Turnbull calls for civil unions
Liberal frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull has used a public address to back same-sex marriage, but said given the lack of parliamentary support for change, civil unions legislation should be put forward.
At the annual Michael Kirby lecture on the Gold Coast last night, Turnbull said he finds arguments against allowing same-sex marriage to be hypocritical.
“Let us be honest with each other. The threat to marriage is not the gays. It is a lack of loving commitment – whether it is found in the form of neglect, indifference, cruelty or adultery, to name just a few manifestations of the loveless desert in which too many marriages come to grief,” he said.
Turnbull said if Coalition MPs were allowed a conscience vote on the issue, he would vote in favour of same-sex marriage, but said civil unions legislation is more likely to be supported.
“Many argue that the Liberals’ lack of a conscience vote means the gay marriage bills will not pass,” Turnbull said.
“I don’t think they have the numbers to pass, but I am far from convinced that in the present parliament they would have the numbers even if a conscience vote were permitted.
“So what is to be done? In my judgement while the numbers are not there for gay marriage in this parliament, they are certainly there for civil unions. We should not miss the opportunity to legislate for civil unions for same sex couples in this parliament.”
Australian Marriage Equality national convenor Alex Greenwich rejected Turnbull’s calls for a civil unions compromise.
“Wherever civil unions have been enacted they entrench discrimination rather than remove it,” Greenwich said.
“Mr Turnbull should know better than to suggest civil unions as a way forward, especially given that his own electorate survey overwhelmingly rejected civil unions and endorsed marriage equality.
“Civil unions may be a politically expedient cop-out for politicians, but they will never be a solution to the acute hurt and discrimination felt by so many same-sex couples, their families, and their communities.”
See Turnbull’s full speech HERE
https://starobserver.com.au/news/australia-news/new-south-wales-news/2008/10/22/private-super-dodges-equality/2321 will explain the super discrimination. The senate enquiry was told of much discrimination, from soldiers being sent to the front line more, as they are not counted as married, the list goes on and on and on. Turnbull is dog whistling. It would take 20 years of parliament to bring every piece of legislation that refers to the Marriage Act. Turnbull voted to discriminate in private super, he could cross the floor for the ETS, but not a gay couple getting married that he says does not effect him?
no one wants civil unions Malcom we want to get married how hard is it to understand
1084 laws…. exactly what benefit would marriage give a gay couple that they do not currently have – one can have a legally binding will and medical directive – I am aware of those inequality – marriage eliminates the need for those 2 fall back positions – but what else?
I have never seen a list – do you know of one?
As for civil unions – if the law were written properly – whereas, gay couples who enter a civil union are provided with the exact same benefits and responsibilities as “marriage”, would it not take care of said 1084 laws?
just asking
Civil Unions are a segregation certificate from the 1084 laws that reference the Marriage Act. Even in Private Super, Labor and Liberal voted to allow discrimination unless your married. Turnbull is arguing to entrench discrimination, not to spend 20 years of parliament amending every piece of legislation to make Civil Unions equal.
As someone who lives out in the real world; i.e. outside the inner city gay triangle, I think he has a valid point. The reality is that most people aren’t as gay supportive as those from the inner city triangle might think. I know because I work and associate with them.
Getting civil unions through would be far easier with far less objection…then once the populace have got used to that, one has a better chance of calling it ‘marriage’.
If you read the entire speech, you will learn that Turnbull views civil union as a step towards marriage – not an end-all be-all solution. One that other companies have adopted on their way to legalizing full gay marriage. And one that might make it through the current parliament – while gay marriage will not.
Granted, we need to get rid of Abbott and Gillard – until then we will not see gay marriage – but BOTH are at risk of being rolled – we just need to keep pushing.
I really do not like what Alex Greenwich has to say – I am not sure I want him speaking for me.
At least Turnbull is honest in his responce where as Abbott is rabidly negative about anything to do with gay marriage or unions of any sort. One has to wonder what’s his problem with anything gay and what does he really think of gays overall?
What’s the point? Gay men and women already have legal rights as couples. The remaining discrimination is the inability to marry. Enacting civil unions would reinforce the idea that gay partnerships are second rate, while not advancing legal rights.