Rights groups give Californians support

Rights groups give Californians support

Australian gay rights groups have expressed commiserations to Californian same-sex couples who have lost the right to marry after Proposition 8 passed in last week’s US election.

Over 16,000 couples took advantage of their legal right to marry in California after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage in June this year. The ballot measure overturning same-sex marriage gained 52 percent support from Californian voters.

Thousands rallied in the streets of Los Angeles after hearing the result, marching near a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints temple to protest the Mormons’ strong support for the proposition. Seven people were arrested.

Exit polls showed young voters overwhelmingly opposed the ban while older voters, churchgoers and African Americans tended to be strongly in favour.

According to the LA Times, $US74 million was spent by both sides combined during the race.
US National Centre for Lesbian Rights executive director Kate Kendall told The New York Times the community would pick ourselves up and trudge on. Legal challenges in California have already been filed against the ban.

Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Peter Furness said he was disappointed to hear the ban got through, but was looking on the bright side.

For a very socially conservative society like the USA, I think that’s not so bad at all. Of course it’s disappointing it wasn’t 52 our side, but America is a tough nut to crack.

I don’t think it has much effect in Australia because in Australia a significant majority of people support equal marriage and we don’t have as much influence by evangelical Christian churches.

I’m very confident that Australians wouldn’t vote that way. I think there’s much more support in Australia for legal equality.

Furness said he wasn’t concerned the Californian example may be used by those opposing equal marriage in Australia.

I think the only lesson perhaps is that we need to be more organised and effective and we need to put some resources into a campaign for equal rights, including marriage rights.

Furness, who has been monitoring the campaign said he believes scare tactics were used by those for the ban claiming schools would be forced into teaching about gay marriage.

This is America after all and there were millions of dollars put in … they [those supporting the ban] basically launched an intensive and dishonest campaign -” one I don’t think you could ever get away with here in Australia where you have to have at least some element of truth in advertising.

Only two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut allow gay marriage in the United States -“ Arizona and Florida also voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman last week.

You May Also Like

13 responses to “Rights groups give Californians support”

  1. Chris – I’m not part of the Christian lobby (whoever they are) and nor am I a Christian nutter as you previously called me.

    Again, there is no smokescreen. It was you that has repeatedly said that -œSimple isn’t it-¦it is clear and unequivocal discrimination with a capital D !!! so all I’ve done is provided you with some further examples of supposed discrimination around changes to the Marriage Act. I mean, we are in fact talking about potential changes to the Act so why not put a number of possible changes on the table and discuss them? Why only discuss the option that suits you? As you have said, the issue is discrimination, so why not canvass a number of changes to the Act that will potentially address discrimination?

    On a lighter note Chris, I must say I enjoy debating this topic with you. We will never agree on it, and we are no doubt two completely different animals, but cheers to you anyway.

  2. JAMES ..My grievance is centred around discrimination within the definition of marriage as it currently stands.. and you know it.

    your attempt at creating a smokescreen by your ‘ man marries his brother ‘etc is pathetic and a typical lame attempt by the christian lobby to trivialise our same sex relationmships.

    Human beings are entitled to the same rights as each other regardless of sexuality ..these rights should and will include the right to marry their partner .Whether they choose to or not is another matter .

  3. Chris – there is no smokescreen and no diversion. I offer you these examples on the basis that your grievance centres around discrimination, not marriage. Actually, you should answer the questions that I put to you.

    Honestly, if the Marriage Act of this country was as you describe, and this was the way that society was organised, I doubt I’d be too concerned. I’d simply think that marriage was not for me as I was not gay. It wouldn’t be something I’d be interested in, and I doubt I’d be trying to align myself with it. If I could live in peace with a woman and I was generally happy with life and my relationship I doubt it would worry me.

    Having said that I doubt that you believe my answer because you don’t want to believe it.

    Now given that your grievance centres around discrimination rather than marriage per se, please answer my questions above. Scoeity may very well be faced with these scenarios. I look forward to your answers.

