No marriage, no civil unions
Labor has agreed to a review of relationship recognition for same-sex couples, but conceded no ground on marriage or federal civil unions.
The policy of state-based relationship registers like in Tasmania has been dropped pending the review.
Senior cabinet minister Anthony Albanese said it was a compromise that would satisfy no one but the status quo of relationship recognition had failed.
It is certainly not my ideal position. I have a view that my relationship because I happen to be heterosexual, is not undermined by somebody else’s relationship because it is homosexual, he said to loud applause at the ALP National Conference this morning.
He said the compromise brought the issue forward and the debate would continue until gay and lesbian Australians had full equality.
Labor values are that all people are born equal regardless of their sexuality.
Rainbow Labor succeeded in removing the words mimic marriage and marriage is between a man and a woman from the platform. But few at the conference believe those changes to anything but cosmetic.
Attorney General Robert McClelland seconded the motion and said the outcome of the review would not undermine existing the Marriage Act definition, which he believed were consistent with the constitution.
I can say unequivocally that those reforms [already achieved] would not have been achieved without the support of Australia’s faith-based communities. I think that indicates what can be achieved what can be done when you bring the community with you, McClelland said.
The support of Australia’s faith-based communities before the last election was based on those reforms not undermining the institution of marriage.
Equality lobbyists believe the opposition to same-sex marriage will now be based on a constitutional argument.
McClelland signalled that he believed the constitution implies marriage is a heterosexual institution.
Marriage is defined in the Marriage Act as between a man and a woman, and indeed that definition I believe is certainly consistent with the provision of the Australian Constitution.
Although it went undiscussed in today’s speeches, the compromise allowed anti-discrimination reform to remain on the agenda if the Rudd Government is re-elected in 2010.
The new ALP policy on same-sex couples:
Labor supports the enactment of legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation or gender status, and the removal of such discrimination from Commonwealth legislation.
Labor believes that people are entitled to respect, equality, dignity and the opportunity to participate in society free of hated or harassment and receive the protection of the law regardless of their sexuality or gender identity.
Consistent with this belief, in 2007 Labor audited Commonwealth laws to identify discrimination against same sex couples. In 2008, laws were passed to remove discrimination from 84 pieces of Commonwealth legislation.
Labor will ensure that all couples whether marriage or de facto do not suffer discrimination.
Labor will take action to ensure the development of nationally consistent framework that provides:
- The opportunity for all couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life to have their relationship officially recognised.
- Equal rights for all couples in federal and state laws.
Labor will review relationship recognition arrangements to ensure national consistently.
These reforms are to be implemented consistently with Labor’s commitment to maintaining the definition of marriage as currently set out in the Marriage Act.
“Labor will ensure that all couples whether marriage or de facto do not suffer discrimination.”
They have a strange definition of discrimination then since they’re denying us the right to marry.
Absolutely disgusting. I’d rather vote for a donkey over these fools in the next election.
Our taxes are going to support Labors hate groups that get people to go out and kill us. Stop the Hate Mr Rudd!
Kevin Rudd should not support hate groups. I hope he rots in Hell with the other monsters he supports. He has spent millions on the Vatican and what has he given us? Violence and harm through his financial and political support of the Australian Christian Lobby and other nutters. The message from them is we are sub human and evil. Our love is not the same, it is less then others. They have said we are a cancer and should eradicated. Children are not safe with us, we are not monogamous and do not have long term relationships. They might as well burn a cross and change there name. Even the Catholic News Website have said we should be chopped up.
What a bloody disgrace Labor has become to have this coward representing them. They should get rid of him now. Move back to your big Bannana Rudd!
I think they can Fuck Off next time they want this Queens vote. Blood is on there hands for supporting and promoting poofter bashers and inciting hate against us.
How dare you Mr Rudd, how dare give money to these people in our name!
Kevin Rudd is even being the Keynote speaker for the Australian Christian Lobby http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=28324
How could he support a hate group that told lies in the media about us to promote violence and harm.
He hates all of us. Them man is Evil.
