Ruddock says no to the Civil Partnerships Bill

No actually, Maelinar, people around me will usually disagree without making puerile insults – I guess we travel in different circles.

concern me

If the admin’s of this site think I (or anyone else for that matter) is over-stepping the mark then I expect they will take appropriate action and I’ll accept that – now this is new, subliminal whinging.

If the RA admin team want to do anything, they will announce it at their own leisure, not yours.

Do people around you complain that you are just a big whingebag, or are you putting it on just for us ?

BTW, what I am doing is disagreeing with you, I don’t get your point. This site is about both sides of the argument, I appreciate that – just google any conversation I have had with Areaman if you are unclear. Like H.ll I’m going to shut up though, because I am challenging the facts.

Because it makes you uncomfortable does not really concern as much as you think it should.

vg, this whole recent issue has appeared because Corbell submitted the proposed legislation to Ruddock months ago to get the Federal Government’s view on it, and Ruddock recently came back with “we don’t like it”. I don’t see how that is confrontational.

vg – good point. The federal laws do have precedence.

However, has the proposed ACT legislation actually mentioned “marriage”? – or is it framed in the same terms as the Tasmanian legislation, i.e. “civil unions”.

So the matter of whether or not the two laws are in fact incompatible could keep Con lawyers tied up for several millennia – which is probably why the fed’s overturned rather than challenged the original ACT legislation

OK, Maelinar – if you don’t like what I say, fine – you can either disagree or ignore it entirely.

If the admin’s of this site think I (or anyone else for that matter) is over-stepping the mark then I expect they will take appropriate action and I’ll accept that. However, I’m damned if I’m gonna keep my opinion to myself because you (or anyone else) doesn’t like it. Challenge the facts or the argument by all means but your insults really don’t bother me (and hopefully I’ll console myself with that fact as I cry myself to sleep).

Ozmreeeee may need to take ConLaw 101.

You might want to take a squizz at the section that states that when State and Federal laws are incompatible the Federal law will override the State.

S51 does not grant exclusivity, however the whole document does grant federal law supremacy. The Feds chose not to do anything about the Tasmanian stuff because they went about it in a sensible, non-confrontational way.

Want to blame anyone, blame Standope for his amateur approach to brinkmanship style politics and marginalising any attempts at the ACT being different by behaving like a dickhead on national issues where agreement is sought (like the CT laws)

Mael – your post is as bemusing as the article to which you refer

I responded. Not nicely. Boo hoo. I’ll surely remain laughing long after you have cried yourself to sleep.

I love it when the arguments against something become so ridiculous that they start making the point for the opposition.

Oh right, my apologies Maelinar – I now see my error.

When you make a critical statement, it’s commentary – if someone else offers an alternative opinion, that’s lambasting

Consider me “over myself” as instructed

Lambast the situation all they like, facts are hard to dispute.

And I didn’t swear – although I was tempted.

so much anger in all that abusive language

Yes I have heard of IVF. Make whatever comparisons you like about the appropriateness of any given bogan family to behave in a proper manner, in comparison to two upstanding pillars of the community who happen to like licking each other a lot or whatever, the fact is 1 male and 1 female = 1 child.

So yes, a preg lezzo has had an interaction with 1 male – be it medically induced. Get over yourself.

Mael – your post is as bemusing as the article to which you refer

I would consider that being homo instead of hetro, the risk of having offspring was down to a microscopic percentage (w/o ruling out immaculate conception – then it’s 0%). … Ever heard of IVF – and it’s used by heterosexual couples too!!!

“… a rabid lezzo crying for the marriage vows, when a majority of the vows have already been broken (remain faithful, only you, etc etc)really is funny.” … You infer that hetero marriages are perfect and gay/lesbian relationships are not — having been married (and faithful) for 27 years I feel I can adopt the moral high ground here – how many other hetero’s can say they haven’t broken these vows or that their first marriage is still intact?

Marriage is a power which was ceded to the Commonwealth in the Constitution. Fullstop.

Actually, heavs, it’s not “Fullstop.” as the Commonwealth does not have exclusivity in this matter under the Constitution.

