Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Thinking about your business
Is a big part of ours

Greens to have another go at gay weddings

By johnboy 20 May 2009 33

The Canberra Times informs us that the Greens are going to try legislate a “ceremonial aspect” for gay and lesbian civil unions.

One can only suspect they’re doing this to present the spectacle of the Labor government at the commonwealth level giving it the kibosh, with possible bonus stupid statements from the Liberals. In short it probably won’t get up, but it will make the Greens look good so why not give it a whack?

If we were starting from scratch we wouldn’t have a legislated “ceremonial aspect” for anyone’s civil union / marriage. But if we’re stuck with it, and if people insist on making their friends listen to bad poetry written by their fat friend, then I guess it should be open to everyone.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
33 Responses to
Greens to have another go at gay weddings
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
caf 10:07 am 21 May 09

Section 15 of the Civil Partnerships Act says:

15 Civil partnerships under corresponding laws
(1) A regulation may provide that a relationship under a corresponding law is a civil partnership for the purpose of territory law.
(2) In this section:
corresponding law means a law of a State or another Territory prescribed by regulation for this definition (whether or not the law corresponds, or substantially corresponds, to this Act).

There are currently no regulations made under this provision, however.

frontrow 9:58 am 21 May 09

Does anyone know how local law treats same-sex couples who are legally partnered in another jurisdiction (such as the UK one PB mentioned above)?

willo 8:09 am 21 May 09

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

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

and naked

DrKarl 1:09 am 21 May 09

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

I agree, why commit to hetro hell!!

S4anta 2:08 pm 20 May 09

Thumper said :

You can flog a dead horse but you still can’t get him to cook you scrambled eggs for breakfast?

However flogging a dead horse will tenderise it before you place it on the spit

Unbeliever 1:42 pm 20 May 09

‘Do you actually care about marriage or is it just about discrimination?’

Depends what you mean by marriage. Marriage as a legal structure for equal right – yes. Marriage as an enforced social policy as the moral epitome of all relationships – defined in religiosity and pushed by the likes of the australian christian lobby as the cornerstone of human civilisation – no.

It is about equality in federal laws.

caf 1:37 pm 20 May 09

The problem is that many people like the idea that their marriage officially starts at wedding ceremony.

What you’ve described is exactly how it works for “civil partnerships” at the moment.

chewy14 1:35 pm 20 May 09

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

What about we approach this problem from another angle? We should make registering your union at the govt registry the legal requirement, and then you can go on to whatever ceremony you want. Then everyone gets a legally recognised union. The people who wish to go to church can do so. Those who want a civil ceremony can have one. Those who want nothing more than a kickass holiday far away from their loser families can have that also.

Problem solved.

+1

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

Love your work!

What about we approach this problem from another angle? We should make registering your union at the govt registry the legal requirement, and then you can go on to whatever ceremony you want. Then everyone gets a legally recognised union. The people who wish to go to church can do so. Those who want a civil ceremony can have one. Those who want nothing more than a kickass holiday far away from their loser families can have that also.

Problem solved.

chewy14 1:26 pm 20 May 09

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

Unbeliever 1:15 pm 20 May 09

‘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).

p1 12:59 pm 20 May 09

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.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site