5 December 2007

Civil Unions - is the deal sealed?

| caf
Join the conversation
27

The CT today carries a story under the headline Stanhope digs in on gay unions, which at first glance appears to show Sonic attempting a bit of “shock and awe” with the new Federal Government on the contentious issue of gay & lesbian civil unions in the ACT. The rhetoric is firey – he has “warned his federal Labor colleagues against interfering in the ACT’s business”, he will “brook no such intervention from the new Prime Minister”, and even “We will do what we need to do to have it passed” (leaving open the pleasing potential for a blockade of Parliament house by ACT-government badged Priuses, until our demands are met?).

However, a moments reflection makes one wonder at the underlying Realpolitik. Consider the following:

* This was provided to the CT, presumably by the Chief Minister’s Department, yet there was no official media release. This allows the Chief Minister more control on the way in which his comments are reported.

* It is a silly tactic to enter into negotiations, declaring that you will not be moved in your position. If you cannot move in your position, there can be no negotiation.

* Our current negotiating position is apparently the “watered down” version of the Civil Unions legislation, not the original that was first rejected by the Howard Government. Usually in a negotation, you will begin by asking for more than you think you will get, allowing yourself room to move while still getting most of what you want.

* It would politically a bad move to nail one’s colours to the mast so comprehensively on an outcome that is beyond your control. This would leave open the possibility, perhaps even the probability, of being forced into a humiliating backdown.

The logical conclusion? That a deal has already been struck – presumably prior to the Federal Election – and Federal Labor has agreed not to overturn the ACT Government’s Civil Unions legislation, provided it is passed in the current “watered down” form. Stanhope’s comments today are simply playing to the local audience, allowing him to appear to have publically stood up to the Feds and driven a hard bargain. The real negotations have already been concluded.

Note also that Stanhope’s comments have also laid the groundwork for Federal Labor to use “states rights” as the reasoning for allowing the legislation through, which will save them from having to make a comment either way on what they think about the substance of the legislation.

At the end of the day, my assessment is that we will soon have Civil Unions here in the ACT, which is certainly a good thing. In addition, the acceptance of this legislation by the Federal Government will be on a “states rights” basis, which will set a precedent of sorts and that is an even better thing.

Join the conversation

27
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

By the way, we seem to have pendulum-swung from being a canvas-hood lynch-mob to all over news about LBGTransgenderTranssexualQueer rights.

When’s the next Klan meeting, jb?

There’s an update, if any moderator is approving.

In fact it is more technically correct to refer to marriage as a business transaction, that is where its historic roots lay (as in using female children as a bargaining chip), it got nothin to do with religious people and their imaginary friends.

Just for the record, the concept of marriage was around a long time before Jesus showed up (or Abraham or Mohammed or Buddha or even Zeus), so people claiming that it is somehow inhererntly tied up with religion just might want to rethink that little factoid.

Various religions might get all up in arms about people screwing with their concept of a ‘marriage’, but arguably they have no greater claim to the institution than do confetti manufacturers.

Except for the whole ‘god says so I’m right’ angle I guess.

If only you’d made that comment re: the ACT Residency provision, the CT would have quoted you…
Maybe write a letter to the editor?

“Come up with a new name. Gayage fits.”

Capital Gayns?

There is at least 2 definitions to marriage threading through this conversation.

Firstly, marriage as in two train carriages being connected. This is a descriptor that is used to define a connection.

Secondly, marriage as in a man and a woman legally connected to each other via a church. Post depowerement of the church nee the State, marriage was extended to mean a man and a woman legally connected to each other ‘not necessarily via a church’ – aka a registry wedding etc.

Both versions of marriage mean a coupling, but the definition pertaining to men and women is not really up for much more redefinition without getting a few family first members up in arms (I’m not even going near Toowoomba on this one)…

Come up with a new name. Gayage fits.

Jessica, I am avaliable for interview if you would like to use my comments.

I agree. The thing that most compromises the sanctity of marriage is divorce, and that’s legal. How can more people getting married threaten marriage?

heheheh @ Mr Waffle.

But seriously, i’m so over this whole sanctity of marriage BS. Straight people are soooo good at defending the sanctity of marriage aren’t they? People like Britney Spears and Heather Mills… they give marriage such a good name!

… yelling “We’re coming back”

When I read “gay union”, my first thought was of burly tradesmen wearing pink fluro jackets demanding workers rights with a lisp…

Caf – the definition was more in the order of a shallow comment, and not really intended to be a deep and meaningful expression of the meaning of marriage. That said, marriage has its origins in religion. If people want civil union then fine, but why argue about calling it marriage?

If this law is passed, well I’ll be ‘spurned on” to put my “canvas” hood on and march on the Legislative Assembly……. 🙂

VY: so if one partner in a traditional marriage was infertile, that’s not really a marriage either? I think your definition has a problem.

It probably won’t happen this election unless the ACT Libs can quit their fussin’ and a feudin’ and bring some order to their affairs, but it would be nice.
We can dream, can’t we?

perhaps a precursor to the election loss we’re all looking forward to.

Only if there’s something better on offer surely?

Now, what if Jessica Wright’s researcher\mother could have ghostwritten on this thread instead…

But seeing Stanhope\Corbell retreating on an issue would be nice, and perhaps a precursor to the election loss we’re all looking forward to.

Absent Diane9:25 am 06 Dec 07

what the fuck is sanctity of marriage. Its meaningless; so who cares. If they want to do it let them do it. Non-issue.

How many years until people realise that politicians being openly religious is a bad thing, not many I expect.

I agree with the the above comment, whereby all partnerships are civil unions under law and marriages are simply a matter for the church..

The only things Jess gets down is a nice glass of semellion.

When they can produce a kid, they can be called ‘married’.

(Are you getting this down Jess…?)

Vic Bitterman8:21 pm 05 Dec 07

Civil unions between same sex people are fine. Hell, even between “Man and Harley Davidson” if desired.

But they are not “marriages”, and will never be.

Oh, and @johnboy: it’s Pope Kevin, thank you. The first saint of this current papacy is Saint Bernard of Camellia, martyred patron saint of asbestosis sufferers, whose symbol in religious art is an ant being trampled by fire-retardant elephant.

I’d like to see someone implement the solution proposed by the fictional mayor of New York, Mitchell Hundred: ban all marriage! That is, remove all mention of marriage from all laws, state and federal, and refer instead to Civil Unions throughout. Then, if someone wants to get married church-style, have provision for a clergyperson of the appropriate flavour to take the official Civil Union License, add a Marriage License as issued by their church, and call the result a marriage as well. In the case of me and my Beloved, we’re happy to be Civilly United or whatever, rather than married, if it makes no difference to our legal status. Let the churches deal with church business and the governments deal with government business; “render unto Caesar” and all that.

Ahh Boomacat subscribes to the “Saint Kevin” theory of neo-socialism wish fulfillment.

Never mind the man’s own statements over the years.

I think Caf’s analysis is sound.

(Even if it does ignore the spiky one’s prodigious talent for being a bone-headed moron)

Despite how Rudd’s comments have been interpreted, I really don’t think he has a problem with same sex unions, in fact given his christian humanism style I’d say he’d be all for it. As long as the term “marriage” isn’t used, I think it’ll be ok (which makes no sense to me, the marriage Act makes no mention of god, it is a secular, not religious, institution in Australia).

In any case, the Commonwealth should not interfere in what is absolutely a Territory issue. Why give us self-government otherwise?

The Howard era is dead, thank god. Even his precious “Liberal” party is now repudiating him. ha ha ha, L O S E R.

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

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.