Part V, Section 51, of the Constitution grants the Parliament the “… power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth …” and Clause (xxi) specifically mentions marriage.

However, it is under Section 52 where the Parliament is granted ” … exclusive power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth …” and marriage is not mentioned here.

Hence the reason Tasmania was able to enact (2004) The Relationships Act allowing same sex couples to register their union (a Significant Relationship) with the state’s Registry of Births, Death and Marriages. So, whether the action of the ACT govt is folly or not is a matter for debate, but it certainly is not contravening the Constitution.

That update that was posted is bemusing in its impossibility.

I would consider that being homo instead of hetro, the risk of having offspring was down to a microscopic percentage (w/o ruling out immaculate conception – then it’s 0%).

For CT to wheel out a rabid lezzo crying for the marriage vows, when a majority of the vows have already been broken (remain faithful, only you, etc etc)really is funny.

Do they actually check their stories before they print them ?

This showed up on a mailing list I subscribe to, and, well, it amused me, and I thought it’d piss off a few people here, so why not post it…:

It’s Time…for Mateship!!

I think we should give up on Gay Civil Unions if that is too much of a threat to the fragile institution of marriage. We should model our relationships on a much more robust and virile institution…. Mateship! We should pursue a Civil Domestic Mateship Act. Even the Prime Minister understands and even promotes the sanctity of mateship between two (or
more) men. He will struggle with mateship between women and will probably assume we don’t exist anyway.

Having celebrated your Domestic Mateship…..and who is going to knock that? It will be so much easier introducing your dearly beloved…. No longer would we have to stumble over the proper form of introduction…no longer lover, partner, boyfriend, girlfriend…. How simple “May I introduce you to my mate (insert name here)?” My mate…says it all, doesn’t it? If you want to make it really clear you are ‘special mates’ can give a big wink to whomever you’re introducing your mate to.

We could even let the Prime Minister have his with a preamble to the Constitution. Enshrine mateship. We know what he really means 😉

You can satisfy that need in a number of places in Canberra already AD.

you know what I want in a male gym… topless female instructors who know how to bullshit…

vg, yes there will be, complete with staff who know who you are, look after your cigars in the correct conditions, and when you arrive will open up your stash and fade away until needed.

That’s because I’ve done a survey on what males want in a gymnasium service – and that was top on the list.

And, of course, no one has explained how this bill is about marriage.

evil facist overlords.

Seriously though I don’t understand the whole focus on local issues thing.. because this is a local issue, a national issue and international issue. Whilst it is not the biggest issue around, equal rights for a minority is pretty important/symbolic of the society we live in. I personally believe marriage is ridiculous full stop, but everyone should be free to do so.

If it is religion that makes you feel anti gaylovemarriage.. then checkout this website http://www.godhatesshrimp.com

Marriage is a power which was ceded to the Commonwealth in the Constitution. Fullstop.

I still can’t understand why they were trying to push this through. You can whine on about the Commonwealth overriding the laws as much as you like but if it was the States making the laws the Cwlth would be challenging the laws as well. It would just be a longer process. Sux to live in the ACT but that’s life.

And the reason the feds don’t kibosh it forever?

Because they enjoy this fight just as much as the locals.

Yep, our local government is set up with all the responsibilities of a state government, but none of the final rights to self determination.

So in case you’re wondering, the feds could, if they so chose, change any and all governmental decisions that you disagree with made by the local mob.

Strangely, though, despite shonky management in schools, hospitals, police numbers, etc, the only thing that seems to concern the feds about what our toytown government is whether or not marriage is protected. Whatever the hell that means.

Isn’t it great we’ve got benevolent dictators like Ruddock around?

As an interesting Did You Know… someone who knows the legal powers of ACT vs Federal govt intimately (and works for the ACT gov) told me that it’s possible for the feds to pass legislation to forever (or until the legislation is repealed) ban ACT from allowing same sex civil unions.

/ Insert pointless comments about evil fascist overlords here /

No. They are examples of the ideology issues that our unfortunate government shoves down our throats.

Other issues get pushed to legislation. Civil unions, Bill of Rights for example.

