The debate on same-sex civil unions continues, with a press release from Jon Stanhope stating the new legislation is not ‘anti-Christian’, as the Australian Christian Lobby asserts, but about ‘inclusiveness’. Jim Wallace has in turn responded that Stanhope has no mandate as claimed.
There has been some vigorous debate on this site about the merits of same-sex civil unions (or otherwise) but a big part of the issue is the right of the ACT to govern for its citizens which have elected it. If a state passed similar laws, as Victoria and Tasmania are likely to do, the federal government would not be able to overturn them so easily, despite what they thought of the actual laws. The feds forced self government upon us, but won’t allow us to govern ourselves if our laws don’t meet their moral criteria. Butt out Rudd!
This comment came from housebound:
Now I can’t really see why there is so much fuss over a piece of paper and whether a ceremony has legal standing, since all levels of government are going through legislation and removing discrimination from everywhere. It was a long time ago, but I vaguely remember church weddings needing a piece of paper to be signed to be legal, so the difference really is what Stanhope sees as ‘a little pedantic and little technical’.
More to the point, it is now clear that the Feds – the Labor Feds who foisted self-government on us – still think that the public servants who govern a nation can’t be trusted to govern themselves (do they know something we don’t?). Apart from their importance to those affected, civil ceremonies are as big a deal on the scale of everything as some other contentious issues (that also affected people) that have come up in the past 20-odd years. But the Feds didn’t do anything then.
I say go all the way and remove self-government, or leave us alone.
We are a territory after all. We don’t really have the right to self-govern. It is merely a delegation to take care of business while the Federal government is occupied with issues of Federal importance. However, it would seem hypocritical of Federal government members not to intervene on issues they are elected to fight against.
Is civil unions in the ACT a matter of federal importance?
The legal status of the ACT as a territory is neither here not there when it comes to our moral right to self-determination.
GnT said :
It is if you’re afraid that all the fundies will get angry at you and swear their allegiance to the Liberal Party.
Maybe the fundies are against Gay Marriage because they know that if gay people can get married then they can have gay sex, and that will make fundies sad.
If ACT has self-government why does the NCA exist? Why do we only lease the land in the ACT? mmmm, sounds to me self-government is, and always has been, smoke and mirrors. Although, could we adopt similar legislation to NT as they are now technically a ’state’ I do believe. We have a bigger population than NT and more concentrated in a smaller area.
btw, what has any government got to do with religion anyway? They’re separate entities and should remain that way. Whilst the press release from Stanhope does separate the laws from being anti-Christian, what if, hypothetically, they were in fact that way inclined, legislation has nothing to do with the church. Legislation exists already that could be deemed anti-Christian, such as abortion, the fact most folk do stuff on the sabbath aka rest days, divorce, etc etc. So, as with the silly shenanigans that occurred on Mt Ainslie recently, leave religion out of politics!
The NT is not a state. I do not know where this myth originates from. Their laws can be overruled just as ours can be.
I think the issue is simple. If one of the states enacted this law, the Feds could do nothing about it. If the “sanctity of marriage” were somehow undermined, then they’d have no choice but to “suck it up.”
ACT laws should be treated the same way by the Feds – particularly given it’s the same mob who slagged off at Howard when he pulled the rug out last time. Talking to you Kate!
It’s the height of hypocrisy what the ALP are doing now at a Federal level. And I personally have had a gutful of Kevin Rudd treating the ACT citizenry as the populist whipping boy to be trotted out every time he wants a Canberra-bashing headline in the trash metro media.
NT was going to be a state, but it needed support at a referendum. That failed, and so the NT stayed a territory.
There was some local politics involved, but someone closer to NT-world would need to provide more detail.
Gungahlin Al said :
+1
ACT, NT, Jervis Bay Territory, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Island, Norfolk Island etc are all territories. Their only real power comes from Federal legislation enacted under s 128 of the Constitution (the Commonwealth has the power to make laws for a territory), which can be taken away. Territories cannot even compare to states, which have specified powers in accordance with the Constitution.
The Feds are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. If ACT was not given self-government, people would be whinging about being ‘taken over’. ACT was given self-government, and people still whinge. And it’s the same in the other territories…..
