Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

Same-sex unions to be automatically recognised in ACT

By Charlotte Harper 15 December 2016 31

Photo: iStock

Same-sex marriages and other same-sex relationships with formal recognition in other jurisdictions will be automatically recognised in the ACT as a Civil Union under new laws introduced by Attorney-General Gordon Ramsay today.

The ACT legislated for marriage equality in 2013, before an intervention from the Federal Government prevented same-sex couples from having their relationship recognised through marriage.

The ACT Government continues to support the recognition of same sex relationships and Mr Ramsay said it would continue to advocate for the Federal Government to act on marriage equality.

The Attorney-General said the Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) would amend the Civil Unions Act 2012 to ensure same-sex relationships recognised in other states, territories and countries have the same status as civil unions entered into in the ACT.

“We are and will clearly remain committed to enhancing equality for all Canberrans, and recognising the strength of love,” Mr Ramsay said.

“This change will mean same-sex couples who were married or entered a civil union outside the ACT will automatically have their relationship recognised under ACT law.

“This way the broadest number of ACT residents who enter into one of the growing number of same-sex civil union and civil partnership schemes available around the world have their relationships recognised in the ACT.”

In order to be recognised under the Civil Unions Act 2012, the relationship must:

· be between two adults;
· have been entered into consensually;
· not be a prohibited relationship as defined by section 7 of the Act;
· have not been entered into by a person already married; and
· have not been entered into by a person already in a relationship recognised under the law of another jurisdiction.

The Bill also amends the Juries Act 1967 to restore the provision allowing airline crew members to apply to be exempt from serving on juries. This was previously available under the Air Navigation Regulations 1947 (Cth), which has been repealed.

“The Government acknowledges the nature of the work performed by airline crews often makes jury service impractical,” Mr Ramsay said.

“As a result, we have updated our legislation to ensure they can continue to apply to be exempted from serving on juries.”

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
31 Responses to
Same-sex unions to be automatically recognised in ACT
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Acton 8:34 am 23 Dec 16

Surely our government has more urgent and pressing things to occupy its time and resources. But apparently not.

Look for who gains and who loses from any proposed policy change to understand the real motivations. Those who push for change often use other reasons to justify the change, rather than expose their own selfish drives.

Who stands to financially gain from legalising, formalising and regulating same-sex marriages? What shadowy puppeteers lurk behind the constant push for same sex marriages?

With no formal marriage, no formal divorce is required. With formal marriage you need formal divorce avenues. Divorces need lawyers. The group who stands to most financially benefit from same sex marriage (and doing the behind the scenes manipulations to get their way) are divorce lawyers and the legal profession.

Gay divorce – the coming boom for law firms. Don’t be their puppet.

dungfungus 11:51 am 22 Dec 16

justin heywood said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

….terms like “marriage” do not belong in a modern and secular Australia. It’s people want to play make-believe and pretend that an imaginary figure in the sky endorses their relationship, but that should have no official legal acknowledgment.

Secular? Yes.
Modern? No. Consider this:

We now live in a society where it is OK and even cool to criticise and mock one religion (Christianity), but it is most definitely not OK to criticise another religion (Islam).

When was the last time you saw Mohammed mocked by an Australian public figure? Most of those who regularly rant about the many failings of Christianity are silent on the many failings of Islam.

True, we are a nation of unbelievers. But we are not modern, we are not tolerant; we hate and mock selectively, cowed by political correctness and fear.

That had to be said and it was very well presented.

Still, someone will be offended.

Mysteryman 11:22 am 22 Dec 16

Maya123 said :

I believe a better way to judge how many people really belong to a religion is to use the figure of how many people attend church (discounting weddings, funerals and the like).

Maya123 said :

Absolutely church attendance and religious belief aren’t the same thing…

Then, as I pointed out, it makes no sense to use one figure as a means to measure the other.

justin heywood 10:02 am 22 Dec 16

I am a Rabbit™ said :

….terms like “marriage” do not belong in a modern and secular Australia. It’s people want to play make-believe and pretend that an imaginary figure in the sky endorses their relationship, but that should have no official legal acknowledgment.

Secular? Yes.
Modern? No. Consider this:

We now live in a society where it is OK and even cool to criticise and mock one religion (Christianity), but it is most definitely not OK to criticise another religion (Islam).

When was the last time you saw Mohammed mocked by an Australian public figure? Most of those who regularly rant about the many failings of Christianity are silent on the many failings of Islam.

True, we are a nation of unbelievers. But we are not modern, we are not tolerant; we hate and mock selectively, cowed by political correctness and fear.

dungfungus 3:36 pm 21 Dec 16

HenryBG said :

Mysteryman said :

justin heywood said :

Things must be going pretty well ’round here if this is among the first order of business for our new chief law officer.