All are irrelevant to effective administration of the ACT.

father of the year, Siev x memorials and statues of ex-MP’s are not legislation.

wtf? The assembly’s mandate is to push ideological agendas like gay unions, siev-x memorials, statues of dodgy past federal labor politicians, father-of-the-year awards for non-ACT residents with terrorist sons etc at the expense of effective administration of the Territory??

And we lobbied our federal members about self government at two referenda. Sadly, they ignored us.

But that still doesn’t excuse the local government for not being able to even administer at a level as effective as a local council!

so all the other arguments you’ve put are irrelevent, and that your only concern of substance with what this government is doing is that it ought not have that legislative responsibility.

My suggestion would be to lobby your federal members to take away those powers from the ACT Government, and indeed to take back all responsibilities from the ACT Assembly other than those of local government, rather than waste our time abusing the existing Assembly for taking action within its mandate.

Not that I agree with how its managed buses or schools or libraries, for example.

Especially a council that can’t afford to waste money it doesn’t have on hippy, touchy feel-good social issues when we have an sub-standard local hospital, roads falling into disrepair etc.

If you want to change the country get into federal parliament or lobby your federal member. Don’t use local government and funds to push your ideologies. That’s a job for big government, not town councils.

My objection to the bill roly is because it’s not an issue that should a concern of the local council.

Can anyone objecting to this Bill explain to the rest of us readers how it is about gay marriage, or how it undermines non gay marriage.

As I said earlier, the behaviour is not in question here. The living together, having a relationship, etc is not in question, or even been argued about. The issue is whether the definition of marriage (a legally binding condition) should be changed in law.

What gay couples actually DO is irrelevant to my opinion.

“As for re-writing the constitution to allow gay couples to visit in hospital?… Who’s being silly now?”

Well evidently if this blog is to go on anything, it may be reasonable to get laws to protect those activties since family to prevent this happening ? – How else would you suggest a legal right to this occur ?

Just saying that if two people can’t do something which causes no harm whatsoever to anyone else then this isn’t the free country you rely on to have your own opinions.

As for re-writing the constitution to allow gay couples to visit in hospital?

Who’s being silly now?

JB – depends on whether people participating in gay marriage are in the majority, doesn’t it? Is this really the case? If it’s not, it’s hardly a truism.

Otherwise, get enough voters to either:
1. Force changes to the law relating to Territories
2. Force laws to change ACT to a state
3. Force federal govt change to a more sympathetic gov’t.

So you’re saying you don’t get a truism obvious to a second grader?

Is it still polygamy when a gay person gets married to several gay people at once?

“Tyranny of the majority is not a free country. “

Do you mind if my kid quotes that on his second grade school project?

Seriously mate, that’s a throwaway line that means nothing. Besides, we aren’t regulating a behaviour here are we? It seems to me that all we’re doing is saying that the law can’t recognise something that falls outside it’s definition of marriage.

In a really free country I would be allowed to participate in polygamy. Its the law – deal with it, get over it and get a legally binding contract if you feel the need to have one.

Actually, not allowing gay marriage must be John Howard’s fault. I have no doubt that staunch union man, beer drinker, journo slapper and man’s man Bob Hawke would have supported gay marriage whole heartedly.

Tyranny of the majority is not a free country.

That’s right JB – but I don’t have to recognise it. And if the majority is like-minded, the law doesn’t either.

And in really free country the gay couple can say “Sod you, we’re getting married anyway”

Why? What’s logical to me won’t be to you. Besides, if we want to live in a free country, I get to have an opinion that says “I don’t agree with gay marriage”.

i dont understand why people are against it. Give me a good logical reason why you are.

“This kind of ‘Whining’ got women the vote.”

Maybe, but it sure didn’t teach them manners!

FWIW, I’m against gay marriage. So my wife (at least she should be if she knows what’s good for her…)

Has anyone else noticed that gays aren’t gay any more?

They are bloody boring, banging on about their rights all the time!

Oh for the good ol’ days with the outrageous office gay who was more interested in overt exhibitionism than activism!