  4. James..good try (not) to create a smokescreen of diversion from my very valid point of comparison .Why should I be surprised ? You christian nutters have been using the ‘ man marries his goat’ example to trivialize our same sex relationships for as long as the gay marriage debate has been in the public domain.

    We are not talking about incest here James and we are not talking about three way situations here and you know it.You are just using the tired old out of touch christian approach in an attempt to demonize we gay and lesbian people.

    JAMES Please answer this question; If the marriage act of this country defined marriage as being exclusivly between one man and another man or between one woman and another woman would YOU as a heterosexual person feel discriminated against?

    Simple isn’t it-¦it is clear and unequivocal discrimination with a capital D !!!

    All those ridiculous examples you use above have nothing to do with the issue we are debating here which is about delivering human rights to human beings equally and without exception regardless of their sexuality. These rights must ,and will include marriage rights.

  5. Chris – let’s go with your assumption of the Marriage Act. Now let’s assume that you have another male friend, and you and your “husband” are willing for that third person to join you both in holy matrimony. Would you then all feel that you are subject to discrimination because the Act states that marriage is exclusivley between one man and another man?

    Still running with your assumption, let’s assume that the two men that want to get married are you and your brother. Would you both feel that you are subject to discrimination because a man can’t marry his brother?

    Specific laws or Acts or Parliament cannot cater for all situations, that’s why there are other laws and Acts that apply to different people and different situations.

    As a man, should I be allowed into a female toilet? If not, why not? Should I scream discrimination because the school kid next to me gets a free train ride to work and I don’t? Am I subject to discrimination because I pay more to see a movie than a child? Do I cry into my Kleenex because the bank will give you a loan but not me? Do I have a hissy fit because my kids can’t get into a Catholic School because they are Anglicans? Do I suffer from discrimination because I pay more taxthan you do, both in dollars and as a percentage of my income? Do I demand a change to the law because my taxes pay for roads and I take public transport and I feel discriminated against? Are these Human Rights issues and should I go to the highest court int the land and demand equality? “Simple isn’t it-¦it is clear and unequivocal discrimination with a capital D !!!”

  6. James ‘Again, this is not a human rights issue. You seem to forget that the Marriage Act of this country applies equally to you as it does to me, so I can’t see any discrimination’

    James the marriage act of this country defines marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman.

    Please answer this question; If the marriage act of this country defined marriage as being exclusivley between one man and another man or between one woman and another woman would YOU as a heterosexual person feel discriminated against?

    Simple isn’t it…it is clear and unequivocal discrimination with a capital D !!!

  7. Chris – please calm down. It’s not a good look when you can’t control yourself.

    We aren’t all the same, therefore we are not all entitled to the same rights. It’s pretty much as simple as that.

    Again, this is not a human rights issue. You seem to forget that the Marriage Act of this country applies equally to you as it does to me, so I can’t see any discrimination. If the Act doesn’t suit you, and what you want, then that’s another issue but please don’t call it discrimination. And please don’t don’t insult people who truly suffer from an infringement of their human rights by attempting to align yourself with them.

  8. James…you homophobe what are you doing on this site you fool
    you as a self declared ‘straight person ‘are happy to accept rights that are denied others because they are gay. This is a human rights issue pure and simple . GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE WANT AND DESERVE EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS AS STRAIGHT PEOPLE..100% NO EXCEPTIONS!

    james surely there is a hillsong site you can hang around..or the daily telegraph where you can preach your twaddle to the ignorant..you will get nowhere here.It appears you get off on hanging around gay sites…?!

  9. John – stick to the point. Gay couples in California receive the same benefits as married people in Claifornia, so the only thing they are missing out on is a wedding certificate. I don’t see missing out on this as being a human rights issue.

  10. James, if “the people” decided that black people shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office, then should the black “lobby” just accept it? Of course not.

    Democracy is not the same thing as “majority rules”. There is such a thing as human rights you know – that includes fairness and equality before the law – which a vote shouldn’t be able to just take away.

  11. The people have spoken on this matter (twice now) and the gay lobby, who speaks so loudly about freedom and tolerance, have to accept the voice of the people.

    If the gay lobby can’t respect the wishes of the majority, it can hardly expect respect in return now can it.