They need distractions from their constant rate increases and their housing affordability failures.

The world is riven with wars, some caused by the corporate world, the rest caused by climate change (so also caused by the corporate world), overpopulation has reached a tipping point with 50 million people on the move already and no doubt many more to follow.
And what are we doing? 5 years of *still* arguing about whether homosexual marriage makes sense or not?
It would seem we are ripe for the end of the world, because we appear to be defenceless against it.

Oh, come on Henry, climate change has never caused a war. The belief that it is somehow caused by mankind is bankrupting a lot of countries but we are not throwing spears at each other over it.

Also, the 50 million on the move (with more to follow) are predominantly followers of Islam and they don’t have an opinion on the pros and cons of homosexual marriage because it simply does not exist.

rommeldog56 11:33 am 21 Dec 16

justin heywood said :

Things must be going pretty well ’round here if this is among the first order of business for our new chief law officer.

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how many couples will actually benefit from this legislation? 10? 20?

Surely there’s more important work to do than to dog whistle the ‘progressives’.

True. However, u are talking about an ACT Labor/Greens Govt that wasted $800,000 of Ratepayers $ when they tried to legalise same sex marriage, only to have it, as forwarned, overturned by the Feds. So this latest action is probably small change by comparison.
So, the “progressives” and highly educated voted ACT Labor/Greens back – despite a raft of issues, including that.
Now with such an apparently enduring mandate and with many more ACT Labor/Greens Ministers/MLAs and their related bureaucrats to keep busy, expect more of the same.

Maya123 11:27 am 21 Dec 16

Mysteryman said :

Maya123 said :

Mysteryman said :

pink little birdie said :

Mysteryman said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

Good. Now all we need to do is get the Federal government to abolish the concept of civil marriage contracts and replace it with civil union contracts. Religious terms like “marriage” do not belong in a modern & secular Australia. It’s people want to play make-believe and pretend that an imaginary figure in the sky endorses their relationship, but that should have no official legal acknowledgment.

“Modern and secular Australia”. I always laugh when I hear that. As if somehow, the last 40 years of human existence is so drastically different that we should ignore everything that preceded them.

The bad news for you is that a majority of Australians still identify as religious, so we’re not as secular as you’re making out. In fact, it sounds like you’re in the minority.

I’m pretty sure people are using that as much as possible before the next Census comes out where there will be a large jump in the no religion.
Also most religions in Australia actually support civil same sex marriage (70+% of marriages are not religious in Australia) – some are not willing to extend the religious ceremony of their particular religion to the civil marriage (Hindu’s in particular have come out with that statement).

So you think there will be a huge difference between the data I found from 2012 (where the less than 23% identify as no religion) and 2016? I certainly don’t think so.

I suspect those that put ‘no religion’ will not be that much greater, although it was interestingly given as first option this time, rather than last. I wonder if that will make a difference? Many people however put down the religion they were labelled with at birth, without giving it more thought. They might never go to church, but they still label themselves. I believe a better way to judge how many people really belong to a religion is to use the figure of how many people attend church (discounting weddings, funerals and the like). 8.8% of Australian citizens, according to this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance
With figures like that, Australian does appear more secular than religious. It’s just that the 8.8% can be rather ‘noisy’.
‘No religion’ covers many things, and does not necessary mean a non-belief in a god; only that they don’t belong to a religion.

I disagree. Church attendance and religious belief aren’t the same thing, and the measure of one shouldn’t be used to gauge the other, unless you’re trying to cherry-pick stats to prove your point.

Absolutely church attendance and religious belief aren’t the same thing, That’s why I wrote (didn’t you read this before commenting?) “No religion’ covers many things, and does not necessary mean a non-belief in a god; only that they don’t belong to a religion.”
If someone never goes to church, etc, and has no contact with that religion, how can they claim to belong to it. The only association then is in their head, maybe only thought of when the census comes around…because that’s what their parents were and they have been told they are. That sounds more like a tradition than a belief.

Mysteryman 9:24 am 21 Dec 16

pink little birdie said :

I can’t seem to quote page 2

But yes there is an expected rise in those marking no religion because it was moved to the top of the religion options in the 2016 Census.
This was the experience of other countries that also moved no religion to the top of their responses for the religion question in their Censuses.
http://www.news.com.au/national/faith-in-the-spotlight-as-australians-tipped-to-lose-their-religion/news-story/0b9626b05bf1ee796bf5700bc7d99193
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/2016-census-question-of-religion-demands-honest-response-20160801-gqiask.html
http://www.stats.govt.nz/methods/classifications-and-standards/classification-related-stats-standards/religious-affiliation/questionnaire-module.aspx
http://hope1032.com.au/stories/life/news/2016/religion-no-religion-question/

Also the Atheist foundations in many countries have been running a campaign to mark no religion if you no longer believe or are actively involved in whatever your religion is for the past 2 Censuses and it’s been relatively successful.