We have a war on people, we must do everything. Our Prime Minister has chosen to side with Evil rather then Good. Make no mistake there are elements in the community that seek our destruction, and they have won the first battle through lies and hate. I have listened to the Australian Christian Lobby tell lies and incite hate. I have seen Kevin Rudd and Labor side with them. Keven Rudd and Labor even established an Ambassador to the Vatican as a demonstration of the great Evil they now stand for spending far more then they have agreed to for GLBT health. They have supported the Pope who joined a political party that murdered 15,000 homosexuals but never said sorry to us. Kevin Rudd even met the monster of pure Evil.
We have been lied to about so much by Labor. We do not have Equal Opportunity protection as they still want the government and others to discriminate. At a Federal Level, we do not have vilification protection, and those hateful people in Labor are not going to include us in a Bill of Rights. We cannot even choose to leave our supper to our partner. We were given defacto status that means super companies can still discriminate if we do not have a marriage certificate. I know a Trustee of one who told me that is what will be needed in some cases. It is up to them to accept our relationship. So far most have shown the do not accept homosexuals. Nothing will change.
When you see bad reporting or the Australian Christian Lobby is on radio or television ring the station. Tell them you are not happy about them giving a voice to a hate group that tells lies about the GLBTQ community. Tell them it leads to youth suicide. Contact the advertisers. Write to your local member and tell them you will place an add in your local paper against them. A couple of hundred dollars gives a lot of satisfaction. Do letter drops in your area. Send it to them first. Talk about the corruption in the Labor Party. The links to Evil Hate Groups and how Labor promotes Youth Suicide by have such relationships, talk about the lies on any issue, not just our issues.
We will win the war, we will fight the Cowards. Good will triumph over Evil. The winds of change are strong. What Lying Grave Robbing Cunts Labor has become. They can Fuck off next time they want our votes. We will do them damage for now. Come on fire up your printer!!! Whenever you park somewhere even put a few fliers at peoples car windows about Labor Lies and the promotion of Youth Suicide that is just wrong!
Compromise? Compromise on what? We get nothing, but a hollow review. A vague “review” is not a compromise when it has already been spelled out categorically what we are NOT getting. After what we’re not getting has been listed, there’s aint much crumbs to chuck our way- so Mr Albanese please stop saying we’ve been given a compromise.
Also- you said we gays don’t get what we want, but we get what we need- well the same applies to you with our votes at the next election- you won’t get a vote 1 Labor, you’ll get a 1 Greens, and 2 Labor, to form a Labor government under the thumb of the Greens. It’s not what you want Anthony, but it’s what you need.
Before 1st July, at least we knew where we stood but now it seems we are worse off than before. Government now recognises my partnership and therefore has ceased paying me the majority of my single parent pension insisting that my partners income is too high therefore it is expected that my partner should pay school fees and other costs associated with raising a child. Also, if my son was 16 or older and applied for a youth allowance, my partners income would be assessed and my son would not recieve income support payments as a result. Yet under NSW state laws, my partner has no parental rights, cannot adopt my son (unless we lived in WA or ACT) and has no financial commitment to my child whatsoever. Centrelink have made me and my child financially dependant on my partner but at the same time they have said my partner has no right to be a parent to my child! And they say this is putting an end to discrimination and inequality???
this is hardly a matter of politics and one much more basic. put simply, any adult functioning normally and contributing to the society in which they reside should by default have the same rights as any other.
it is a purely logical matter, not of politics nor religion. neither my partner nor i believe in needing validation from others as to what we feel about each other nor our commitment to each other, however we did march on saturday purely because we believe that everyone should have the choice the same as anyone else in this society.
the government penalises gay couples with government support payments the same as straight society, yet grants no counter balancing rights when in fact what no one has mentioned is there are many an old gay couple who are under financial hardship because of this when they have paid their dues to this society the same as everyone else.
gay rights aside, this is truly what is most wrong in every sense.
as for ruddy, i warned everyone of him before he was elected to office, unfortunately he has proven me right. a politician is just a politician, religious politicians are even worse. what has ruddy actually delivered from his election campaign aside from excuses as to why he has failed to deliver anything ?
as for the religious factions, i don’t think i need to point out the obvious hypocrisy on that front. all religion is merely the fore runner to controlling the people, it no longer belongs in a supposedly enlightened world.
maybe the enlightened world is not as intelligent as it thinks ?
Maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t quite see what additional rights we would actually get by being allowed to “marry” in Oz beyond those we already get through being in a relationship. (If someone can help me out with this info, that would be great.)
I signed a civil partnership with my partner here in the UK in 2006 and that gave us a lot of legal rights around pensions, inheritance, property, rights of access and so on. And if we want to end the civil partnership, we would have to go through something similar to a divorce, apparently. Its the nearest thing to “marriage” in the UK without being called it.
And I am now helping my partner to migrate to Oz as my “de facto partner” – we are delighted that the Aussie Govt now recognises same sex partnerships for migration purposes. Not many other countries do, not even the UK as far as I know.
As I understand it, the rights we got in the UK by signing the civil partnership will be the same rights we will have in Australia anyway once we get there, even though our civil partnership in the UK might not be legally recognised in Australia.
So what else would “marriage” give us in Oz if it became legal, and if it did become legal, would we be allowed to marry in Australia given we’ve effectively “married” in the UK??
DavidB is right. We have no hope for marriage equality and probably none for combatting climate change unless the Greens win a balance in the Upper House at the next election. Whoever wins, Labor or the Coalition, they need to be forced to the bargaining table.
Kevin Rudd has shown himself to be not only an economic conservative but also a social reactionary in decreeing that there will be no national system of same-sex civil unions, let alone the much more equal provision of same-sex marriage. What now then for lesbians and gay men in Australia who want the same range of relationship choices as their straight brothers and sisters? Perhaps a move to one of the countries that does have a national approach: Andorra, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Uruguay? Or do all those in Rainbow Labor work much harder, and the rest of us just hope, to see that Saint Julia becomes Prime Minister much, much sooner than later?
Australia is pathetic. Supposedly a gay mecca like Sydney cannot even summon substantial numbers and intellect to battle for equality. You silly Aussie queens have nobody to blame but yourselves.
The current Feds probably wouldn’t be able to make too many changes anyway at the moment because they don’t have the ‘numbers’ in the upper house. It is likely that at the next federal election this current Fed government will be returned to office with ultimately more power (if we all vote Green then the task would be infinitely easier). Perhaps it is then that they will decide to treat us as equal.
But if this does not happen than it will need all of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who are in positions of influence (the media -press, television, radio, internet, or politics (all colours) to flex their collective muscles and either (1) force the Feds to change their ridiculous stance on this important issue or, (2) make an all out effort to bring the government down with as much dirt as possible. Its been done before and I’m sure it could be done again.
what cowards!
Okay Labour – This is now a constitutional debate.
Labour yesterday declared that “the opposition to same-sex marriage will now be based on a constitutional argument”
The current definition of marriage therefore must be repealed and eliminated as it in breach of our constitution:-
The Australian Constitution – Section 116 states that- The Commonwealth are not to legislate in respect of religion and The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance.
The man and woman definition was placed in The Marriage Act just a few years ago straight from an 1866 ruling by Judge Lord Penzance; who declared: “Marriage as understood in Christendom is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”
Note the words “In Christendom” – this is an imposition of a certain religion and is certainly NOT consistent with the provision of the Australian Constitution. Repeal the ammendment to the Act NOW and ensure your declared value that that “All people are born equal regardless of their sexuality. is upheld in action.
Congratulations on those who were married on Saturday. If only this was formal. If only there was wedding cake and more celebration rather than demonstration.
Personally I think marriage of any kind is stupid. That is just me. Every Australian has to have equal rights as equal citizens in a country that pretends to have equal rights and civil rights for all. Otherwise we are second class citizens, and humans treated as “special” cases.
The ALP didn’t even put provision for Civil Union having equal standing as “Marriage”: in full recognition. For me, at least civil union has no Church connotations. But surely people have a right to choose.
The ALP needs their ass severely kicked over the smugness of this one. Today, swine fever, Bob Hawke is in the hall of fame, and a “brown eye” from the ALP to LGTBI. Can you see a theme here?
I’ll sign the petition.
