Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Part of the Canberra community
for over 30 years

No Union Between Ruddock and Stanhope

By che - 30 March 2006 53

Just to dampen down the gay pride celebrations from this RA story about Stanhope wanting to legally recognise gay civil unions, the Federal AG Phil Ruddock has come out in this ABC report saying the Government will intervene unless the bill is changed as the ACT legislation elevates civil unions to the same status as marriage, contrary to Commonwealth legislation.

“For a territory to say ‘well that’s fine for the Commonwealth Parliament to have resolved in that way, we’re still going to assert that a civil union is a marriage in all but title, and we’re going to use marriage celebrants to demonstrate that’, let me make it very clear: that will not satisfy the Commonwealth,”

UPDATE: The CT has got this article up about the issue and Stanhope has issued this media release about how the nobbling of the proposal is SAD.

What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
53 Responses to
No Union Between Ruddock and Stanhope
Slinky the Shocker 4:12 pm 30 Mar 06

So who made it a marriage issue then? CT? RA? Montgomery Burns?

barking toad 4:04 pm 30 Mar 06

Heard Phil on radio samuel not long ago saying that this doesn’t need to be an issue – the mayor can have all he wants but needs to make it not a marriage issue, just a civil union. Bit of grandstanding all round except Phil carries a bit of clout as distinct from the local mayor who just wishes he did too.

Sssanta 3:28 pm 30 Mar 06

I agree. Lets share the inhumanity around a bit. Stemming the immigration problem would be far easier using submarines (seeing we are an island continent and the Navy could do with the training, in case the nasty indo’s attack. Putting down the unemployed wouldn’t be as fun as dropping them off in the Gobi desert and seeing which comes home first. Plus all the betting outlets would be able to make killing, thus increasing tax to various governments, which would then in turn be able to support the little unemployed that would be left alot better than what is being done currently. It would beat the sh*t out the Melbourne Cup I reckon, plus keep PETA quiet, and give Bono, rest of Hollyowood, STR, Greenpeace etc something of substance to complain about.

vg 3:10 pm 30 Mar 06

Pigs bum! If the Federal govt takes steps to overturn this legislation they will fail if they don’t have the power to do so. If they do overturn it then they do have the power.

As a lawyer you should know that the fact that the law does not purport to extend beyond that ACT’s borders have no relevance with respect to its inconsistency.

Civil union is simply marriage under another guise, and I would nigh on guarantee the High Court would interpret as such.

I am not against gay marriages. Who people poke is their own business unless it affects me. What I am offended by is the amateur grandstanding. For it to be done properly it needs to be enacted at a Federal level, not by the local mayor

Be angry all you like about Howard et al. They got elected in a landslide last time, and it will be bigger next time, despite what the ilk of Combet and all those Scottish union officials say

toriness 2:48 pm 30 Mar 06

No offence Ssanta or Thumper but if you have no interest in promoting equality for others then don’t bother reading posts/comments about it or making your own comment. I suppose you think that other people who are discriminated against or deprived of rights are just bleating as well? Shall we round up all the refugees and shoot them? Place mines around our borders to keep them out? Hey while we’re at it, let’s put down all the unemployed as well – share the inhumanity around a bit!

And vg my reply (as a lawyer) is this: The Bill does not effect Commonwealth law nor is it inconsistent with it, nor does it purport to extend beyond the ACT’s jurisdiction. An ACT civil union is not a ‘marriage’ therefore it does not conflict with federal law, ie the Marriage Act, under the powers delegated to federal government in the Constitution. Any steps that the Federal Government takes to overturn this legislation are a blatant abuse of their powers relating to Territory governance.

Both Howard and Ruddock have publicly stated before that they would not interfere with States and Territories which enacted civil union legislation – this is another example of them going back on their word and lying to the Australian public. And if nothing else that should make you angry – nevermind it’s about a topic you’re apparently tired of hearing about.

vg 12:59 pm 30 Mar 06

Sorry, and those sections are from the Constitution…my bad

vg 12:59 pm 30 Mar 06

Again nothing more than amateur grandstanding by the CM. As a legally trained individual (but you wouldn’t guess it) he would be well aware of Section 51 (xxi) and (xxii) that give the Commonwealth jurisdiction over issues of Marriage, Divorce and Matrimonial causes.

He would also be aware of Section 109 of the same document which renders State (or Territory) laws invalid when they are inconsistent with that of the Commonwealth.

Much like his ‘amendments’ to terrorism laws, he will once again be swatted out of the way like the insignificant joke he is at a Federal level. True change to the matromonial laws will only come at a Federal level.

I’m not debating whether the gist of his ‘laws’ is or isnt a good thing, but his amateur theatrics and histrionics do nothing but isolate the ACT Government at a Federal level.

I feel embarassed to have him running the show here

Thumper 12:45 pm 30 Mar 06

Agree Ssanta.

I think it’s a good thing generally, but quit the persecuted bleating shit.

Sssanta 12:43 pm 30 Mar 06

Toriness, as far as equality goes, after 6 months a same sex couple is seen as a defacto partnership, giving them the same rights as hetrosexual couples. All bar the little piece of paper who have to fork out a few dollars for.

I agree with you that anyone should be able to celebrate a civil union with another, without judgement or red tape in the road. But i suspect that you flogging this dead horse will only piss people like myself off, who have up until now bit our tounges whilst you bleat like sheep with its head stuck in a fence.

No offence, but your are beginning to give me the shits.

bonfire 12:23 pm 30 Mar 06

i think part of the problem arises due to people misusing deliberately or through ignorance the terms marriage and civil union.

Slinky the Shocker 12:22 pm 30 Mar 06

A jihad on cartoons! I am sure the AG would sign that, too, considering that he had been misused as a template before.

Absent Diane 11:46 am 30 Mar 06
barking toad 11:37 am 30 Mar 06

Phil’s just giving the mayor a clip under the ears to remind him of his place. Probably not for any real good reason but just because he can.

Sorta like school days when you know you really shouldn’t but can’t resist giving some annoying little prick a slap just because they’re there.

johnboy 11:04 am 30 Mar 06

politically this is a win for everyone who isn’t seeking a civil union.

out in the wider country most voters won’t look at the issue just hear the government is shutting down plans by those crazy poofter-lovers in canberra to wreck marriage. A big win for the Government.

Here in Canberra the local Government gets to paint the federal Liberals as intevening red-necks trampling all over the local guys.

As an added bonus for Mr. Stanhope the local libs are so grovelling in their love of the Federal Government, as they try to brown nose their way out of the assembly and into a cushy appointment, that they’ll walk right into the trap.

toriness 10:54 am 30 Mar 06

I just find it very sad that there are these people who are apparently so threatened by moves to give others equality. It is very sad indeed to not be able to extend to others what they have themselves. It is very selfish and an indictment on our society.

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site