There are more important things for Stanhope to spend ratepayers money on; health and education for two. The great ACT populace doesn’t seem to understand that all this social justice stuff (which should be a federal responsibility) costs a lot of money in legislative drafters, lawyers, bureaucrats and Ministers and their staff. Until people tell Stanhope to spend the money on critical issues rather than this kind of stuff then you can expect increased taxes, charges, rates and levies along with closed schools and the worst waiting periods for emergency treatment in the country, etc. That has been happening from the time self-government was foisted upon us and we have been ruled by Mickey Mouse ACT politicians ever since.

Ditto to what Ralph said – sadly it ain’t gunna happen though!

If we don’t mind the Fed govt overriding all our laws then why not just get rid of our govt and put the ACT back under the Feds?

Yes please.

that ct article jb links to is a ripper.

the homosexual wants kids.

well, ummm, thats what normal couples produce when they have sexual intercourse.

no doubt this is a ‘right’ as well.

what exactly constitutes a ‘right’ is it just something someone else has which i want ?

Yes!

What about the Fed Govt wading in to ACT issues and taking control of our water? Is that ok?

If we don’t mind the Fed govt overriding all our laws then why not just get rid of our govt and put the ACT back under the Feds?

I’m more than happy for the Federal Governmment to poke a stick in the spokes of the wheels of nohope’s efforts at hippie, feel-good social engineering.

JB, are you suggesting that the ACT or NT electorates are in favour of the federal parliament using its power to override local legislation? If so, why didn’t the federal parliament intervene in the “school closure” affair, which I think generated much more negative reaction in the ACT? We may not like self-government, but surely if we are to have it, then it should be just that – self-government.

Actually I don’t think most people give a rat’s arse about it.

Personally I agree with you, and I do care about it, but I i find it doesn’t come up much in conversation outside of gay and/or political circles.

School closures was a budgetary decision, not a legislative one.

When John Howard thinks of it at all I imagine he’s keen to see the ACT manage a budget and not make any legislative innovations at all.

Ozmreeee, as per Bonfire’s comments, I don’t give 2 figs about this issue- but when you start bandying around the word ‘fascist’in regard to this govt, or any Aust State/Territory govt, you out yourself as the whiny little wank you probably are.

OK, – hopefully your next responding post will be the last on this topic in this thread – as this will be my last.

bonfire – You really don’t understand it do you? It’s not about the “policy” it’s about the right of the citizens of the territories to elect a government to enact legislation on their behalf. You don’t like the legislation? That’s fine, rail against the policy, it’s your right – I’m talking principle.

I’m neither for nor against gay marriages/unions. Similarly I hadn’t really decided whether I was for or against euthanasia at the time the legislation was enacted by the NT govt. What I AM against is the authoritarian action of federal politicians to overturn a territory government’s legislation simply because they don’t like it.

You mention that this is the action of the other set of elected representatives. Perhaps you can explain to this humble softhead when the people of the ACT or NT elected the federal parliament to override its local legislation? Or I’ll make it even easier, as we live in a democracy and majority rules – even at the federal level. What particular campaign policy put forward by anyone in the current federal parliament sought a mandate from the Australian people to override territory legislation?

JB, are you suggesting that the ACT or NT electorates are in favour of the federal parliament using its power to override local legislation? If so, why didn’t the federal parliament intervene in the “school closure” affair, which I think generated much more negative reaction in the ACT? We may not like self-government, but surely if we are to have it, then it should be just that – self-government.

Bonfire, if it’s simply about my use of the word ‘fascist’ in relation to the federal govt’s action then I unreservedly withdraw it.

Bonfire does raise a problem for the Stanhope Government in that no-one has actually asked the people of the ACT what they want on the issue.

Yes it was part of the Labor platform before the election but to suggest that every primary vote (which was still a minority) reflects complete agreement with all facets of the platform is ludicrous.

