Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Recruiting experts in
Accountancy & Finance

Ruddock says no to the Civil Partnerships Bill

By johnboy - 6 February 2007 122

Predictably Phillip Ruddock has said he’s not happy with the ACT’s second bite at the cherry of civil unions/partnerships legislation. (text of media release below)

Despite the inevitability of this we’re still going to keep going through the rigmarole and the huffing and puffing because both the Federal Liberals and ACT Labor see an advantage in being seen to brawl on the subject with their respective constituents.

Plus it beats doing real work.

UPDATED: The Canberra Times is screaming blue murder and they’ve dug up a lesbian to cry for her children who will be born out of wedlock thanks to the evil Phillip Ruddock, that story also has an 18 year old ANU arts student and his partner, who don’t want to get married (well one of them doesn’t, that could become a sore point) but want more gay rights.

ACT CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS BILL DOES NOT REMOVE CONCERNS

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has informed the ACT that the Commonwealth would recommend that the Governor-General disallow the Civil Partnerships Bill 2006 (ACT) in its current form.

In his letter to the ACT Attorney-General, Mr Simon Corbell, Mr Ruddock noted that while changes had been made, there remained significant similarities between the Civil Partnerships Bill and the disallowed Civil Unions Act 2006 (ACT).

“The revised bill has not removed the concerns that the Commonwealth had about the Civil Unions Act,” Mr Ruddock said.

“It remains the Government’s opinion that the Civil Partnerships Bill would still in its amended form be likely to undermine the institution of marriage.”

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
122 Responses to
Ruddock says no to the Civil Partnerships Bill
Absent Diane 9:02 am 07 Feb 07

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

toriness 8:53 am 07 Feb 07

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.

Maelinar 8:26 am 07 Feb 07

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).

Thumper 7:55 am 07 Feb 07

Grand standing again…

It is not going to happen! Which part of this doesn’t Stanhope get?

Although I have heard that he is now going to put it on the back burner and hope that the Libs get rolled in the next federal election so he can roll it out again.

Personally I am against gay marriage, leave this institution alone. 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.

This is only fair….

Hasdrubahl 7:20 am 07 Feb 07

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.

GnT 8:51 pm 06 Feb 07

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

Kramer 8:50 pm 06 Feb 07

Will Gary Humphries cross the floor again?

simbo 8:38 pm 06 Feb 07

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…

bonfire 8:22 pm 06 Feb 07

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.

Jey 8:14 pm 06 Feb 07

*grrr*

simbo 8:10 pm 06 Feb 07

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…

vg 7:15 pm 06 Feb 07

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

seepi 6:54 pm 06 Feb 07

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.

miz 6:51 pm 06 Feb 07

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.

simbo 6:23 pm 06 Feb 07

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?

1 2 3 9

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