Ruddock says no to the Civil Partnerships Bill

johnboy 7 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?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
122 Responses to Ruddock says no to the Civil Partnerships Bill
Filter
Order
« Previous 1 5 6 7
Hasdrubahl Hasdrubahl 9:03 pm 13 Feb 07

There is enough cohesion on most subjects to start a RA party.

The glue that holds us together is beer, and much of it. The rest will follow.

johnboy johnboy 8:03 pm 13 Feb 07

The problem is that no-one here agrees on anything.

That’s fine, to be encouraged even, but only the most minimalistic libertarian philosophies can hold so many differing views…

and very few of you agree that’s a good thing.

DJ DJ 7:58 pm 13 Feb 07

On a slightly different subject but one that could address this issue with enough votes…. As this blog seems to have a loyal support base. Any thoughts of NTP or Special G or even VG (he’s done everything else) starting a political party to better spend my rates?

Maelinar Maelinar 8:45 pm 09 Feb 07

BTW, Roland, write your own ministerials.

Or hire me, your choice.

johnboy johnboy 5:59 pm 09 Feb 07

If we were happy with the primacy of nature’s way we’d still be being eaten by large cats rather than arguing on the internet.

ozmreeee ozmreeee 5:47 pm 09 Feb 07

bonfire, you may be right about nature restoring the balance – I just wish nature wasn’t so arbitrary about restoring that balance (and I’m thinking of everybody’s favourite ACT citizen and her ability to procreate –> Amber Jane)

bonfire bonfire 5:32 pm 09 Feb 07

maybe ? its their choice. plenty of couples dont have kids.

seepi seepi 4:25 pm 09 Feb 07

What if she can have kids and he can’t, or vice versa. Should they just divorce and start again?

bonfire bonfire 3:18 pm 09 Feb 07

i think that with the amount of medical technology already available to humans, that being able to create a human and implant that into a woman is amazing.

i still dont think its the right thing to do though.

the human race advances due to our strength as a species. if a couple cannot have children for whatever reason – i think thats nature restoring balance.

does it matter whether its a homosexual or heterosexual ?

not really.

then again, if i have a cold i take medicine so i dont die, so perhaps im being hypocritical.

and before people rant about me being in favour of eugenics, im against that as well.

Maelinar Maelinar 2:43 pm 09 Feb 07

I agree on that point, me in hard, hard world; and you, in fantasy world where everybody is merely there to facilitate your every desire.

Thumper Thumper 2:33 pm 09 Feb 07

I insult him regularly!

🙂

ozmreeee ozmreeee 2:26 pm 09 Feb 07

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

Maelinar Maelinar 12:04 pm 09 Feb 07

concern me

Maelinar Maelinar 12:02 pm 09 Feb 07

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.

caf caf 11:45 am 09 Feb 07

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.

ozmreeee ozmreeee 11:33 am 09 Feb 07

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

ozmreeee ozmreeee 11:25 am 09 Feb 07

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).

vg vg 11:12 am 09 Feb 07

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)

Maelinar Maelinar 11:10 am 09 Feb 07

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.

seepi seepi 10:55 am 09 Feb 07

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

« Previous 1 5 6 7

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site