ACT civil partnerships legislation loses ceremonial component

Marriage is a tradition that has survived through many different religions and ways of life. It doesn’t belong to anyone. I swear will ram a crucifix into the mouth of the next person who says it does.

Oh what a shame. The poor homosexuals. Must write a letter to complain. Not…

Ahh Emos – just another group that I don’t give a shit about.

Homosexuals are not recognised in the Bible or Koran. Therefore they can not be married.

I guess all the Hindus, budhists and Emos are f#uked then…

but I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

gee, so funny…

actually never worked out why this is purportedly funny anyway (not a go at you, berlina) because if two hot chicks got married, it’d be two hot chicks fewer for horny & hot or otherwise blokes’ access… a net loss of two babes, so why funny?

or is it to be hoped they film themselves like everyone else and post at lesotube, or watchhotlesbos.cum or something..?

and as gnt points out there are a range of issues in this one, but respect for all citizens seems to be the critical one [so respecting act citizens to elect a govt to pass their laws would be nice]

Is there anyone else who really couldn’t care about whether (a) there is recognition of same sex relationships, (b) there is some kind of ceremony to inaugurate the formal bit of such relationships or (c) we call it marriage or (d) we define things in terms of relationships, one of which happens to be marriage and with other relationships getting pretty much the same deal?

As my handle suggests, I am a religious person. But the self-appointed inquisition that is the Australian Christian Lobby does not speak for me. I meet and work every day with people who are in same sex relationships – not one of them has bitten me, insulted me for my heterosexuality or anything else related to it. I have no illusions about being attractive to the gaily inclined of either sex, and I am fully across the difference between normal people with a same sex orientation and the perverts who are weird/illegal/disgusting.

Let the same sex relationships be, and rejoice if they find happiness in stable relationships.

Well, Rudd has to pander up to those who will soon hold the balance of power in the Senate. The Ultra-Right Looney Christian Party (aka Family First) and Mr No Pokies – Xenophon all espouse those Christian ideals of marriage / civil union / life commitment / quick shag being a holy event and not for sodomites & carpet munchers.

Rudd has shown that he lacks the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the Christian Conservative types and has once again confirmed that he is full of empty rhetoric and not willing to make the tough decisions.

Oh, and since no one has said it yet: I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot…

well, a) no it isn’t, rather it was a societal construct to ‘trade’ women as chattel from one man – father – to another – new husband, which religions appropriated, just like christmas… … and conducted for the last several thousand years, up to very recently, historically speaking.

and b) no it tisn’t, or how do 30-40% of marriages you’d seemingly have no problem with occur outside religion, ie in a civil ceremony. so what? They choose to have a legally binding occasion held independently of a religious organisation, which is essentially the same but with the religious bits removed (which is why is typically only goes for 10 minutes or so).

I don’t have a problem with gay civil unions – there’s no reason why gay people shouldn’t have the same legal relationship rights as anyone else, but I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

I’m rather disappointed with all this too.

Disappointed in Kate Lundy for toeing a simplistic line, disappointed in Rudd and McLelland (read last Thursday’s 7.30 report transcript for a good laugh at Kerry showing him up as engaging in foolish logic) for being so intransigent and just as bad as J-Ho frankly.

I think Corbell should have soldiered on, passed it through and waited for the Commonwealth to do something. Calling their bluff, so to speak.

Finally, I’d love to have a situation where the High Court would hear this and opine as to what the constitution means when it gives a power as to marriage because right now we’re all dancing around a question that hasn’t been answered: at law what is marriage, and who legislates on it.

Had ACT passed something and someone challenged it, at least we’d have an answer. (Side note: notice how noone has said they had legal advice either way this time around?)

Very, VERY disapointed in both the Stanhope government and the Rudd government.

First of all, the big issue here is not about gay civil unions. It’s about allowing the ACT to makes laws for the citizens of the ACT, and not backflipping on promises.

