The Cadaver says "no" to civil unions

I imagine he would be listened to far more readily on this topic if he hadn’t made such an ass clown of himself on previous issues. This time people are being made to pay for his previous grandstanding and stupidity.

People need to make sure they remember this when the next local election rolls around

Yeah I know, it concerns me a little. It’s frustrating that stanhope does it on various issues, but fed labour can’t provide a decent opposition.

just another case of the fed government showing what a bunch right winged fundamental christian faggots they are.

Standope made a goose of himself over the terrorism legislation. He is now reaping what he sowed there.

This is sad for people who would be affected by such legislation, but when you have a consistent idiot for a CM don’t expect the Feds to ever take him seriously. He continually marginalises himself and seriously wonders why he gets this type of response

I’d take mild issue with your last sentance – if a real satisfactory outcome could actually be achieved by negotiating points with Ruddock, then yes, acting like adults would be appropriate. However, there’s not a whole heap of evidence that anything will be looked at beyond “is it gay partnerships? Is it from the ACT? Can we bash it on the head immediately?”

In the battle for alternatives between “empty posturing that has no real result” and “long and sustained effort that has no real result either”, the first one at least has the benefit of being somewhat cheaper.

Exposure drafts have become increasingly common where legislation is complex, likely to have un-intended consequences, and requires agreement across multiple jurisdictions.

A good example would be Phillip Ruddock’s defamation reforms which began life as an appalling exposure draft and were whipped into a pretty decent set of laws (that Jon Stanhope was proud to call his own) over the course of some pretty learned debate through the submissions process.

Here where the Commonwealth has already show a willingness to veto the legislation it would have been sensible, if the purpose of the exercise was to actually get something on the statutes, to send an advance copy and discuss.

If they’d done an exposure draft phase calling for public comment they could even have got the Commonwealth to put on the public record exactly which parts they oppose and why. That could have had real value in the debate.

An exposure draft of any sort of legislation is a rare beast and generally used where political expediency is sought rather than good law.

The ACT legislature has the right to legislate on a range of matters including matters like, but excluding, marriage. The provisions called upon by the Commonwealth to usurp that power were set in place as safeguards to be used in the most extreme situations, but instead have become a tool of the Howard Governments philosophical agenda and a toadying Governor-General too gutless to wield the power vested in him and too eager to slide his tongue right up his masters chutney-chute – an act that in itself presents a curious inconsistency given Howard’s claim to a moral agenda … but I digress.

Last time around the Commonwealth fallaciously claimed that they had to quash the legally enacted ACT legislation because they were worried that it would be inconsistent with the Commonwealth Marriage Act. The Governor-General seemed to forget that we have a High Court to decide on such matters and when Howard called at Yarralumla, found time to sign the paperwork whilst on his knees engaged in other ‘cleaning’ duties.

So cutting to the chase, I say Standopes plan is a goer – if only -to provide another opportunity for the Prime Minister and the Governor-General to debase the role of the Queen’s representative.

While the process they’ve followed could be justifiably seen as childish or grandstanding, take a look from their side. Does anybody really expect Howard and his mob to permit any legislation which might in any way validate homosexual relationships when they have the power to stop it? Seriously?
So Stanhope et al could sit through weeks or months of negotiation and make no progress at all, and only be able to put out a media release saying “an agreement could not be reached”. Or they could put the legislation out in public for all to see and force the feds to repeatedly and forcibly override the “will of the democratically elected legislative assembly”. Both result in no change, but on drives the point home a hell of a lot harder.
You’re right, though – it might be nice to see this much effort spent on stuff that could actually work…