With Jon Stanhope’s ongoing opposition to any forms of direct democracy it’s a little hard for him to claim popular mandates for his crusades.

id be happy to see a referendum on homosexual marriage, or the human rights bill, or whatever other clealry non-majority supported pet topic you want.

but in democracies popularity leads to success.

so if the majority dont want homosexual marriage, or just dont care, what happens if it loses ?

or perhaps its just easier for elected representatives to put through pet legislation like homosexual marriage, human rights bills, dopping the requirement for pokie clubs to pay the same amount to charities that they do in political donations.

so if its ok for one set of elected representatives to do this – then how come its not ok for the other set of elected representatives to decided that they dont like this particular legislation and stop it ?

how is this fascism ? its not – its politics.

i really dont care what people do in their bedrooms, and i dont believe the government shoudl either. but i do not think that the majority of the elctorate would support homosexual marriage in a referendum. the zealots might think that not true, but i really dont think people care about it as an issue.

it really irritates me when softheads bang on about policy they disagree with as being ‘fascist’ – i doubt that there has eveer been a SINGLE fascist in any parliament in australias history incl colonial assemblies.

good point, jb – but damn it was funny – [as was the ode to Gareth and Cheryl ;)]

If you can’t believe everything you read in the papers it is, perhaps, best to not reference characterisations you’ve seen in a partisan musical.

Mael, your brain is obviously overheating. I’ll leave you to it.

barking toad – after seeing Keating on Saturday night, I cannot imagine AD in anything but fishnets – He’s so freaky 🙂

Oh ffs, bonfire, stop throwing up foreign examples of different political ideologies … we don’t live in Cuba, China, Zimbabwe or Uzbekistan for that matter.

We live in Australia – where the last I heard everyone is entitled to have and to express their opinion.

Far from being a zealot (and how am I crying wolf? this is actually happening!) I’m just an ordinary citizen who wants to be able to participate in democracy and allow the voters of the ACT to determine who is able to legislate on their behalf.

You say it’s all about compromise. If it was about compromise, then the federal govt would consult with the citizens of a territory before overturning the govt’s legislation.

Zimbabwe and dictatorships are ridiculous straw men.

It is certainly a debatable point as to whether disallowing legislation in this manner this is an undemocratic action.

As to whether or not it is “fascist”, I don’t know whether debating that’s a particularly worthwhile path to go down – for what it’s worth the action is authoritarian and anti-individualist, which are both characteristics of the fascist ideology, but I don’t think that in itself is sufficient to call it fascist.

Alex Downer in jack-boots, metaphorical or not, would be better than the fish-net stockings, metaphorical or not.

This kind of ‘Whining’ got women the vote.

If you support equal rights you should support the legalisation of gay partnerships. Currently long term gay couples are in the unequal position of having no legal rights over their partners’ property and superannuation, or even guaranteed access to them on their deathbeds.

why dont you travel to zimbabvwe, run your campaign there and then get back to me on the difference between a liberal democracy and a dictatorship.

softheads liek you cry wolf at every campaigh you lose. because you are zealots who think you are always right – and therefore anyone who opposes you must BE FASCISTS.

life is all about compromise.

is ‘fascist’ a nice easy throwaway insult that you really have no understanding of

bonfire – when the federal govt uses it’s metaphorical jack-boots to impose their own values and to trample over the rights of ACT and NT citizens, by overturning legislation enacted by their legally elected (for better or worse) government, then I call it fascism. But I’m happy for you to enlighten me as to the correct quasi-political term – as it’s obviously a topic of which you have some understanding.

PS It’s not about gay rights IMHO – it’s about the democratic rights of all of the citizens of the territories.

I support individuals rights, as opposed to certain ‘groups’ of individuals.

I don’t support weiners.

I do support equal rights, and I always have.

I don’t support whiners.

Maelinar to stop hearing about gay rights you should support equal rights. Once we have that, then noone will have to hear about gay rights cos there won’t be an issue.

What the hell does this mean ? Mael, good for you for bringing such a fight. The end result of which would be, the legal impediment being abused to deny you and your partner your natural rights would be removed.

I count at least a quadruple cancellation !

Or in other words: Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah.

I’m a bit Mael’s way on all this gay business.

Probably from watching too much Little Britain and the only gay in the village.

And the mayor should leave introduction of this sort of legislation to the Federal Government instead of having states/territories fiddling with their own versions.

All the gays in the villages should talk with their Federal members and all the mayors can attend to roads and dogs and things.

While it is not extreme, I do believe it is a form of facism.

