Turnbull pushes civil unions

Turnbull pushes civil unions

Marriage equality advocates are disappointed by claims by Wentworth MP Malcolm Turnbull that there is wide community support for civil unions in Australia.

Turnbull made the claim during uring an address to the National Press Club today.

“I think there is broad support in the community for recognising civil unions for Australian couples of the same-sex and polls and research shows that.”

But Australian Marriage Equality national convener Alex Greenwich pointed out that Turnbull’s own electorate survey on the issue showed 73 percent in favour of same-sex marriage and only 17 percent in favour of civil unions.

“Mr Turnbull’s own research shows overwhelming support for full marriage equality and hardly any support for civil unions – a result which is replicated in electorate polls by Teresa Gambaro and others”, Greenwich said.

Of those surveyed by Gambaro, less than seven percent of those who opposed changing the Marriage Act supported civil unions compared to 73 percent who supported marriage equality.

“Civil unions may look like an attractive political expedient for some MPs but they will entrench a second-class status for same-sex relationships and will not lessen the need or the demand for full equality.”

Greenwich said the results in both electorates showed that compromise would please neither side of the debate.

Turnbull told the Press Club that “intensity” of views on the issue of marriage equality were as equally important as the number of views.

But Greenwich said majority support for marriage equality in the Australian community should be the key consideration for lawmakers.

“It is the responsibility of people like Mr Turnbull to explain to religious opponents of same-sex marriage in his electorate that churches will not have to marry same-sex couples against their will,” Greenwich said.

“In my experience, once people of faith understand this basic fact their concerns dissipate.”

You May Also Like

19 responses to “Turnbull pushes civil unions”

  1. I don’t suppose anyone has considered that civil unions would be the step towards marriage have they?

    Personally I don’t care what it’s called. Marriage, civil union, whatever . As long as the legal rights are the same (Which they have been for 3 years under the de-facto relationship) that’s all I care about.

    It seems to be all about the word marriage (which is just a word) and since the gay community as a whole insists on an all or nothing all at once approach not much is happening.

    Also Otto, Penny Wong has been responsible for a lot of steps forward. She can’t do that if she openly oppose Julia because she won’t be in that senior position for long. Like it or hate it, politics is a game and no amount of waving your pride flag is going to change that.

  2. Turnbull can push whatever he likes….. It not equal to marriage…….. If the Tory Leader in the UK can come around and support equality – then its time that Tony and Malcolm woke up to the times……

    Poor option Malcolm – from a electorate with loads of LGBTI’s in it……..

  3. So can we please never hear again what a great “friend of the LGBTI community” Malcolm is? Next time he donates money to a charity, instead of gushing about his “generosity”, can we note that it is a tiny percentage of his income? In his role as a politician, he is meant to REPRESENT his community, and to treat his constituents fairly. He is clearly failing to do that.

  4. Don’t forget Turnbull’s mud slinging in the Godwin Grech Affair. This guy is not a friend of progressive policies … if he can find a way to win a few progressive votes, then he will. It would be understandable if people in the same sex attracted community saw him as a shining light as opposed to Julia Gillard, but remember, the issue of same sex marriage will not be a referendum, it will be a parliamentary vote. You don’t have to pin your hopes on one politician. The Greens are doing the best job of keeping the debate in the ring, and you can believe they will even if you don’t support the Greens – it’s written into their social justice policies. On all sides of politics are politicians with gay family members, friends, employees, donators etc. and that statistic is only on the increase.

  5. Sorry, but time & time, & time again, he CAN’T be trusted- he ALWAYS harps back to throwing us onto the 2nd Class Citizenship pile (remember when he toyed with the 3rd Class “Interdependent status”). Yep- don’t look to him for crumbs- ditch him now! He’s had all the chances he deserves & time has truly run out for us to EVER trust him. He can buck the govt’s line when we wants to- but on this issue, he’s FIRMLY on the side of discrimination. End of story. Ditch him!

