Greens to have another go at gay weddings

Unbeliever,
you sound like you don’t think too highly of marriage.
Do you actually care about marriage or is it just about discrimination?

‘But we don’t want to erode the sanctity of marriage’ The fed’s objection to marriage comes down to this: Why can’t two women marry each other? Because they can’t. But why can’t they? Because they can’t. But why?…

I agree – government’s involvement in marriage should be minimal. And leave the ceremonies to individuals (even those who like poetry by their aunts).

Odd thing is, of the three parts of the quasi-legal definition of marriage under the Marriage Act – between a man and a woman, excluding all others, for life – two of those are barefaced lies! You can be married and in a federally legally recognised defacto relationship with someone else at the same time And sleeping with as many other people that you want. Do I even need to quote the stats for the rate of divorce in modern marriages in Australia?

But we don’t want to erode the sanctity of marriage….

I think that the governments part in marriage should involve going into the gov’t shop front, queuing with the people renewing their rego, providing 100 points of ID and a couple of hundred bucks, then having your rights as a couple recognised legally.

Any torturing of friends with fat aunt’s poetry (or ramblings about imaginary friends by old celibate dudes in dresses) should be totally optional.

Unbeliever said :

You can be married and in a federally legally recognised defacto relationship with someone else at the same time And sleeping with as many other people that you want.

Excellent.

Does anyone know what the “ceremonial component” that the Feds objected to looked like? I’m guessing it’s along the lines of “Apply to Registrar-General for permission to form a civil partnership; civil partnership then starts when document is signed by the parties” as opposed to the current “Parties apply to Registrar-General to register their civil partnership; civil partnership starts when Registrar-General approves application”.

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

What was that someone said about flogging a dead horse?

I’ve had relations,
with beasts from many nations…

Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. Civil Partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner’s children, as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one’s partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnerships_in_the_United_Kingdom

I’ve got no problems with that, I don’t see why gays shouldn’t suffer like the rest of us.

The simplest thing for the feds to do is to legislate for marriage equality – as opposed to requiring 6 states and 2 territories to pass relationship registration schemes – to then be recognised nationally.

Odd thing is, of the three parts of the quasi-legal definition of marriage under the Marriage Act – between a man and a woman, excluding all others, for life – two of those are barefaced lies! You can be married and in a federally legally recognised defacto relationship with someone else at the same time And sleeping with as many other people that you want. Do I even need to quote the stats for the rate of divorce in modern marriages in Australia?

What was that someone said about flogging a dead horse?

chewy14 said :

Unbeliever said :

There’s a bit that’s changed since the last three times that the fed gov decided to not support ceremonies. Turnbull is seen as supportive of gay rights issues and he has a lot of gay folks in his electorate. US politics has changed (with IOWA legislating marriage equality) and Obama having previously publically supported marriage equality. So as well as for all your reasons JB – this seems like the right time.

WTF does Obama’s and Iowa’s politics have to do with legislating for a ceremony at a civil union in Canberra?

Obama is the messiah. You shall bow to his mighty oration and wisdom.

Obama is my shepherd. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of financial destitution and bankruptcy, I will fear no evil, greedy bankers – for Obama is with me; his hot wife, daughters and his Portuguese Water Dog, they comfort me.

As the non-logical arguments go: ceremony in civil union = mimicking marriage. Btw even the term civil union is adopted from US politics (where it was framed specifically as a ‘seperate but equal’ scheme in relation to marriage.

Marriage is weakened when it’s mimicked. Marriage must be protected. From the US Defense of Marriage Act, Howard’s Marriage Act amendment was also a reaction to a fear that marriage needed protection from gays. US political position on protecting marriage was widely parrotted in federal politics here (even when unlike the American legal system – under federal laws here marriage equality could not be inferred and therefore enforced by the courts – according to the former chief justice of the family court of australia).

So let’s not be blind to the fact that the situation we’re in now (acceptability of a ceremony in civil unions) had nothing to do with US politics. C’mon.

There are a number of entrepreneurs already offering a ceremonial service for single sex unions and have been for some time. WTF would you legislate ceremonial aspects?

The issue is that the GILBT community want the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections to marry their partner as the adult heterosexual community. All this fiddling around the margins to try to get away with some sort of Claytons arrangement is just window-dressing.

If it is put to referendum, I’ll vote against people being allowed to write their own vows. The only reason to allow this travesty it so you can read the vows out to whichever person bunks on your sofa after the first big arguement [not actually recommended].

It’ll have to get through the Assembly to make it as far as a Federal kiboshing.

‘WTF does Obama’s and Iowa’s politics have to do with legislating for a ceremony at a civil union in Canberra?’ Are you asking me to explain your ignorance?

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

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

+1

Unbeliever said :

There’s a bit that’s changed since the last three times that the fed gov decided to not support ceremonies. Turnbull is seen as supportive of gay rights issues and he has a lot of gay folks in his electorate. US politics has changed (with IOWA legislating marriage equality) and Obama having previously publically supported marriage equality. So as well as for all your reasons JB – this seems like the right time.

WTF does Obama’s and Iowa’s politics have to do with legislating for a ceremony at a civil union in Canberra?

Good politics by the Greens on this one.

There’s a bit that’s changed since the last three times that the fed gov decided to not support ceremonies. Turnbull is seen as supportive of gay rights issues and he has a lot of gay folks in his electorate. US politics has changed (with IOWA legislating marriage equality) and Obama having previously publically supported marriage equality. So as well as for all your reasons JB – this seems like the right time.

Absolutely.

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