‘fascists are jumping the gun’

you want homosexual rights ? visit Cuba, or China – and see how socialists treat homosexuals.

or is ‘fascist’ a nice easy throwaway insult that you really have no understanding of.

terubo – agreed, though “my” fascists have already overturned territorial legislation (both ACT and NT) in the past, so the fact that they have put the ACT on notice is in itself an issue – “… don’t bother – we’ll only overturn it …”

Perhaps, as others have implied, the ACT govt’s stand is tantamount to tilting at windmills, but I happen to believe that democracy should be consistent. The only reason the federales do not overturn state legislation is due to the fact that they have no power to do so. They do have the legal power to overturn ACT/NT legislation – that doesn’t make it right!

For the moment, we have self-government and as such the right of the ACT Legislative Assembly to enact legislation should be respected. I’m not a fan of Corbell’s, but on this occasion, I do want him to stand up for my rights. Like it or not, they are the current ACT government. Let’s leave it to the next election to determine whether the legislation enacted by the incumbents is acceptable to the people of the ACT not the likes of Ruddock for whom I had no opportunity to vote.

Mael, good for you for bringing such a fight. The end result of which would be, the legal impediment being abused to deny you and your partner your natural rights would be removed.

Which is what the original poster asked for.

Take a valium FFS.

An elected Government the locals would do away with in a moment if given the choice it should be noted.

OK, but if you want to be really accurate, it just so happens that this Civil Partnerships Bill hasn’t even been enacted yet.
-Your fascists are jumping the gun.

terubo – sure the federal govt was legally elected … mind you –
1) not by a majority of ACT residents – hence the fact that both ACT MHR’s are Labor; and
2) not on a platform to disenfranchise ACT residents when it comes to territorial legislation

So, I stand by my original comment “this is about the fascists in the Federal government overturning legislation enacted by the legally elected ACT government.“

As I said earlier – the option to tie yourselves up legally so that you’re so close you can’t be removed is and always has been avaliable.

An Enduring Power of Attorney should do the trick at the most simplistic of levels, that’ll at least get poor little whiney on the death bed list, and full access to the accounts etc.

And oz, I’m not a redneck, unless by your definition it means somebody who disagrees with you. My disagreeance runs on many levels at once, and unlike Guy Jones, I’m not prepared to rant on at length in order to explain it all at once.

Fundamentally, I have absolutely no problem with pillowbiters tying the knot, and I have not said anything contrary. My issue was with the little darling who was too gay to fight their own battles – ironic statement intended.

I do have a problem with their whiney attitudes and that fake nasal voice they put on. Unlike contemporary Australians, I choose to take the piss, something that I value as an Australian – the ability to joke around, something the gay community never really has gotten the grip of.

As an Australian, when I get knocked down, I get back up again, I don’t lay there on the ground whimpering at the inevitability of it all. Sure, if I was locked out of my partners hospital suite on account of my defacto relationship wasn’t recognised by the rellies I’d be kicking up a hell of a stink – that’s not my point either, It’s kind of expectable. I’m just sick and tired of hearing all that whining.

I’ve got Gay Compassion Fatigue.

What JB said, Mael.

I’m glad for you that you get along so well with your olds. Not everyone does. To say that would probably be much more the case for gay people is far from ripe.

Strangely – although unfortunately – ozmreeee, the Federal govt may have been legally elected too…

“However, I am not against gay civil unions whereby the partners get the same legal rights, ie superannuation, health benefits, etc, as a married couple.”

-I’m with Thumper on this.

That said, I still don’t understand how “…the Civil Partnerships Bill would still in its amended form be likely to undermine the institution of marriage.”
-Is the institution that f***ing fragile? Something wrong, then.

Interesting that people are saying it’s Stanhope grand standing over this legislation … I’m seeing lot’s of articles quoting Corbell’s response but not Stanhope.

Seems like an opportunity for the usual RIOTAct suspects to sink the slipper into Stanhope rather than concern for this farce known as self government.

Whether we agree with gay marriages/unions is irrelevant – this is about the fascists in the Federal government overturning legislation enacted by the legally elected ACT government.

Lets not disparage the likelihood that the ‘in-laws’ that I am referring to are most often called ‘mom’ or ‘dad’ to the patient. Insinuating that they may not have the patients best interests in mind is a little ripe.