  6. Part of our problem is we “appreciate” the lip service of some, when we should be demanding that lip service alone will no longer cut it.
    If our “friends” such as Wong,Alabanese, etc. are truly our friends then let them stand up in open opposition to Gillard and set her straight – if she needs replacing, then replace her. Otherwise, we need to replace our friends with people who can do, not just talk.

  7. Turnbull told the Press Club that “intensity” of views on the issue of marriage equality were as equally important as the number of views.”

    That really is political doublespeak, isn’t it?

    No, it is what politicians think to be true. Those who support Gay Marriage will not vote against politicians that do not pass that specific legislation, while those that are against Gay Marriage feel so strongly about it they will indeed vote against any politician who support it. What must happen is that we must show them that we will vote them out of office – and vote in people who guarantee to get the legislation passed. If we don’t have enough Green members (even if some of their policies and members are a bit , well, strange) then we need to block vote and replace a few more members – from all parties – We need to look at marginal seats and simply out spend and out canvas and get the job done. Once they know we can be as single minded and nasty as the christian right, we will have Gay Marriage in a heart beat.

  8. Read exactly what Turnbull said here:

    Whats your views on it? Is he backing both horses in some vain attempt to win favour in the party room?

    Transcript – National Press Gallery Questions and Answers – 3 Aug 2011Published on: August 03, 2011

    JOURNALIST:

    I’ll just ask you one final question before we wrap up. It’s a broad church question, actually. The Labor Party is wrestling with the issue of same-sex marriage, an issue that will come before the National conference in December. I think there are three Liberal MPs, including yourself, who have done surveys in your electorates that show overwhelming support among your constituents to change the legislation. How much support do you think there is out there, when you go around Australia for change to the legislation? How many of your Liberal and National MPs, do you think, support a change? Do you think it’s more than the three that I’ve mentioned?

    MALCOLM TURNBULL:

    Oh, look I think there’s – I’ll give you, I haven’t done a headcount right, but I think there is very, very broad support in the community, there would be very broad support in the community for recognising civil unions between couples of the same sex. And the polls and research show that. Most of the surveys – and I mean especially statistically reliable ones because mine was one where people logged on but they had to put in their names and address and so forth so it wasn’t just one of those things where you can click away until your heart’s content to support your particular point of view. I think would be, there is majority support for gay marriages if you want to use that term.

    But there is also strong opposition and there are a lot of people who feel this would be a reform that would be better achieved with a broader level of support. In terms of the people who are opposed to gay marriage, my impression is that there are some people who take a view on moral grounds. They believe that homosexuality is sinful and so forth, and they are very opposed to that. But I think that for most people in my experience, and this came out in our survey who were opposed to gay marriage, was that it is almost a semantic issue. They felt that marriage defined a permanent relationship between a man and a women and a union or a permanent union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman may be entitled to equal respect and equal protection in terms of discrimination and legislation but was not as a matter of definition a marriage. Now, as this issue is debated, to what extent that view will continue is debatable.

    Look, it is an interesting –

    JOURNALIST:

    Is there much support in your party?

    MALCOLM TURNBULL:

    Well, it’s hard to say Steve. I think it’s an issue, I think it’s an issue htat at some point will get a fair bit of attention. And people will think about it with more — you know, perhaps give it more attention. And reflect on it more. I think that what I’ve found — you’ve got to remember that it’s not so long ago that it was controversial to extend the same medical and superannuation benefits to same sex couples. It’s not that long ago, for example, that my father-in-law Tom Hughes created an absolute furore and got his preselection challenged in the Liberal Party because he said homosexual acts should not be criminal, it should be decriminalised. So there’s a, this is a changing agenda. But you know, if I was putting my money on changes I think civil unions, there’s a fair degree of support for that. And of course, you’ve already seen that happen at the State level. So there it is. The important thing is for someone in my position is to consult with your community, which I’ve done. And to continue consulting with them. And to listen carefully and also to have regard to the number of views on either side but also to take into account the intensity of them. Because reforms of this kind are best achieved, if they can be achieved – or changes to things like this – can best be achieved if they are done with the least amount of division. So I hope that, in a rather roundabout way, answers your question.

