Call for NZ-style unions
Rainbow Labor NSW’s civil union proposal to the National ALP Conference in July has drawn criticism from within the Australian gay and lesbian activist community for pandering to anti-gay prejudices.
The motion being circulated among branches seeks to replace the current unfulfilled policy of state-based relationship registers with federal civil unions like the New Zealand example.
If adopted, it would replace the current language stating same-sex registers should not mimic marriage.
Rainbow Labor NSW spokesman Michael Vaughan said civil unions would ideally be equivalent to marriage in every way, open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, with the option of an official ceremony.
We’ve had meetings with ministers and backbenchers, Vaughan told SSO. There’s broad community support and that’s being reflected in Parliament, but it’s an ongoing process so that’s why we’re talking to branches.
The proposal drew criticism from lobby groups Equal Love and Australian Marriage Equality (AME) which are opposed to civil unions as a barrier to full equality. AME has released a report citing 11 reasons why marriage equality should take preference over civil unions based on ongoing discrimination and stigma in countries with civil unions.
Achievability may have been an argument for civil unions five years ago, but the world has moved on so quickly in its attitudes to same-sex marriage that civil unions now look like yesterday’s ad hoc, stopgap solution, AME spokesman Peter Furness said.
Civil unions are not a stage through which Australia must pass, but a mistake from which we must learn.
However, Vaughan said Rainbow Labor’s lobbying of MPs included support for same-sex marriage.
At the moment I’m in Canberra and in all the meetings we’ve expressed our support for full marriage equality, Vaughan said. The motion … is not meant to encompass Rainbow Labor’s entire political position on relationship recognition. In our submission to the second draft of the National Platform, Rainbow Labor will put in a submission for marriage equality.
SSO understands another ALP group will propose a full marriage equality motion that does not mention civil unions.
The second draft of the ALP National Platform will be released next month.
You May Also Like
James, Thanks for letting me know. I suspect a forum user is playing games and purposly using other peoples user names and posting silly comments because recently I have had a user posting comments pretending to be me.
Dear SSO
I ask that you place a ban asgaint this “James” character, his post’s are nothing but backwards and offensive, im sorry but this just cuts the cake.
Editor’s Note: The forum is here to generate discussion and debate. James has not breached our forum policy. I will not ban somebody because they present a different point of view. However, Chris/Brian/Fred/James/Alan/Brad/Cal/Barney/Elliot/Fran and the other multiple names you use, your posting under these multiple names and email addresses (we can tell by the IP address) is a breach of forum policy.
Jason – I enjoyed our discussion about bullying. The comment above from James is not from me.
James, Regarding the name “Rainbowlabor”, firstly Rainbow comes from the rainbow flag, sometimes called ‘the freedom flag’, was popularized as a symbol of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) pride and diversity by San Francisco artist Gilbert Baker in 1978. The different colours symbolize diversity in the gay community, and the flag is used predominantly at gay pride events and in gay villages worldwide in various forms including banners, clothing and jewelry. And secondly Labor comes from the Australian Labor party.
As a sraight male, I must admit the reasons why allot of gay unions/pty’s,groups don’t really get the respect they deserve and I belive allot has to do with the name of the organisation, like this one “RainbowLabor” It sounds like something out of a childrens cartoon.
-œCivil unions are not a stage through which Australia must pass, but a mistake from which we must learn. I could have put it better myself, that is right thanks Peter Furness. I would want to get married, not civil unionised thanks. civil unionised does not sound appealing anyway. Example are:
* Vermomt from civil union – UPGRADED to marriage.
* Connecticut from civil union – UPGRADED to marriage.
* New Hampshire from civil union – maybe soon to be UPGRADED to marriage [not yet, waiting for Gov. John Lynch signature].
* New Jersey from civil union – close to being UPGRADED to marriage [not yet, waiting for a vote in the House Committee].
* UK, ACT area in Australia and New Zealand STILL has second-but-equal status [NO UPGRADE TO MARRIAGE YET]
I’d like to know who the lobbyists think that they represent. The GLRL represents no-one other than their Board. The others are self appointed & represent no-one. There has not been nearly enough community discussion on this matter. We are in danger of people running off to government again without adequate community consultation and not ending up with what we want.
I believe that if civil partnerships were available many heterosexual couples would also avail themselves of it. Many people do not agree or approve of “marriage” with all the baggage it carries.
I don’t want to be regarded the same as married people. I want my rights respected & I want the right to be different.
All people should have a choice of marriage, civil partnership (with or without ceremony) and de facto.
In the current campaign we are all in danger of lobbyists (claiming to speak on our behalf) forcing us into hetero-normative structures & institutions which is something that most G&Ls do not want.
I support civil unions, not marriage. It gives us equal rights and recognition.
We can be equal (through civil unions) without needing to be the same (through marriage).
Indeed – “Where’s the community consultation?”. Perhaps it is similar the the totally inadequate consulation and policy process conducted by the Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby that has resulted in flawed “equality” legislation particularly in relation to older G&L pensioners. Far from the policy triumph claimed by GLRL, it was a piece of incompetent policy development & the lobbyist were outmanoevered by wiley bureacrats at every turn.
Quote from R.L.- “”We also need a secular civil unions scheme with is founded on equality between sexes and sexual orientations.
“The number of straight and same-sex couples which have taken up the scheme in New Zealand is proof marriage isn’t the whole picture.”
This statement by Rainbow Labor shows that they have an ideological axe to grind in avoiding marriage- they want gays AND STRAIGHTS to avoid it, & have it potentially replaced with civil unions instead of civil marriage. This is a mistake. Marriage in British Law (& Australian law) has been secular for 300 years. Marriage is the standard- it needs to be REFORMED, not avoided for a 2nd rate system that is now already out of date. (civil union schemes are now being challenged & dismantled for civil marriage across the globe- NZ could be next). This whole strategy possibly smacks of Professor Jenni Milbank again with her determined self proclaimed personal crusade to eradicate marriage for straights & replace it with this, using gays as leverage.
Well, gays should not be some political football to be used for getting rid of marriage for straights. How sneaky. Where’s the community consultation?