Sadly, when their child is gay, some parents idea of their child’s best interest differ from that of their child.

Hey sometimes a son will marry a woman they don’t like, and hey wow, being married gives her rights.

So why not for gay couples living together?

Wow, Maelinar – a f*cking redneck in the ACT who has the guts to come out of the closet, well done. I was despairing that all ACT residents are progressive and pretty much live and let live, but you’ve restored my faith that there are still true ockers here 🙂

Lets not disparage the likelihood that the ‘in-laws’ that I am referring to are most often called ‘mom’ or ‘dad’ to the patient. Insinuating that they may not have the patients best interests in mind is a little ripe.

Ummm … didn’t the patient choose the little gay boy (psst – you forgot to include the raging butch lezzo!) as his partner? Or was that just a rebellion against ‘mum’ or ‘dad’?

Lets not disparage the likelihood that the ‘in-laws’ that I am referring to are most often called ‘mom’ or ‘dad’ to the patient. Insinuating that they may not have the patients best interests in mind is a little ripe.

Mael, I think the point being made was not forcing in-laws to like the gay partner, it’s preventing them from forcing the partner away. They don’t have to like him/her, but they can’t dictate the sick family member can’t either.

You don’t think it’s reprehensible for those in-laws to take advantage of a vulnerable relative who is too ill to fight for their free choice?

You’re putting the cart before the horse.

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

wtf is the institution of marriage? What a bunch of nuff nuffs.

what an ugly person you reveal yourself to be maelinar – quite happy to enjoy rights yourself and belittle others for wanting and deserving the same. the world is a ‘hard hard place’ because of people like you. and if you’re proud of that then i feel sorry for you more than i am sorry for me for being discriminated against.

in some instances, family has prevented partners from visiting (and yes, they can leglally do that) – aww diddums. Do you really want the Government to come in and hold your hand ?

Can’t little gay boy handle a disapproving mother in law on his own awwwwww ?

Welcome to the real world f.cktard – it’s a hard, hard place. It’s not the governments responsibility to make your in-laws recognise you either, that would be a serious deprivation of civil liberties were they to try – and not on the little gay boy either.

If you want equity, go see a lawyer. They’ll string you up so closely you might just enjoy it. The consequences however, of being so tightly woven together are the same as being married (due fair warning).

Which is why polygamy is good for marriage. You don’t divorce, just marry another one. Besides, like Shane Warne, you can always find the previous one attractive again.

Gay civil unions don’t undermine marriage. Divorce undermines marriage.

Will Gary Humphries cross the floor again?

There are certain benefits if, for example, one of you gets sick – in some instances, family has prevented partners from visiting (and yes, they can leglally do that).

And there are people out there who would like people other than them to be happy enjoying their lives however they wish, and actually do care about it. I know you’re not one of those people, bonfire, but it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist…

i dont know if people are in favour of homosexual marriages – i think its a case of no one really caring.

why anyone needs a state or religion to recognise their union is beyond me.

why surrender your righst to these people.

live as a couple – no law against it – normal or homosexual.

*grrr*

The political climate in the ACT IS in favour of gay marriage. Just that the federales don’t agree.

Yes, I know it’s a futile gesture, but every so often, I like my politicians to do something that might actually make the world better. And at least we’ve got the legislation ready now for when the AG’s office changes incumbents, just in case they change their mind…

Now what was I going to say…that’s right

I told you so.

I won’t argue as to the validity of either position but FFS Standope, let the political climate change before you grandstand and marginalise the ACT again. If he didn’t make such a twat of himself over CT legislation things may have been a little more cordial

People think that if it is easier to be gay in society then more people will start living a gay lifestyle.
– It has always struck me that only people with a fair bit of repressed homosexuality would think that way.

Simbo, I don’t get it either. I wish someone would explain what the Feds don’t want gay people to share, without couching it in religiosity or moralising. Let them get married, I say.

Hooray, people’s personal lives are being used as a political football all over agian.

I never quite get how civil partnerships are going to undermine the institution of marriage. Unless the possiblity that there’s a legal alternative to marriage is so damn appealing to hetrosexuals that they’ll leap across and civilly unite instead?