New call for Rudd to recognise overseas gay marriage
Australia’s marriage equality activists have reacted with disappointment to the 6 to 1 California Supreme Court decision to accept the voter-initiated Prop 8 ballot limiting marriage between a man and a woman.
However, legal analysts have interpreted the decision as supportive of gay rights while still accepting the voters’ will. Approximately 18,000 existing same-sex marriages in California will remain valid, and the marriage definition cannot be used to limit marriage-like rights from gay couples, the court said. Deferring to its earlier decision that same-sex couples are entitled to equal rights, the court said California’s civil unions must include all rights entitled to married couples.
Equality California director Marc Solomon said his group would aim for a new vote on the issue in November 2010.
This is a unique moment in time, Solomon told reporters. And we as a movement need to capture the moment and go back to the ballot.
Australian Marriage Equality spokesperson Peter Furness called on the Rudd Government to follow the lead of the Californian court by recognising those gay and lesbian Australians who married in California while it was allowed.
Because the Marriage Act bans the recognition of overseas same-sex marriages, Australians who marry their same-sex partners in other countries have their legal status and entitlements stripped away when they walk through Australian customs, Furness said.
If it is good enough for the California Supreme Court to uphold the validity of these marriages it should be good enough for Kevin Rudd.
Following a Tribunal ruling in 2007, Australia’s Passport Office now recognises some same-sex marriages where the couple were originally in a heterosexual marriage and one partner has since transitioned gender.
A Galaxy poll conducted in 2007 showed Australians were split on the issue with 57 percent supporting marriage equality.
You May Also Like
Let’s once and for all put aside the notion that ‘marriage’ is a religious term:
http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageCivil.htm
A little ‘Googling’ will provide pages and pages of evidence that the history of marriage is all but a religious one.
Baptism is a religious term but nobody has tried to ban atheists from naming their children yet.
James “Marriage is a religious term and should not be used when a legal partnership is done between people of the same sex”
Sure marriage might be a religious term, but there are no passages in the Bible that deal directly with same-sex marriage nor does the bible clearly state marriage is between a man and a woman. It would not surpise me if the consertives printed out a new version of the bible with passages in it stating marriage is between a male and a female because they have previously altered the bible a number of times though out the years.
James, In May 2006, The then homophobic Attorney General Philip Ruddock blocked a gay Australian man from marrying in Europe. Ruddock refused to grant a gay man living in the Netherlands a ‘Certificate of No Impediment to Marriage’ document required by some European countries before marriage, to prove foreigners are in fact single. Under Ruddock’s instructions, no such documents were to be released to gay and lesbians individuals intending to marry overseas, even though same-sex marriage is not reconized in Australia. Now this man back in 2006 was not asking for gay marriage to be legalised in Australia or even reconized in Australia, all he wanted to do is marry his partner in the Netherlands, now how is this fair James ?
James, what is being asked is that the Government recognise same sex couples married under foreign marriage laws as having an automatic recognition of being same sex partners in Australia- that means they would be accepted as having valid de facto status here. By allowing the existence of a foreign civil union or marriage as proof of the relationship, gay couples would be saved a lot of legal wrangles should trouble occur. Many such couples would like to add to the Australian economy by travelling or working here.
Polygamy is illegal in Australia, same sex marriage is not- it’s just not recognised. There’s a big difference between the two.
Marriage is a Civil function- ie Civil MARRIAGE. You can get married in a government registry office & it has NOTHING to do with religion.
As a bonus though, there ARE a number of religions that DO perform same sex weddings, including the Uniting Church (Canada)- why should those churches have thier religious freedom to perform same sex weddings taken away in this country by the 2004 Ausralian Marriage Ban that Rudd has reviewed & endorsed to continue it’s path of oppression.
Jason – marriages made in Las Vegas should be recognised in Australia because they are not in contradiction with our law. Polygamous marriages made in, say, Saudi Arabia should not be recognised because they ARE in contradiction to our laws.
BTW, the first post in this topic was note made by me.
Chilli
1. Rudd aint looking to change the laws to allow same sex marriage. That is clear.
2. Whatever happens in California stays in California. It has some influence on other states, none on other countries.
3. About the same number of US states have medical marijuana as have same sex marriage. We have to win the relationship recognition on its merits, not a couple of states (frankly the UK and New Zealand examples are better arguments for a Prime Minister, at least they are nations)
James – “Marriage is a religious term…”
Sure, religions have tried to claim ownership over the term ‘marriage’, but they didn’t invent it. And the basic idea of marriage is non-religious – it’s about love.
Since the idea of ‘marriage’ isn’t going away, wouldn’t it make more sense for us to reclaim marriage as a civil/legal institution devoid of any religious obligations?
One reason that Australia should recognise the same-sex marriages of other countries is that it could lead to legalising bigamy. For example, a man could marry another man in Canada, and then because that marriage is not recognised in Australia, he could legally marry a woman – therefore be legally married to two people.
Apparently the Supreme Court in California has found that the citizens of California can limit marriage to a man and a woman. The report implied that the referendum was voter initiated so we can deduce that the citizens of California want to exclude same sex couples from obtaining the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
Apparently the result of the referendum and the discovery that the purpose of the referendum was valid does not negative the legal marriages of same sex couples that occurred before the referendum produced its result.
According to the article, 18,000 same sex couples were legally married before the citizens of California limited marriage to a man and a woman.
The United States is a Common Law country and so is Australia. That means that in certain circumstances Common Law countries can use decisions handed down by courts in the other Common Law jurisdictions as precedents or if not precedents then as guides for decisions.
When our courts looked for examples of what other jurisdictions had done in relation to Native Title our courts looked at what was done about the matter in the United States.
If Mr. Rudd is looking for an excuse to change or modify Australia’s marriage laws, then, he could use the decision of the Supreme Court in California to modify our marriage laws to recognise same sex marriages which have been ruled valid and legal by the California Supreme Court.
James – “Why should this country recognise the laws of other countries when they are condratictory?”
Well because as you stated in a previous post your hetrosexual, if you got married in say las Vegas your marriage would be reconized in Australia. Are you saying only marriages performed in Australia should be reconised in Australia ?
Why should this country recognise the laws of other countries when they are condratictory? Should we, for example, allow Dutch travellers to rock up to Immigration with a few ounces of marijuana for personal use just because they can in the Netherlands?
Marriage is a religious term and should not be used when a legal partnership is done between people of the same sex, wouldnt it make more sence to just call it an agreement, rather then marriage?