8 February 2007

Another take on Civil Unions

| johnboy
Join the conversation

The Simbo/Simto gestalt posted the following as a comment but I thought it deserved more air.

It’s Time…for Mateship!!

I think we should give up on Gay Civil Unions if that is too much of a threat to the fragile institution of marriage. We should model our relationships on a much more robust and virile institution…. Mateship! We should pursue a Civil Domestic Mateship Act. Even the Prime Minister understands and even promotes the sanctity of mateship between two (or more) men. He will struggle with mateship between women and will probably assume we don’t exist anyway.

Having celebrated your Domestic Mateship…..and who is going to knock that? It will be so much easier introducing your dearly beloved…. No longer would we have to stumble over the proper form of introduction…no longer lover, partner, boyfriend, girlfriend…. How simple “May I introduce you to my mate (insert name here)?” My mate…says it all, doesn’t it? If you want to make it really clear you are ’special mates’ can give a big wink to whomever you’re introducing your mate to.

We could even let the Prime Minister have his [way?] with a preamble to the Constitution. Enshrine mateship. We know what he really means 😉

C’mon Simon, why not give this a go and watch the tories squirm?

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments

arent those the lyrics to a blur song ?

What’s next 4 toilets ?

1 for boys who like boys
1 for boys who like girls
1 for girls who like girls
1 for girls who like boys

17% and 25%, eh – kinda backs up the view of sexuality as a sliding scale rather than a dichotomy of gay/straight.

Well guys, we are all stuffed because apparently one in four women are lesbians.

Nah, just a better chance of a threesome dude.

I was reading some raving Christian’s letter to the editor in the CT yesterday proclaiming that marriage was reserved for hetrosexual couples, when the thought occurred to me – surely they would be in favour of gay marriage because it would keep all the gay couples off the street at nights and home in front of the tele, just like it does for the hetro couples.

Excellent mateship idea. Plus you can say you mate with your mate.

bonfire: why you would invite any authority to dictate to you what your relationship is boggles me.
Because if I were a hot chick in a gay mateship with another hot chick, it would need to be legally recognised for the future custodial protection of our joint children, for her to easily access my superannuation on my death, to buy a house together without the added paperwork of a tenancy-in-partnership or whatever the heck it is…

And I’d like to add that I am not a hot chick, nor am I in a gay mateship.

indeed i do wonder why anyone would get married…

Absent Diane4:22 pm 09 Feb 07

i find marriage mind boggling

Surely, though, bonfire, anybody who chooses to get married is already inviting an authority to dictate what their relationship is.

Which would make, oh, any married people in the world boggling to you. You must be boggled a lot.


what a foolish term.

i chide people who use that term. are they ashamed to introduce person x as their boyfriend/girlfriend/defacto ? are they so unsure of the status of their relationship they squib with a nonsensical description?

in respect to this so called consultation – heres my take.

no doubt vested interests in special interest lobby groups availed their membership and associated email dists with details of the ‘consultation process’ – assuring the submission process would reflect an overall positive reception for the act govts prefereed option.

this reminds me of the human rights legislation process.

the haughty public meeting convenors were quite dismissive of peopel in the audience who were at odds with their preferred options.

and at no stage were the public given the opportunity to decide.

a change to marriage and its status is an important enough matter for a referendum, or to be debated as a central plank of party policy at an election.

i personally dont care if people shack up with alpacas (as long as they are consenting) but dont tell me that the majority of people think its OK. why you would invite any authority to dictate to you what your relationship is boggles me.

VYBerlinaV8_now with_added_grunt2:28 pm 09 Feb 07

I only believe in gay mateship when both chicks are hot.

simbo – the facts are that the ACT govt actually researched various models which they could adopt, released a paper about them, and accepted submissions/consulted with people in the community about what they wanted in the ACT.

registration (ie the Tas and SA models) was one of the models outlined in the paper and it is considered a ‘lesser’ model than civil unions. we are people, not dogs or a car, so prefer civil unions over registration. one of the models was marriage as well.

personally i submitted that i preferred civil unions over marriage – for a number of reasons… the main ones being that marriage is governed by federal government so they could overturn it in that ACT government is not permitted to make laws regarding marriage, and marriage is closely associated with partnerships formed under religion (and i think religion is outdated poppycock and want nothing to do with it).

so in conclusion there were several models proposed and based on community reaction/consultation and legal realities – the ACT government decided to go forward with the civil unions model.

the overturning by the federal government is a legal move specific to only ACT and NT – as we are territories and not states like Tas and SA.

It should be pointed out that Ruddock has already said that he will block this ACT legislation before it has been debated, amended and passed so the specifics of it clearly doesn’t matter (so even if it was a carbon copy of the Tasmanian model it wouldn’t help).

But Meal, is your mateship recognised by the government?

Friday, Durham day Thumper.

Mrs Maelinar gave me a kiss goodbye and mentioned to me to have a good time down at the Durham this afternoon, so no, she doesn’t have a problem with the Durham appointment.

I would like to point out at this juncture (esp. as I’m being used as a reference basis) that Mrs Maelinar comes to the Durham as well, albeit so does Mrs Thumper.

On occasions, so does Mini Mael.

My previous comments have ommitted them primarily because they are not RiotACTers (or at least posting RiotACTers), so nobody would have known them anyway.

So in truth, any comments to the effect of ‘Thumper and Mael down the Durham’, generally entails more than just the two of us.

All that said, Thumper and I are mates anyway, and have been known to shoot off down to the local for a pint or 18 on the odd occasion.

Maybe they’re afraid of being had up for plagiarism on “Media Watch”, simbo.

Well, the Feds can block the ACT model a lot quicker than they could block either the Tas or SA models – but I’m not sure about whether there are any functional differences between the two models.

It’d seem like the ACT mob are missing a beat by not copying those models, though – but, hey, did I ever accuse the ACT mob of being a brains-trust?

I dunno, but tomorrow’s Saturday. Yay!

“My mate won’t let me come to the pub”.

“Oh, what a bastard”.

“My partner won’t let me come to the pub”.

“Oh, is he gay too then?”.

I should point out, I didn’t come up with this – it’s from the ACT gay and lesbian mailing list. I haven’t cited the person who posted it because I don’t know if they want their name reproduced outside of that mailing list.

Anyway, there’s probably a bonus to this that hetro-men who just like hanging out together could probably register for this as well. Just think of it, Thumper and Maelinar could have it written into their Civil Mateship agreement that Mrs. Maelinar can’t refuse him permission to pay his regular pilgramage to the Durham…

In animal culture, ‘mate’ means roughly the same thing as a marriage. Only difference is, in animal culture your mate will piss off after a few months of rooting, and find someone better to root. Oh wait, that is the same as human marriage.

I prefer this to the frightful and all-pervasive use of the word “partner”. Seems to be some kind of PC thing. Married people don’t appear to want to admit to having a “husband” or “wife” anymore. I’d rather say “can I bring my mate along”, instead of “partner”.

john howard could introduce george bush as his “mate”

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.