I can’t believe Rudd is thinking of overturning ACT law which was taken to not one but two territory elections and approved. If the public wanted this type of thing they would have returned the Howard government in 2007 rather than electing Labor, after all Howard did this and nailed his colours to the mast as a moral conservative throughout his term. This, along with Internet censorship will cause many who traditionally vote Labor for progressive policies to switch their vote to the Libs or Nats. After all, if we are going to have a conservative government we might as well have a fair dinkum one rather than a Claytons one.
I am slightly ambivalent about this topic but i would like to know the amount of people in the ACT who actually voted for Labor or the Greens with this issue being a major factor in their decision. I would think the number would be very small.
I would much rather the government stopped wasting time on crap like this when they know there is a chance of it getting overturned. They should focus on their core policies of buiding more cycle lanes, arboretums and public artworks.
chewy14 said :
Maybe, but it was a well-known part of both parties’ platforms so there’s a popular mandate to bring the legislation in.
To be honest I don’t care much for same sex marriage (but then again I suppose one shouldn’t knock it until one has tried it). On the other hand I care deeply about the fact that we Territorians should be allowed to govern ourselves.
If there is a conflict between ACT legislation and Commonwealth legislation then let the High Court sort it out.
And I personally have had a gutful of Kevin Rudd treating the ACT citizenry as the populist whipping boy to be trotted out every time he wants a Canberra-bashing headline in the trash metro media
+2.
His arrogant and patronising dismissal of Canberrans is an unconvincing and pathetic grab for votes.
Clown Killer said :
The Commonwealth legislation will win every time. If the state legislation was found to contradict Commonwealth legislation, the state legislation could also be ruled invalid and overturned. Putting the same or very similar legislation up repeatedly knowing that it will likely be overruled is a waste of time and our money.
caf said :
Well said.
The ACT assembly should just keep reintroducing this bill in different forms until the Feds get sick of intervening.
Oh and I forgot to add – if you do manage to get ‘civil-unioned’ before the law is overturned in the ACT, you can at least rest happy that you’ll be counted in the next Census.
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/news/20090507.htm
bd84 said :
…unless the Government thinks that it’s worth doing as a point of principle. I’m not in the market for a same-sex marriage, but I personally don’t have a problem with the ACT Government
taking a stand on the issue as the current ban is a pretty clear-cut case of discrimination.
Seriously, who gives a flying charnwood what the Australian Christian Lobby thinks?
Just out of interest (pardon my ignorance), why was the NT a territory to begin with, rather than a state?
The Commonwealth legislation will win every time. If the state legislation was found to contradict Commonwealth legislation, the state legislation could also be ruled invalid and overturned. Putting the same or very similar legislation up repeatedly knowing that it will likely be overruled is a waste of time and our money.
Under the Constitution the Commonwealth law will prevail to the extent that there is an inconsistency. This does not mean that the ACT legislation would be invalid in totality – only to the extent of the inconsistency. In any case, that is a matter for the High Court.
The reason Howard asked the Governor General to quash the ACT legislation last time was because he had real fears that there was no such inconsistency and he was not prepared to take the chance. If Rudd does the same then it will be because (a) he does not believe that Territorians have the right to govern themselves and (b) he perceives that there may be votes to be gained from nut-bag fundamentalists. His decision will of course be balanced against the likelihood of Canberra’s safe Labor seats falling to the coalition or minor parties (unlikely).
As a matter of principle, the ACT Legislative assembly has an obligation to continue to enact the same law as many times as it is necessary to ensure that it gets up.
Eby said :
Because it was part of South Australia at the time of Federation.
Personally, I hope Rudd does overturn this pile of nonsense. He’ll get my vote next time around if he does.
BigDave said :
Ah, yes the arch homophobe with another grubby post. This is the same Big Dave who said here last year “I’m not homophobic, I just don’t bloody like them”.
Cameron said :
Really, how interesting! Thanks for letting me know.
