Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Defying Empire commemorates the 50th anniversary of 1967 Referendum

New Gay Partnerships Bill

By DarkLadyWolfMother - 12 December 2006 23

The ACT Government is having another go at the “Civil Unions” concept, [The ABC reports] now watered down somewhat and rebadged as the “Civil Partnerships Bill”. Apparently one of the reasons the original Civil Unions Bill was able to be canned was because the word “Union” was too close to “Marriage”; however “Partnership” is clearly diffferent.

Ruddock is currently considering the Bill, but is giving nothing away about what he thinks so far.

Gay and lesbian support group, Good Process, have said it’s a good thing, and are happy that the Bill provides for some kind of ceremony.

Now we just have to wait to see how this one is killed.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
23 Responses to
New Gay Partnerships Bill
Absent Diane 3:16 pm 13 Dec 06

I don’t really feel it is a mistake. Because these chosen leaders are speaking on behalf of their cult. If people from these various cults disagree with this version of gods mission statement.. then they should pipe up and speak against it. But by not saying anything they are insinuating the collective.

simto 2:55 pm 13 Dec 06

It’s often a mistake to use collective nouns – and “the church” in this instance is one of them.

Many members of various churches believe entirely differently to the current Catholic Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn. These people believe that the moral guidance God gives them includes accepting people’s different lifestyles and loving other human beings, not making things difficult for them.

On the other hand, you do have the pricks who believe that religion is just an acceptable to be rude to people. But they’re not the whole church.

Jey 2:15 pm 13 Dec 06

The church has a problem with everything.

“What does the church have to do with this issue? It is none of their business.”

They think everything’s their business.
They along with the G’ment have trouble understanding the concept of a secular society.

FC 12:19 pm 13 Dec 06

This is a f’n joke.
giving people equal rights – what a far off concept.
I can see why the church has a problem with this.
what a bunch of jokers.

RandomGit 10:20 am 13 Dec 06

Werd to toriness.

toriness 10:16 am 13 Dec 06

vg, being one of ‘those people’ myself, i have been involved with lobbying, both as an individual and part of a group, the federal government for years. amazingly enough, my emails and letters to the howard government have gone largely unanswered. when largely all i am asking for (from the feds) is to do the same things with my superannuation that you do. i personally don’t want anything to do with the marriage legislation, as even in my ‘straight life’ i was never interested in marriage. you may have the opinion that the ACT government is ‘grandstanding’ but it represents something which is very important to myself and others in the gay community, if only it would be left alone by the feds who are definitely ‘grandstanding’ by interfering with it!

Absent Diane 9:41 am 13 Dec 06

What does the church have to do with this issue? It is none of their business. Whatever they have to say is irrelevant anyway…

Smackbang 9:16 am 13 Dec 06

From the Canberra Times:

“However, the Catholic Archbishop for Canberra and Goulburn, Mark Coleridge, warned that a mere “change of labelling” would not be acceptable to the Christian community.

“He said that while the church accepted moves to ensure that homosexual couples’ rights to justice were respected, it was “not interested in ideologically-driven social engineering”.”

I am just gobsmacked by the irony of a Catholic Archbishop saying he is not interested in “ideologically-driven social engineering”… it seems to me that is the very raison d’etre of the Catholic Church!

Jey 9:14 am 13 Dec 06

Yes VY, but it is paramount I know your position on ‘civil partnerships’, as per my initial comment.

VYBerlinaV8 9:06 am 13 Dec 06

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

vg 5:35 pm 12 Dec 06

A worthwhile cause but nothing but grandstanding by Standope and his posse. It didn’t get through last time, I’d be surprised if it did this time.

I know this is important to some in our community, but those people would be better served by more effective lobbying at a Federal level rather than this local clown pushing a ‘look at me’ agenda.

Now is a much better time for Sonic to focus on legislation that will work, rather than once again making him a joke amongst other non-Federal govts in Oz

bonfire 5:28 pm 12 Dec 06

maybe homosexuals can only marry if they can prove they have filled in at least one pothole each!

solve two problems at once.

Jazz 4:56 pm 12 Dec 06

Your tax dollars hard at work. dont you love it.
meanwhile i almost rolled my ankle crossing west row in that pothole between veterans park and the DEST building.

Jey 4:49 pm 12 Dec 06

I also believe one of the probs Howard etc. had with the original legislation is that it equated civil unions with marriage and *gasp* we can’t have that!

I’m of the understanding the Stanhope and crew will continue to rewrite and retable legislation until it gets passed and not overturned by the Feds.

Jey 4:39 pm 12 Dec 06

VY only believes in ‘civil partnerships’ if both chicks are hot?

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