Blessings
Saintfletcher
Youtube Partner
Under Rudd, the 2004 Marriage Ban has been expanded- to ban not only same sex marriage, but the ban is being “interpreted” by Rudd to also ban ANYTHING that even “mimicks” marriage!!! What a joke. Where did he even get that idea about banning “mimicking”…- he got it not from Howard, but from the Evangelical Australian Christian Lobby who represent 200,000 evangelicals (vs 2,000,000 GLBT people). They hoodwinked him into making the ban on mimicking marriage a core election promise, for this term, and all his future terms.
Rudd is now also confirmed as the Key Note Speaker at the Australia Christian Lobby Conference in November this year.
Forget wasting time begging Rudd to listen- vote 1 The Greens. (yes this will still give us a Labor government, but a Labor government under complete control of the Greens balance of power)
I bet all 194 countries will have same-sex marriage by 2167 and Australia will be the last!!!!
My predictions on SSM legalization:
* Iceland, Portugal, Luxemborg will have SSM by 2010.
* The US states of New Jersey and New York by 2010.
* Finland, Switzerland, Cezch Republic, Albania, Solvakia, Denmark, Germany and France will have SSM by 2012.
* The US states of Oregon and California in 2012.
* Hungary, UK and Austria in 2014.
* NEW ZEALAND (Our ally next to us) in 2015.
* Ireland and Estonia in 2016.
* All of Europe by 2020.
* All of the US states by 2057.
* All the world by 2167 – except Australia.
Albania in 2009 is even much, much more progressive then us Australian’s!!!!!
Ben Gresham, alas the High Court ruled in the 1980s Defense of Government Schools case that Australia does not have a blanket separation of church and state. Section 116 of our Constitution proscribes only certain things: making laws for or against religion, or for imposing religious observance; and making religion a requirement of public office. Everything else seems to be fair game.
But as religious conservatives continue to thwart the right and custom of marriage for same-sex couples, it seems only fair to demand that THEIR imposing religious customs be excised from our public institutions. In today’s era of religious lobbyists, our semi-separation of church and state is untenable. It poses an ongoing undue influence upon our polity. It allows conflicts between public and sectarian interests to go unchecked. For example, exactly whose interests are being served by Parliamentary Standing Orders which impose a daily recital of the Lord’s Prayer? What potential influence does that hold over elected representatives when they are subject to lobbying on a range of issues by adherents of that prayer? This undermines confidence in our politics. It does religion no favours either.
To this end, two petitions asking that Prayers be removed from the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives and Senate respectively are available from http://www.mediafire.com/luckydip
Download, print and fill out a pair of petitions. For the House petition, leave the principal petitioner blank *or* only use the second page to collect signatures. Print extra pages if needed. It is important that *both* petitions are signed. The House and Senate have separate Standing Orders. The prayers are slightly different in each. The required format for Senate petitions is also different to House petitions. This all means that a separate petition is required for each chamber.
The Senate petition must be presented by a Senator. The office of Senator Bob Brown has confirmed that he will present the Senate petition on signatories’ behalf, so all that needs to be done is collect the signatures then post them back for collation and forwarding to Canberra. Originals of completed petitions (cannot be faxed or electronic copy) may be returned to:
Parliament Prayer Petitions
PO BOX U94
University of Wollongong NSW 2500
SEE ALSO:
End Mandatory Prayer in the Aussie Parliament
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49611362120
Aussies for Separation of Church & State
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=54429760859
Keep God out of our democracy
(Opinion piece by former Federal MP Carmen Lawrence)
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/keep-god-out-of-our-democracy-20090701-d55b.html?page=-1
Petitioning the House of Representatives
http://www.aph.gov.au/House/work/petitions.htm
Senate Petitions
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/work/petitions/index.htm
p.s. this inquiry is so clearly a load of crap. we need inquiries now to show that civil rights are a neccesity after the majority of australians have shown time and time again recently in polls that they are for equal rights? pfft.
nothing less then marriage is full equality. the “new” ALP policy, is the old one, with different words. what difference will there be to same sex couples and our transgender community that want to get married regardless of sexual orientation and gender? nothing. This means that the massively inspiration rallies today need to continue until we get our EQUAL rights. not our almost-but-kinda-not-quite’s!!!! I agree with Jack Alison. our rights are worth more then a vote. we must ocntinue to stand up and fight!
what do we want? SAME SEX MARRIAGE when do we want it?
