Skip to content Skip to main navigation

ACT civil partnerships legislation loses ceremonial component

toriness 4 May 2008 40

the ACT attorney-general simon corbell has just announced that they have been forced to drop the ceremonial component of the civil partnerships/unions legislation which is going to be retabled this week – purely because the federal government have broken their election commitment (to not interfere in state & territory matters) and stated they will overturn the legislation in its current form.

i personally don’t care whether there is a ‘state-sanctioned’ ceremony or not – although i do like the ACT govt’s ‘f you’ with their proposed administrative ceremonies as an alternative to one enshrined in legislation – but it pisses me off that rudd’s team is doing the exact opposite what they did in 2006 when they voted against the overturn in the senate, it’s 2-faced backwards BS.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
40 Responses to ACT civil partnerships legislation loses ceremonial component
Mælinar Mælinar 2:00 pm 22 May 08

Ari – I think he was responding to a post about the first person claiming marriage crucifix threat. Another empty promise by he who flaps wildly by firing missiles at everything.

Ari Ari 1:14 pm 22 May 08

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Marriage belongs to religion in general. It doesn’t originate within the state.

In fact, it belongs to ME!!! And you can’t have it.

… except if both chicks are hot, VY?

Thumper Thumper 1:06 pm 22 May 08

Agreed Mr Bands.

justbands justbands 12:59 pm 22 May 08

Some of you people have some real internal issues you need to get resolved. Personally, I couldn’t give two flying f***s who gets married or not….gay or straight. I don’t know why it worries some of you so much. Insecure anyone?

BigDave BigDave 12:55 pm 22 May 08

And if you don’t like it, piss off to Tasmania or another one of those soft as shite places.

BigDave BigDave 12:54 pm 22 May 08

Marriage belongs to a man and a woman. End of.

Grumpy Smurf Grumpy Smurf 5:23 pm 09 May 08

GnT said :

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.

Here, here… Very disapointed in Stanhope.

After all the ho-ha last time around the ACT has given in and done exactly as Howard wanted… but wait, isnt he like not the PM anymore??? I appreciate the objective of recognising same sex relationships at law, but that wasnt the sticking point… yet another case of Stanhope being ‘seen’ to be doing something coming up to the election, that actually achieves nothing – about as useful as the single lane GDE – that he’ll promise to expand.

sepi sepi 7:33 pm 07 May 08

If marriage still belonged to the church divorce would still be illegal.

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 4:53 pm 07 May 08

Aw, but I claimed it. I asked god and he…well, his son..umm…you’d better take a look –

Woody Mann-Caruso Woody Mann-Caruso 4:34 pm 07 May 08

So long as a man rides his hobbyhorse peaceably and quietly along the King’s highway, and neither compels you or me to get up behind him – pray, Sir, what have either you or I to do with it?

~ Laurence Sterne, 1759

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy 4:10 pm 07 May 08

Marriage belongs to religion in general. It doesn’t originate within the state.

In fact, it belongs to ME!!! And you can’t have it.

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 3:10 pm 07 May 08

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.

BigDave BigDave 12:44 pm 07 May 08

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

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy 10:15 am 07 May 08

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

Thumper Thumper 4:37 pm 05 May 08

Emos don’t marry, they never get old enough to do so and if they did they’d bore their partners to death with their constant whining anyway…

p1 p1 4:33 pm 05 May 08

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…

astrojax astrojax 2:22 pm 05 May 08

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]

VicePope VicePope 12:23 pm 05 May 08

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.

neanderthalsis neanderthalsis 11:26 am 05 May 08

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…

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy 10:50 am 05 May 08

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.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2020 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | | |

Search across the site