Rudd rejects civil unions
A key proposal from the Australia 2020 Summit that civil unions be offered to same-sex couples has been officially rejected by the Rudd Government.
The Government’s response equated the proposal with same-sex marriage equality, saying the no gay unions policy reflects the widely held view in the community that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But the Government confirmed it still intends to recognise and support same-sex families through its community and social inclusion strategies, and convince NSW, QLD, SA, WA and NT to implement relationship registers.
One step towards eliminating discrimination against same-sex couples is for their relationships to be legally recognised, the response states.
As part of the Government’s same-sex law reforms, registered relationships will also be recognised in many Commonwealth laws to provide a more consistent approach to the recognition of relationships.
National PFLAG spokeswoman Shelley Argent was a part of the summit branch that recommended civil unions.
Regardless of what type of relationship recognition it is, we need uniformity across the country so the confusion is taken away when a couple go from one state to another, Argent told SSO.
But we’re being totally ignored by the [Queensland] Bligh Government.
Australian Marriage Equality advocates disputed the Government’s claim that marriage discrimination was strongly supported.
Opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Australians support same-sex marriage, making a nonsense of the Government’s stated belief that its policy -˜reflects a widely held view in the community’, AME spokesman Peter Furness said.
The Rudd Government has shown that its vision for the future is blinkered by prejudices from the past.
Coalition for Equality spokesman Corey Irlam said there were some positive aspects to the Government’s response, such as support for gay and lesbian families.
Human rights advocates including Amnesty International were disappointed there will be no non-discriminatory clause in the Australian Constitution, a proposal that had received wide support at the summit so it could be enforceable by the High Court.
The Government rejected that idea also, saying the National Human Rights Consultation had been charged to come up with a non-constitutional proposal, such as a human rights act or charter.
[T]he Government has made it clear that any proposals must preserve the sovereignty of Parliament, its report stated.
I reckon we just rescind all marriages. That’ll put everyone on an equal footing!
When the Rudd government announced the same sex reforms I was very appreciative at this long overdue legislation providing equality to people in same sex relationships in many areas.
I was very surprised however, to discover that unless you have been paying into a Commonwealth superannuation scheme you won’t be treated with equality. That is if you want to leave your super benefits to your same sex partner following death your wishes aren’t guaranteed. Unless the super scheme which you have been paying into recognises same sex relationships, you can probably forget it.
It is time the government let gay & lesbian people know the fact that superannuation schemes are not required by law to recognise our relationships. In all the publicity the government has put out I have never seen it mentioned that you would need to be paying into a Commonwealth super scheme to get full equality. It should also be noted that in NSW (and probably others) religious organisations do not have to comply with anti discrimination laws. Until we have the same rights as others in our society, most importantly the right to marriage as a human right, we still have a long way to go.
Equality?
Not quite yet.
Kevin Hardwick
editor Pink Mountains Website
http://www.pinkmountains.com.au
what do you expect from a man that throws a hissy fit because some one forgot to pack his hairdryer for the trip to Afghanistan
Brendan of Wollongong NSW – “In human rights matters, I would hope that law and fiduciary duty to the genuine best interests of the Australian people as a whole would rule”
Depends how you define the “people as a whole”. How do you define the “people as a whole”?
Oh, and it’s the “obscure hypotheticals” that you have to be very careful about when you advocate something other than “majority rule”.
Jason – thanks for your replies. For a politician, “striking a balance” normally means “how many votes will I gain or lose in making a particular decision”? What also happens is that a decision is actually never made, and the entrenched situation or circumstance is simply accepted or tolerated by the population.
I agree with your comment “its really what ones self believes in on certain issues.” There are certainly a lot of things I believe in (and don’t believe in), and viewpoints I have, that tend to polarise people. Still, as you say it’s really only what you believe in yourself that matters.
I don’t, and never will, support gay marriage. But if it’s put to the people I have no choice but to accept the outcome, whether I agree with it or not. To me, that’s exactly how a democracy works. That is; the will of the people, not the will of some of the people.
James, what are you trying to get at with this minority and majority issue on here, its seems your trying to justify to yourself why the likes of the majority support gay marriage or other issues, and your having trouble understanding why the majority or minority side on certain issues. Well my advice to you James is that there’s allways going to be things that you dont agree with, its the same for everyone and you dont have to agree with the majority or minority on certain issues. Like I said in my last post to you, its really what ones self believes in on certain issues. Nobody can publicly declare that they will ONLY believe in what the majority believes in, thats not how a democracy works.
James – “I’m just not so sure how, in practical terms, a politician can exercise their fiduciary duties to a group of people who have disparate views unless they act in line with the views of the majority of that group”
– For a politician James its simply means striking a balance and making tough decisions and not just siding with the majority or minority on all issues. However personally when It comes to issues I believe for most people it comes down to a personal choice of “what seems right and wrong” as I have a suspecion that most people simply dont care what the majority or minority think on certain issues, its really what ones self believes on an issue. But its often interesting to find out what the majority of people believe even if I dont agree with it.
In both principle and fact, fiduciary duty is not defined by populist opinion. So James, *you’re* sidestepping the issue or at least your glib dismissals (eg. comment about “a throw away line used by desperates in election campaign mode”) and obscure hypotheticals miss this point.
In human rights matters, I would hope that law and fiduciary duty to the genuine best interests of the Australian people as a whole would rule (because safeguarding those rights IS in the genuine best interests of the Australian people as whole).
Brendan of Wollongong NSW – in regards to fiduciary duty, I have no “contempt for this aim” whatsoever. I’m just not so sure how, in practical terms, a politician can exercise their fiduciary duties to a group of people who have disparate views unless they act in line with the views of the majority of that group.
But calling me a “disgruntled majoritarian” is sidestepping the issue. As I said previously, be very careful when you want a system other than -œmajority rule. If a minority groups is willing to dimiss the will of the majority then you do so at your own peril.
“What if a new, more conservative government is elected and they wanted to catch homosexuals and lock them up, but the majority of the people disagreed with the government. Would you want the majority to rule then?”
Please answer the above question.
Quote James: “governing for the whole country is [merely] a throw away line used by desperates in election campaign mode.
Nonsense. The good governance ethic of striving to act carefully and diligently in the best interests of the whole — ie the whole notion of fiduciary duty — is well established in political *and* corporate philosophy to say the least.
Your apparent contempt for this worthy aim suggests more that you are a disgruntled majoritarian than anything else.
Thanks David…. but that begs the question, if the term ‘civil union’ is a definition controlled by the Christian lobby then why are supporters of same sex marriage using it?