Another take on Civil Unions

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regarding marriage, and marriage is closely associated with partnerships formed under religion (and i think religion is outdated poppycock and want nothing to do with it).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”