An ‘expected rise’, and a ‘huge difference’ are not really the same thing. I think you’ll find that non-religious people are still in the minority.

Mysteryman 9:22 am 21 Dec 16

Maya123 said :

Mysteryman said :

pink little birdie said :

Mysteryman said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

Good. Now all we need to do is get the Federal government to abolish the concept of civil marriage contracts and replace it with civil union contracts. Religious terms like “marriage” do not belong in a modern & secular Australia. It’s people want to play make-believe and pretend that an imaginary figure in the sky endorses their relationship, but that should have no official legal acknowledgment.

“Modern and secular Australia”. I always laugh when I hear that. As if somehow, the last 40 years of human existence is so drastically different that we should ignore everything that preceded them.

The bad news for you is that a majority of Australians still identify as religious, so we’re not as secular as you’re making out. In fact, it sounds like you’re in the minority.

I’m pretty sure people are using that as much as possible before the next Census comes out where there will be a large jump in the no religion.
Also most religions in Australia actually support civil same sex marriage (70+% of marriages are not religious in Australia) – some are not willing to extend the religious ceremony of their particular religion to the civil marriage (Hindu’s in particular have come out with that statement).

So you think there will be a huge difference between the data I found from 2012 (where the less than 23% identify as no religion) and 2016? I certainly don’t think so.

I suspect those that put ‘no religion’ will not be that much greater, although it was interestingly given as first option this time, rather than last. I wonder if that will make a difference? Many people however put down the religion they were labelled with at birth, without giving it more thought. They might never go to church, but they still label themselves. I believe a better way to judge how many people really belong to a religion is to use the figure of how many people attend church (discounting weddings, funerals and the like). 8.8% of Australian citizens, according to this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance
With figures like that, Australian does appear more secular than religious. It’s just that the 8.8% can be rather ‘noisy’.
‘No religion’ covers many things, and does not necessary mean a non-belief in a god; only that they don’t belong to a religion.

I disagree. Church attendance and religious belief aren’t the same thing, and the measure of one shouldn’t be used to gauge the other, unless you’re trying to cherry-pick stats to prove your point.

HenryBG 9:04 pm 20 Dec 16

Mysteryman said :

justin heywood said :

Things must be going pretty well ’round here if this is among the first order of business for our new chief law officer.

They need distractions from their constant rate increases and their housing affordability failures.

The world is riven with wars, some caused by the corporate world, the rest caused by climate change (so also caused by the corporate world), overpopulation has reached a tipping point with 50 million people on the move already and no doubt many more to follow.
And what are we doing? 5 years of *still* arguing about whether homosexual marriage makes sense or not?
It would seem we are ripe for the end of the world, because we appear to be defenceless against it.

Maya123 4:42 pm 20 Dec 16

Mysteryman said :

pink little birdie said :

Mysteryman said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

Good. Now all we need to do is get the Federal government to abolish the concept of civil marriage contracts and replace it with civil union contracts. Religious terms like “marriage” do not belong in a modern & secular Australia. It’s people want to play make-believe and pretend that an imaginary figure in the sky endorses their relationship, but that should have no official legal acknowledgment.

“Modern and secular Australia”. I always laugh when I hear that. As if somehow, the last 40 years of human existence is so drastically different that we should ignore everything that preceded them.

The bad news for you is that a majority of Australians still identify as religious, so we’re not as secular as you’re making out. In fact, it sounds like you’re in the minority.

I’m pretty sure people are using that as much as possible before the next Census comes out where there will be a large jump in the no religion.
Also most religions in Australia actually support civil same sex marriage (70+% of marriages are not religious in Australia) – some are not willing to extend the religious ceremony of their particular religion to the civil marriage (Hindu’s in particular have come out with that statement).

So you think there will be a huge difference between the data I found from 2012 (where the less than 23% identify as no religion) and 2016? I certainly don’t think so.

I suspect those that put ‘no religion’ will not be that much greater, although it was interestingly given as first option this time, rather than last. I wonder if that will make a difference? Many people however put down the religion they were labelled with at birth, without giving it more thought. They might never go to church, but they still label themselves. I believe a better way to judge how many people really belong to a religion is to use the figure of how many people attend church (discounting weddings, funerals and the like). 8.8% of Australian citizens, according to this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance
With figures like that, Australian does appear more secular than religious. It’s just that the 8.8% can be rather ‘noisy’.
‘No religion’ covers many things, and does not necessary mean a non-belief in a god; only that they don’t belong to a religion.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site