Stanhope and Corbell shouldn’t have caved. If they were prepared to stand up to Howard, they should be prepared to stand up to Rudd. This decision is a purely political one – they don’t want a fight with their Labor mates. And the ACT community suffers by not having a government prepared to stand up for them.

Rudd and co are two-faced. They voted NOT to overturn the legislation when they were in opposition, yet now they are reversing their stance. Rudd has realised there are no votes in the ACT (or else he already has them regardless) so he’s pandering to the wider Australian community to overturn what the ACT has voted for the ACT citizens. It should have nothing to do with the feds – wouldn’t if it was a state trying to pass this legislation.

At least Kate Lundy will be cheering she doesn’t have to show how spineless she is by not crossing the floor like Gazza did.

berlina rekkuns marriage is a religious event.

well, a) no it isn’t, rather it was a societal construct to ‘trade’ women as chattel from one man – father – to another – new husband, which religions appropriated, just like christmas…

and b) no it tisn’t, or how do 30-40% of marriages you’d seemingly have no problem with occur outside religion, ie in a civil ceremony.

the christian lobby says marriage is ‘traditionally between a man and a woman’. so? traditionally, people burnt witches, sacrificed children, enslaved whole races and still mutilate women in the name of religion and other ‘traditions’. why is this so sacrosanct from change? why is it a threat?

[i am entirely heterosexual btw, but not that this should influence my statements’ reading]

just what is being ‘registered’ when the relationship is registered in act law, if not an ersatz marriage. and if that’s the case, isn’t this hypocritical, esp when 100 other laws are being amended to remove discrimination against same sex relationships?

I like the one about sending wild animals to devour the children of people who are disobedient. Can we organise wild animals to go and devour the children of all those who spend their baby bonus on consumer discretionary purchases?

I think most (normal) people support that gay couples should have full recognition in law. I’m not sure about the ceremony thing… currently hetero couples who get married are free to choose all kind of weird-arse ceremonies, there’s no one set way. Or is the problem that Rudd’s white picket fence brigade won’t let gays claim to be married? Just partners.

The Libs actually suggested the removal of the ceremony from the proposed legislation about two years ago as a way to end the deadlock between the Territory and the Howard Government.

What a waste of time.

ACT Liberals opposition seem pleased with the same-sex changes thats according to ABC online. Fcuk the fact that the Territory gets screwed over again on being able to make its own legislation.

Their inner warmth is based on the key recommendations of the authoritative Leviticus report, I wonder what other recommendations they intend to bring in from that document for election policy? I want to see their policy on stonings!!!

The Leviticus Report Key Recommendations:

The first part Leviticus 1-16, and Leviticus 27, constitutes the main portion of the Priestly Code, which describes the details of rituals, and of worship, as well as details of ritual cleanliness and uncleanliness. Within this section are:

Laws regarding the regulations for different types of sacrifice (Leviticus 1-7):
Burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and thank-offerings (Leviticus 1-3)
Sin-offerings, and trespass-offerings (Leviticus 4-5)
Priestly duties and rights concerning the offering of sacrifices (Leviticus 6-7)
The practical application of the sacrificial laws, within a narrative of the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Leviticus 8-10)
Aaron’s first offering for himself and the people (Leviticus 8)
The incident in which “strange fire” is brought to the Tabernacle by Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu, leading to their death directly at the hands of God for doing so (Leviticus 9-10)
Laws concerning purity and impurity (Leviticus 11-16)
Laws about clean and unclean animals (Leviticus 11)
Laws concerning ritual cleanliness after childbirth (Leviticus 12)
Laws concerning tzaraath of people, and of clothes and houses, often translated as leprosy, and mildew, respectively (Leviticus 13-14)
Laws concerning bodily discharges (such as blood, pus, etc.) and purification (Leviticus 15)
Laws regarding a day of national atonement, Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16)
Laws concerning the commutation of vows (Leviticus 27)
The second part, Leviticus 17-26, is known as the Holiness Code, and places particular, and noticeable, emphasis on holiness, and the holy. It is notably more of a miscellany of laws. Within this section are:

