Civil union repeal threat slammed
Queensland psychologists and gay rights advocates have slammed a bid to repeal the state’s new Civil Partnerships Act by Independent Queensland MP Rob Messenger.
Messenger uploaded a draft of his Civil Partnerships Repeal Bill to his website yesterday and challenged Liberal National Party (LNP) leader Campbell Newman to allow his party’s members a conscience vote on the legislation.
Paul Martin, a principal psychologist from the Centre for Human Potential, who specialises in counselling gays and lesbians, said research indicates that official recognition of same-sex relationships has a profound positive impact on the psychological wellbeing of the gay and lesbian community.
“When the Civil Union Bill passed, same-sex attracted Queenslanders finally had a sense that they are valued and their relationships validated,” Martin said.
“If Mr Messenger is successful, and the legislation is repealed, this will send a powerful message to many vulnerable people that their relationships are worthless.
“The mental health statistics for gays and lesbians are bad enough already without the repeal of this law confirming the myth that they are incapable of having healthy relationships.”
PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) national spokeswoman Shelley Argent said the attempt to repeal the legislation made no sense.
“Everybody was given a conscience vote when the Civil Unions Bill was passed, including Mr Messenger, and the LNP chose to vote as a bloc against it,” she said.
“Nobody has been affected negatively as a result of this legislation going through so there is no reason to change it.”
You May Also Like
just asking – don’t go all ballistic –
how many gay couples have monogamous relationships?
would gay marriage be an indication that you have a monogamous relationship?
I have constantly posted my opposition to this issue and am against same sex marriage, Well sorry but leopards change spots. It may be a stunt as Perkin says but Mr Messenger said on radio people will not be allowed to marry. What offended me was this self righteous my way or else you can’t have it attitude which will put Queensland back. I refuse to marry its stupid but after this comment from that politician bring on the changes needed for same sex marriage.
As a lesbian woman I have been waiting for the day that I could marry my long term partner. As a very young child I dreamt of getting married, it was always with I female that I had this dreamt of being able to get married. When I turned 15 I found out that this was not legal in Australia, my dreams of marrying the person I love were crushed, this shattered me and at a young age I remember thinking how could this be, how could something so beautiful such as marrying the person that you love be illegal especially in Australia, the golden country the country that fights for civil rights of people all around the world. Marriage is a commitment between 2 people, it’s time to get rid of our archaic old fashioned laws andget with the times. Gay and lesbian want the same rights not because we can’t have it but because we are humans too with the same feelings that straight people have, we love, we hurt we bleed, we cry. Please people help to stop this discrimination.
Just because you’ve been around a long time does not mean you are wise. Trevor tells us a lot about his long and careful consideration but he does not say what it is he considered. He gives not evidence, facts, research – just his belief that marriage is between male and female and the reason us pesky homos want marriage is because we are childish and have been told “no” so we petulantly do it anyway. Sorry Trevor, just one word, drivel.
Valli also seems a bit off piste, I’ve tried to follow the argument, but I’m a little lost. The Qld Bill is not a heavily discriminatory stop-gap measure. It is an inclusive Bill that opens civil union registration to all couples, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, hetero. States cannot legislate on marriage, so this is the best they can do. It sends a message that governments have the right to make laws that are inclusive, not exclusive. The Marriage Act 2004 is a discriminatory document. It is similar to laws under apartheid or segregation and as Jan points out is in contravention of the UN Declaration on Human Rights.
Yes, the Act as it will became does allow for a future marriage to dissolve a civil union – so what? Are you arguing for a form of polyamory? That is a debate I am sure we will have in 30 or 40 years time and all well and good that we do. But it is not a debate for now.
Messenger’s pathetic repeal Bill is no more than a stunt. The man is a loose cannon that no party wants to deal with and on November 30th he wasn’t even in the Legislative Assembly to vote because he’d been kicked out previously! This is his chance to blether on and on. I don’t say ignore him, but once the Bill (if it is introduced, which I doubt) comes before Parliament, then that is the time to haul Messenger down and show him up to be the fool that he always has been.
I have little interest either way in Civil Unions being vetoed again because they were always discriminatory toward me anyway. If anything I am in favour of Civil Unions being turned down so that they are ‘not’ seen as the answer. The reality is that they are a heavily discriminatory stop-gap measure designed to shut us up.
As to the response above by Trevor C, I’m interested to know how logic can lead to a conclusion that marriage between people of the same sex is any different to marriage between people of opposite sexes? Marriage has little to do with having children because gays have children now and plenty of heterosexual couples have children outside wedlock or no children in wedlock. Plenty of people (like myself) are beyond childbearing age and I don’t see that I’m consigned to never marry because of it. At the moment I can have a relationship with a man and marry him, but I cannot have a relationship with a woman and marry her. IF the ability to have a Civil Union continues, I can have one with a female partner, but then if I chose to marry a male my Civil Union would be dissolved on the spot by my marriage. Where would that leave my female partner? Well, there’s a famous creek where people end up without a paddle.
@ Trevor C: This is definitely not about ‘because they can’t’. I am heterosexual and also an Athiest. Just because you have been around awhile doesn’t mean you understand the issue. Same sex couples just want their relationship recognised and be seen just as valid as heterosexual couples relationships. At the moment, this does not happen, particularly by the law. I was also taught that marriage was between a man and a woman but have always asked the question why? The Marriage Act was written by lawyers, not God and to say that marriage is owned by the church isn’t valid. The church don’t own the term marriage. Marriage was around a long time before christianity. Isn’t marriage the celebration of two people in love and wanting to commit to each other through their vows? So what if the 2 people in love happen to be of the same sex? You say it doesn’t bother you but you are still wanting to deny that their relationships exist. They have every right to marry each other. What right do we or politicians have to say who someone can and can’t marry? This shouldn’t even be discussed at a political level, it’s in the Declaration of Human Rights – Article 16 – and NOWHERE in that Article does it say that marriage should occur only between a man and a woman. 2 consenting adults is all that is required to enter into marriage. Lastly, this issue isn’t about gay marriage anyway, its about civil unions, completely different. This bill just gives same sex couples and heterosexual couples recognition of their relationship for legal purposes.
I am 71 years old and an Atheist. This means I have been around for a while, and do not have any religious barrow to push or any hang-ups in that direction. All of my life I have been taught that marriage was a union between a man and a woman. After long and careful consideration, logic tells me that this is a reasonable way to be. Homosexuals do not bother me one way or the other. If that is the way they wish to lead their lives, then that is their affair. However! I do not believe that a marriage should be between two people of the same sex. Long and careful consideration leads me to believe this also. Why homosexuals want to be in a marriage? I believe that it is because they can’t. Tell some people they cannot do something, and they will just have to do it, right or wrong.