Greens to have another go at gay weddings

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
Order
caf 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy 1:34 pm 20 May 09

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

Love your work!

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy 1:33 pm 20 May 09

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 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 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 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.

G-Fresh G-Fresh 12:49 pm 20 May 09

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.

caf caf 12:45 pm 20 May 09

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”.

Holden Caulfield Holden Caulfield 12:42 pm 20 May 09

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…

Pommy bastard Pommy bastard 12:40 pm 20 May 09

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.

Unbeliever Unbeliever 12:33 pm 20 May 09

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?

Thumper Thumper 12:29 pm 20 May 09

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

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster 12:27 pm 20 May 09

What was that someone said about flogging a dead horse?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site