NOW!
Thank you to all those inside the Conference fighting for formal recognition of same-sex relationships. And thank you to those rallying outside the hall demanding formal recognition of same-sex relationships.
Both are needed for this campaign.
Some small advances were won today, and the fight will continue.Whether you believe in civil unions or marriage, whether you are Green, Liberal Labor National whatever…
if you want change, get involved, get active!
On the topic of gay marriage…..
Since when should our (my) human rights be up for debate or for a vote? I don’t ask for equality, I demand it. I’m tired of being patient, I’m tired of being polite.
Rudd, you’re not as smart as I thought you were, if you think we can’t see that you’re position on this issue is a defensive vote strategy relating to your Christian voters.
How about we vote on your human rights and see how you like it.
Its time to stop marginalising minorities. I’m not a second class citizen because I was born gay.
Give me my rights now!!!
Great deceit, Peter (aka Urban sock puppet per SameSame.com.au and Shayne Chester’s parrot)?
But maybe Peter is right.
Maybe 84 pieces of federal legislation should have stayed discriminatory unless or until the equality lobby additionally secured a government guarantee that gay couples could continue to receive more favourable Centrelink treatment than their heterosexual counterparts.
Then again, maybe not.
Malcolm Grant, to my knowledge there is no evidence available in the public domain to suggest that Ms Wong and her partner are married in any jurisdiction. If you have such evidence we’d love to hear about it- [email protected]
Well I was there and am proud to have taken part. Im married and love my partner but Mr Rudd, i voted for you and i never steppped in and stopped you from marrying, why do it to me?
Sickening display of rhetoric that panders to faith based groups. Human rights are not up 4 negotiation and discussion. I have 2 say that there was far more honesty in the downright bigotry of ‘lil Jonny Howard than this charade of left wing rainbow luvvies who continue to believe that New Labor will deliver a different outcome. We need to pack up shop and stop knocking on a closed door. We need to mount a legal challenge thru the United Nations, since Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Human Rights. That’s how the tide was turned in Tasmania. Kevin07 is playing politics with our lives to stay in office. Anyone who trades in the misery, discrimination and legal unhappiness of others because they can’t marry cannot be Christian or any way call themselves a social democrat. Yet this creep is going to address the Australian Christian Lobby this November. Wake up guys and stop voting labor!
The Attorney General is quoted as saying:
“… the amendments would not undermine the institution of marriage.
He said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had made it clear there would be no changes to the Marriage Act, which would be needed to allow for civil unions.
“This resolution is not intended to and does not support any form of legislative or other action that in any way undermines the institution of marriage which is defined… as being between a man and a women,” he said.
How does the fact that Penny Wong is married to Sophie Allouache (legally recognised in Ms Allouache’s home country) undermine Kevin ’07’s marriage to Therese Rein?
If that marriage doesn’t have any impact on his how can the one I would like to be in with my partner or the hypothetical marriage of any of us to our loving partners undermine his or anyone else’s?
This is ridiculous!
We seem like we are actually worse off now than before. The labour government feeds us a few nice lies and then makes no progress at all.
Australia’s faith based communities? That includes people like me. I am a gay Christian and there are many like us. Where is our say? Where is our voice?
I thought Australia had laws ensuring separation of church and State. If that is true then the Marriage Act should be made invalid because it is clearly based on the old Christian view that marriage is between a man and a woman. What other basis is the Marriage Act based on if not on religion?
How does my love for my partner undermine the institution of marriage? All we (as gay men and women) are asking for is the opportunity to be able to share in the same joys of marriage as other people have. We don’t wanna hurt anyone, we are not out to destroy the church and we are not a threat to anyone. We are just asking to love someone else…when did that become a crime?
The great deceit continues. ‘Equal rights’ = loss of benefits in a world where ‘No gay marriage recognition’ = bigotry and discrimination. How stoopid were the trendy comfort-zone gays pushing for equal rights – they never learn?