    ENDS.

    SOURCE: http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/transcripts/transcript-national-press-gallery-questions-and-answers-3-aug-2011/

  9. So Turnbull and Labor’s John Murphy are both pledged to fight same-sex marriage. Yet Turnbull will still parade before the Aurora Ball, cheque book in hand, as if that makes it all okay.

    The man is a fraud.

  10. This is not really a surprise. Turnbull has always been opposed to same-sex marriage, even though he gives lip service to supporting the gay and lesbian community (typical politician).

    Turnbull will not be the only MP who rejects what his electorate have said, and instead will push their own opinion on same-sex marriage.

    It will be up to organisations such as AME, Get Up! and the media (including the SSO) to hold MPs to account. Where an MP does not present the view of their electorate, instead presenting their own opinion, or who has failed to even consult their electorate, then this needs to be broadcast widely and publically.

  11. It is important to remember that Malcolm Turnbull still supports excluding all GLBTI people from protections in the Federal Equal Opportunity Act.

    The denial of healthcare is a major human rights abuse. Older members of our community often have great trouble accessing aged care services, and have to lie about their sexuality. And in Victoria, Turnbull has been a strong supporter of the Liberal Government stripping the protections GLBTI people had in the State Equal Opportunity Act. Based on your sexuality, you can now be banned from applying from thousands of government funded jobs in the community sector. You are at the mercy of faith based groups that run essential government services. I have worked in the community sector as an openly gay man in a faith based business, but I have also been aware of some of them sacking women as they were in a de-facto relationship. Essentially our taxes are used to carry out acts of hate, with the blessing of Malcolm Turnbull.

    Malcolm Turnbull has said he supports Civil Unions as there is still “a minority of strong opposition” from faith based groups. You know, the same people who supported the White Australia Policy, and not giving Aboriginal people equality before the law.

    The Liberal Party in the past has had much better people then Malcolm, people who stood up for fairness and dignity, people who had courage to decriminalise homosexuality like Don Dunstan in South Australia. Malcolm has failed the basic test of decency and fairness. But given his support for other discrimination, we should not be to surprise that when it really counts, Malcolm does cut the mustard.

    What Malcolm does is dog whistle, nothing more and nothing less.

  12. “Turnbull told the Press Club that “intensity” of views on the issue of marriage equality were as equally important as the number of views.”

    That really is political doublespeak, isn’t it?

  13. If Civil Unions are that bloody good why did Malcolm Turnbull only want Marriage for himself?

    If he really believed it was that good, he would divorce his wife and get one…

  14. This is a disappointing, factually and intellectually dishonest, claim by Turnbull. He ought to know better and say so. Poll after poll has shown a majority of Australians anticipate and agree with the right of same-sex couples to marry, not to civilly unite.

    The only “civil union” I want to hear about is the one that the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) would be if only it would sack current National Secretary, hardline Labor machine man and notorious opponent of same-gender marriage, Joe De Bruyn.

  15. Has anyone got a pie to throw at this Wanka!

    Frist he says his electorate overwhelmingly supports equality before the law and they want equal status for Marriage. He then pulls down his pants, has a shit, and throws it at those who have supported him, especially the GLBIT community.

    He might be a failed leader, but his a good at being arrogant prick! He does that the whole low life mongrel act really well.

    Is he proposing to amend the 1084 pieces of legislation that refer to Marriage? No. He wants a Civil Union Act that has now power over the many laws that refer to Marriage.

    It would take 20 years to amend all the laws that the Marriage Act is referenced by, or one can change a few words in the Marriage Act in one go.

    But this loser, is not even wanting to change the Federal Equal Opportunity Act and give us protection in it, as being a cruel bastard to elderly members of our community and denying some of them access to Nursing homes comes with the territory of arrogant prick!

    What a Wanka! This idiot did not want a Civil Union when he married!