Madame Workalot said :
I’m not sure where Madame Workalot grew up, but let me assure you that there was never any talk of the Federal Government “taking over”, since the Federal Government was always in charge here. We had one referendum in 1978 where the populace of Canberra said, “NO F***ING WAY”, but we still got self-government anyway: almost 2/3rds majority saying, “leave us be”. Then in 1988 we had a Legislative Assembly elected with four seats going to joke parties such as “No Self Government Party” and “Abolish Self-Government Coalition.” Four more seats went to the Liberals, meaning 8 seats were voted in by people who didn’t respect the Federal Government’s wishes for ACT to be controlled by a local government.
The only reason we’ve ever been given for the imposition of local government is that the Federal Government at the time didn’t want to keep paying for upkeep of the administrative capital of the nation.
Since then we’ve had such wonderful advances in urban planning as Gungahlin – the jewel of that crown being suburbs like Amaroo where you can’t drive two cars side by side down the street without hitting wing mirrors on something. This is what happens when the local Government doesn’t have enough money to plan suburbs properly (or when we are forced to hire the urban planners that Sydney rejects). Not that I’m on a soap box or anything.
I fail to see the argument that the Feds have for how this ACT law conflicts with Fed law.
I see it as such. The Marriage ACT solely covers Man+Woman. The civil partnership act does not have this distinction, in fact it was specifically written for the opposite case Same+Same.
Therefore, the two are different.
+ 1 Grail! I remember it well …. we had the Sun-Ripen Warm Tomato Party, the Party! Party! Party! and Abolish Self Government Party – who promised, if elected, to somehow overturn the Federal Govt decision and do themselves out of the job … never happened (obviously).
If Rudd overturns the legislation it will demonstrate the power of the far right wing conservative fundementalists.
I voted for the Greens and this was one of the reasons why. More so the ability for ACT to create its own laws, than the gay rights issue the christian lobby is against. I personally feel everyone should have equal rights and right now only the greens seem to be offering that.
I’m guessing the Christian lobby groups don’t watch Animal planet, because there is lots of filthy unnatural behaviour in animals like homosexuality and hermaphrodites. I’ve yet to get an answer as well to the question “If god was so powerful to create everything on earth, why does he let all these things that christian lobby groups hate, occur in the first place?”.
Why does it seem today that people of no faith are the most tolerant and friendly people in the world?
I’m not ready to lose my CT letter-writing virginity so I’m just going to rant on RA instead:
There were some interesting (read: loopy) letters in CT today. Apparently one troglodyte who apparently speaks on behalf of Canberra’s “conservative” community feels their human rights and freedom of expression are being violated.
I imagine if we went back 100 years and the issue was womens’ suffrage, the letter would have been no different, although perhaps without the references to the Stasi and George Orwell.
“f a state passed similar laws, as Victoria and Tasmania are likely to do, the federal government would not be able to overturn them so easily, despite what they thought of the actual laws”
Don’t kid yourself. A State would find it impossible to function without Federal funding, and they can distribute or revoke parts of that on a whim. Try and find a piece of State legislation that the Feds really don’t like. And then, if you do, have a look at Section 109 of the Constitution. If necessary the Feds just create their own legislation and the inconsistent State law is nigh on struck out……and Section 51 (xxi) gives the Feds the ultimate power over ‘marriage’.
Not expressing feelings either way regarding this proposed legislation, but there are realities of law people don’t consider in their rants
In order to overturn a state’s law, the Federal government would have to argue the laws were unconstitutional, in particular infringing on their exclusive right to legislate on marriage. Since the Howard government amended the Marriage Act to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, any state’s same-sex civil union laws could not possibly be considered anything to do with marriage. The High Court would never rule they were unconstitutional. The Commonwealth would have a hard time overturning any state’s same-sex union laws, compared with the ease with which they can overturn a territory’s laws by an executive order.
I’m not a complete nincompoop – I think I have considered some of the ‘realities of law’ in my ‘rant’.
…compared with the ease with which they can overturn a territory’s laws by an executive order.
If you’re dumber than sheep shit you’ll argue that the issue is ‘constitutional’ in nature rather than a personal vendetta against self governance. But in the end, Krudd ad his dip-shit cronies could ar$efcuk your grannie and the people of Canberra would thank him for it and vote Labor on polling day so what difference would it make?
watto23 said :
I agree, watto23. It makes me incredibly sad sometimes.