Laws concerning idolatry, the slaughter of animals, dead animals, and the consumption of blood (Leviticus 17)
Laws concerning sexual conduct (including some that are referring to either bisexuality or possibly male homosexuality), sorcery, and moloch (Leviticus 18, and also Leviticus 20, in which penalties are given)
Laws concerning molten gods, peace-offerings, scraps of the harvest, fraud, the deaf, blind, elderly, and poor, poisoning the well, hate, sex with slaves, self harm, shaving, prostitution, sabbaths, sorcery, familiars, strangers, and just weights and measure (Leviticus 19)
Laws concerning priestly conduct, and prohibitions against the disabled, ill, and superfluously blemished, from becoming priests, or becoming sacrifices, for descendants of Aaron, and animals, respectively (Leviticus 21-22)
Laws concerning the observation of the annual feasts, and the sabbath, (Leviticus 23)
Laws concerning the altar of incense (Leviticus 24:1-9)
The case law lesson of a blasphemer being stoned to death, and other applications of the death penalty (Leviticus 24:10-23), including anyone having “a familiar ghost or spirit”, a child insulting its parents (Leviticus 20), and a special case for prostitution (burning them alive) (Leviticus 21)
Laws concerning the Sabbath and Jubilee years (Leviticus 25)
A hortatory conclusion to the section, giving promises regarding obedience to these commandments, and warnings and threats for those that might disobey them, including sending wild animals to devour their children. (Leviticus 26:22)

Pandy said :

Homosexuals are not recognised in the Bible or Koran. Therefore they can not be married.

Really? Is that why religious fanatics always quote Leviticus out of context and Muslims maintain that the penalty for homosexuality in the Koran is death?

if you claim that there are not committed gay couples out there then you have your head buried in the sand.

Any chance you could identify where anyone in this thread makes such a claim?

i should have known better than to even bother posting this news item.

it was never ‘gay marriage’ nor a religious ceremony. the church can keep the word marriage for all i care, this is about rights and obligations of committed couples. if you claim that there are not committed gay couples out there then you have your head buried in the sand. i certainly want nothing to do with those nutters in the churches, in fact i believe in the spaghetti monster and teapot – not that mystical old bearded man and the dead dude with the bleeding palms (although he did ‘come back’ ….is he a zombie? i don’t mind zombies).

I’m glad there won’t be ‘gay marriages’. Regardless of what society has chosen to adopt (or not), marriage is a religious event. If the gay community really dislikes religion as much as they seem to, why do they want to participate in a religious ceremony anyway? Seems kind of hypocritical to me.

If gay people want a civil union, then great, it’s their lives.

Groan

….meant to say “saw the protesters on ABC news”. Suppose you could say the Feds have got the lesbian marriages licked on this one.

Saw on the ABC news … and, do you have to be ugly to have one of these ceremonies ?

The poor buggers (har har, geddit… oh no, it’s Jessica Wright!) never had a chance. This issue wasn’t going to play at all well with those who’re nodding whenever Rudd says Working Families and flings several more handfuls of cash at them. It was one thing to support it in opposition, but since the Howard Battlers became overnight Working Families, the race is on to have an even whiter picket fence.

Does not mean they can not have a civil union. Plenty do from marriage celebrants.

Homosexuals are not recognised in the Bible or Koran. Therefore they can not be married.

Thank God the Rudd Government has shown some common sense. Let homosexual couples sign agreements about their belongings, let them have equality with superannuation etc etc etc etc but letting them get “married” FFS! Let’s draw a line in the sand. You are a minority group. Get over it. Declare your love and split your financial worth in life and in death and realise that most of us don’t give a shit about this stupid fight to have your biblically unnatural unions recognised in a manner religious or otherwise.