Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Chief Minister to announce same-sex relationship scheme

By Jey - 2 December 2005 43

In follow up to the ACT Government’s request for submissions for the same-sex relationship scheme discussion paper, the Chief Minister will be formally announcing the ACT Government’s relationships recognition scheme today.

Details are:
Attending: ACT Chief Minister
Media Conference: Friday 2 December 2005
Time: 12.30 pm
Location: ACT Legislative Assembly (ground floor, just inside the public entrance)

This is an open media conference and everyone is encouraged to attend.
This announcement is craftily coinciding with the end of the Canberra Pride Festival SpringOut (website down at time of posting, but it was working yesterday). The Chief Minister received a Pride Award at the SpringOut Fairday.

Good Process will be having celebration drinks – from 6pm at ScreenSound (Pride Awards 6:30pm, Movie 7:30pm).

Unfortunately I’m unable to attend the announcement but will try and post a follow up Saturday morning. If someone else wants to post it beforehand feel free.

UPDATE: The ACT Government is in the process of drawing up legislation for civil unions.
These unions will entitle all couples, not just same-sex couples, the same rights afforded to married couples under ACT law.

The press release and a fact sheet on civil unions can be found here.

OddlyGood Process is yet to put out a press release, maybe they’re too busy celebrating.

I would’ve updated sooner, as promised, but the RiotACT was down for me since that delightful apocalyptic storm on Friday arvo.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
43 Responses to
Chief Minister to announce same-sex relationship scheme
Maelinar 12:14 pm 02 Dec 05

It doesn’t, which was my point.

Kerces 12:03 pm 02 Dec 05

No, I still seem to be missing some vital logic here.

How the hell does being in any kind of love tirangle benefit children? And why would anyone think it would?

Maelinar 11:37 am 02 Dec 05

Well bonfire, thanks for asking that question. I’m not being forced to visually watch whatever congressions they may wish to do, however as a taxpayer, funding a lezzo couple to sit on their asses all day because they’re ‘stuck at home looking after their children’, and not in a recognised relationship so they both get the money that only one should be entitled to.

Fuck them. I’m working my butt off with the plan that my wife (when she gets pregnant) will be able to take time off, and we’ll be comfortable on the one income.

If I have to do it, so can they.

K, I clarify, even hetro people who get into love triangles ‘for their children’ are doing it for the wrong reasons.

So whilst ‘visually’ I am not being forced into ‘watching’, I’m certainly concerned that my taxpayer dollar is being misappropriated, and I’d like to ‘see’ where it’s going.

Jey 11:26 am 02 Dec 05

It matters to me that The State recognises unions because it enables ppl in said unions to the rights that ohter ppl in said unions enjoy (super, estate, next of kin, pension etc.).

I believe in equal rights for all (legal, human) relationships.

Absent Diane 11:24 am 02 Dec 05

Bonfire… I agree 100%…

bonfire 11:21 am 02 Dec 05

why should it even matter if the state recognises your union or not ?

recognition of marriage is a form of control. the church used its recognisition of marriage as a way of enforcing control, and the state does the same.

why people get all bent out of shape about others sexual perversioons is beyond me.

are they forcing you to watch ?

Kerces 11:09 am 02 Dec 05

Um mael…

People get into hetero love triangle for their children?

barking toad 10:57 am 02 Dec 05

yes, Maelinar and the Thumping one have pretty well summed up my thoughts on this issue. No problem with those that are on the gay side shacking up but they are not a couple as in man/woman when it comes to children and I don’t care how loving and caring they may be. 2 x sheilas (loose description) are lacking a dick and 2 x blokes (loose again) are lacking a womb.

And it’s typical to see the mayor not concentrating on the issues that are important to the great majority of Canberrans and pandering to the bleating minority hippie, gay, one legged indigenous greenie types including snouting politicians in public housing.

Fuck the hospital system, the GDE, potholes, lack of policing the deficit etc. Let’s save the the fucking whales

Maelinar 10:56 am 02 Dec 05

Col, nice point but people don’t get into lesbian love triangles for their children. If they did, I’d be very, very worried.

Bringing children into the equation is also something that should be ruled out, the issue is relationships.

Children are a fallout, and a seperate issue, although the onus of care is a responsibility of a relationship coupling.

colsim 10:39 am 02 Dec 05

d’oh, hoist on my own double post (mock away ssanta 🙂

colsim 10:38 am 02 Dec 05

Oh won’t somebody think of the children.

Well, I guess if Maelinar thinks that same-sex relationships are unfeasible, that’s the end of it.

I don’t know much at all about family payments and so that’s a whole other discussion ( but given that the Stan’s plan would be ACT based only, would it actually carry over to the federal system?)

I have to admit that I have at times felt uncomfortable about the emphatic celebration of sexuality that sometimes seems to come through gay culture but then I realised that if you look around straight culture, sex is everywhere, so maybe it’s more a matter that we just don’t notice it until a different spin is put on it.

(And on a technicality, IMHO PC depends on the political climate of the time, so given the religious right leanings of the commonwealth government, I’d say you are being entirely PC)

colsim 10:34 am 02 Dec 05

Oh won’t somebody think of the children.

Well, I guess if Maelinar thinks that same-sex relationships are unfeasible, that’s the end of it.

I don’t know much at all about family payments and so that’s a whole other discussion ( but given that the Stan’s plan would be ACT based only, would it actually carry over to the federal system?)

I have at times felt uncomfortable about the emphatic celebration of sexuality that sometimes seems to come through gay culture but if you look around straight culture, sex is everywhere, so maybe it’s more a matter that we just don’t notice it until a different spin is put on it.

Thumper 10:30 am 02 Dec 05

Problem is Jey, like all things in the ACT, any input that is not what the government wants to hear is conveniently forgotten.

Oh well, there’s bigger things to worry about like patients dying in hospitals, schools lacking funding, gaols not being built, a $91 million dollar deficit, etc…

Jey 10:26 am 02 Dec 05

Well perhaps you should’ve made a submission to the discussion paper.

Maelinar 9:59 am 02 Dec 05

*warning* – I’m about to get extremely non-PC.

It is widely recognised that in order to have a child, you require a male and a female. I dismiss outright the feasability of same sex partnerships as utter nonsense.

I am aware of the situation that there are those in society who abandon their partners and leave the other to raise the children, it is becoming widely recognised that (significantly) the abscence of a male in the formative years of a child leaves the child in a worse off position than average. I’m not going to go into golden children, nor exceptions to the rule, as they will always occur, but aren’t normal.

All that however, is not the situation, nor should they be entered into the discussion on relationships. Same sex relationships occur all the time, and I for one don’t give a fuck about them, I just wish they would keep their sexual antics in the bedroom like the rest of us manage to be able to do.

There are situations, such as two single mothers partnering up, the both of them claiming parent payment single, and licking each other stupid, or whatever it is that they do.

I disagree that they should both be eligible for PPS when they are a couple. Perhaps what they should be looking at, is eligiblity for welfare being limited to households.

eg: Woman A who lives at 1 Smith St, receives PPS, Woman B, who also lives at 1 Smith St, cannot because Woman A is already in receipt.

This, and similar normalisation will put things on equal level with the rest of us, and in turn cost the government less money in welfare.

Unless they approach this situation with a scalpel instead of a touchy feely, don’t really want to address the issues bandaid, they’re not going to solve anything.

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site