hard & get state based marriage implemented in one, maybe two states. The WORST that can happen is that it will show same sex civil marriage in action in real life examples, de-mystify it, then worst that can happen is that it is then rolled out nationally & then converted into Federal marriages. Go for it!
Go the Greens!
They are not loopy like our Happy Clapper Prime Minister. They are actually the only party that cares about human rights.
Poor Kevin Rudd Clapping to hate groups such as The Australian Christian Lobby. Go look at what he is up to
http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=28624
Whilst he wonders if gay people have real love it is nice to see a political parties that care, rather then one that hates us less then the other.