R. Slicker said :
Ahh, the name calling and personal attacks begin…
sloppery said :
Oooh. I’m being victimised. I’m just expressing my opinion that homosexuals are all evil and that black people are subhuman and they’re calling me names and oppressing me.
Granny said :
Sorry,
but this is just a massive pile of crap.
There is at least as much bigotry going around from non religious people.
And as for your views on “Friendly people”, that is just a great example of self selection. Of course the people you hang around with that have the same views and ideals as you seem more friendly than others who have different views and ideals.
Thoroughly Smashed said :
This is the thing that I seriously don’t understand. How does a gay union affect, in way, ‘conservative people’s’ lives? They probably don’t even have any gay friends, so it isn’t like they’ll have to be coughing up money for more wedding pressies or anything. I really, really wish one of these ‘conservative’ could articulately explain how this impacts on their own personal lives (or the lives of their children). I am genuinely curious.
I really, really wish one of these ‘conservative’ could articulately explain how this impacts on their own personal lives (or the lives of their children). I am genuinely curious.
It makes their imaginary friend unhappy.
Personally, I think that if [insert deity here] had been a little more specific writing the software when [he/she/it] created humans, we wouldn’t be in this situation.
Jim Jones said :
You’re doing your cause no good with this attitude. If you don’t think we need structure and civility in such a debate, maybe I should feel free to use similar terms.
p1 said :
It was covered in previous thread, and those who tried to explain their thought process got shouted down with personal attacks, so now I suspect they won’t bother.
sloppery said :
Pretty much, ‘coz as mentioned multiple times by multiple people, by voicing an opinion against the majority here you’re labelled, attacked and ridiculed so no-one cares to bother anymore.
RiotACT should just become a ‘news’ based website, at least then debate/topic/conversation wouldn’t be biased and could probably be more beneficial.
ahappychappy said :
Ah bollocks.
You were pulling this argument in the last thread about gay marriage and it never happened. The only thing of interest in that thread was the bizarro ‘gay marriage would be just the same as incestuous marriage’ argument, which was dealt numerous logical death blows.
You can try to fool yourself that you’re being “oppressed” for voicing your opinion but the only people who will take you seriously are those who manage to ignore the ironic context of this statement (i.e. you’re attempting to use victimhood whilst arguing against a group that has been persecuted, demonised and vilified throughout this debate), and those who manage to ignore the fact that you haven’t brought any serious arguments or debate to the table.
sloppery said :
Could you please explain to me how the “same sex marriage would be the same as incestuous marriage” argument is indicative of “people trying to explain their thought processes” on this issue?
If you’ll look closely at the thread – the argument was dealt a serious of logical deathblows, none of which were responded to. I’d hardly call that “shouted down with personal attacks”.
chewy14 said :
Name a recent war where religion wasn’t involved?
Why are religions allowed to say whats right and wrong?
Why do we never hear about people of no faith trying to tell the church what to do? Usually its telling the church to mind their own business. People can believe what they want to believe, just don’t expect everyone else to follow the same ideals. I only draw the line on this when its illegal.
Oh my views were no less a generalisation than yours regarding my friends. In fact most of my friends believe in some kind of god, be it muslim, hindu or christian/catholic. I’m not saying they are not friendly people but their views and opinions differ greatly from me.
Pretty much, ‘coz as mentioned multiple times by multiple people, by voicing an opinion against the majority here you’re labelled, attacked and ridiculed so no-one cares to bother anymore.
The ridiculous thing is believing that there’s a single “RiotACT view” on any topic at all.
The only topic ever found that Rioters agree on is recumbent cyclists!
Jim Jones said :
Sorry Jim,
i just had a look at that thread and I can’t find any of these wonderous logical deathblows you mention. Ahappychappy made a logical argument which you then disagreed with. Fair enough you want gay marriage to be legalised but I don’t understand how you can’t see the point ahappychappy was making.
I actually think the proponents of gay marriage do themselves a disservice by using the equality argument, because it allows argument like ahappychappy’s to be made. You can’t logically say that everyone should be treated equally while reserving the right to then discriminate on the same issue based on your own personal preferences afterwards.