Skip to content Skip to main navigation

New Gay Partnerships Bill

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?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
23 Responses to New Gay Partnerships Bill
Filter
Order
Pandy Pandy 11:03 pm 13 Dec 06

I only believe in civil partnerships when both males are High Court judges.

johnboy johnboy 9:49 pm 13 Dec 06

Practice i guess.

Big Al Big Al 9:10 pm 13 Dec 06

How come you manage to say what I mean – but without the fucking obsenity?

johnboy johnboy 8:12 pm 13 Dec 06

Well christians, worshippers of the anti-christ, all part of the same belief system.

having said that, a very large part of the non-catholic christian community is actively gay friendly (to say nothing of the ones who are gay).

Big Al Big Al 7:52 pm 13 Dec 06

“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.”

Where does this fuck-bag kiddy fiddler get off speaking for the “Christian community”. Hello people – thise guys a fucking catholic – what’s he got to do with bloody christianity?

simto simto 4:31 pm 13 Dec 06

AD, you’ve heard of the red ribbon campaign, right, where gay congregants and parents and friends wore red ribbons and were refused communion by George Pell?

What you may not have heard is that George Pell was disciplined for that, internally, by the Catholic Church. Because, unless people are actually excommunicated, a priest CANNOT refuse communion in the catholic church.

Nope, Pell wasn’t chucked out of the catholic church, and yes, he’s allowed to wank on pretending he represents the lot of ’em. But many, many catholics think differently to him, and are quite happy to remain vocal about it, without any retribution.

I think you’re assuming that the catholic church operates like it did in the age of the borgias. Things have changed a bit. People don’t really get stabbed or excommunicated for theological disagreement any more.

Absent Diane Absent Diane 4:05 pm 13 Dec 06

Surely there would also be fear of retribution, from other leaders and possibly members of there church?

simto simto 3:51 pm 13 Dec 06

Well, there’s a fair few Uniting church leaders, for example, who are utterly in favour of the partnership legislation. And you’ll probably not hear a word from them in the media.

Oddly enough, in their desire for balance, you’ll get a fundie guaranteed to be against the legislation hogging all the limelight on behalf of the churchies. Never mind that it misrepresents large percentages of said churchies entirely.

Oddly enough, those who don’t want to impose their own views on other people don’t generally talk to the media very much. Becuase that would be, you guessed it, imposing your views on other people. Bit of a catch 22 there…

Absent Diane 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 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 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 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 RandomGit 10:20 am 13 Dec 06

Werd to toriness.

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 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 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 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 VYBerlinaV8 9:06 am 13 Dec 06

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

vg 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 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.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2020 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | riotact.com.cn | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site