Howard Pushes To Ban Same-sex Unions

Discuss news and current affairs. Please enter with an open mind. Strictly no personal attacks.
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 2:01 am
Cash on hand: 1,889.30
Bank: 36,540.00
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Mood: doubting
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:56 am
[quote:cea3258051][b:cea3258051]Howard pushes to ban same-sex unions[/b:cea3258051]

[i:cea3258051]Samantha Maiden, Political correspondent
June 07, 2006[/i:cea3258051]

John Howard will act to block the move in the nation's capital to allow gays and lesbians to celebrate civil unions, on the grounds it is an attack on the institution of marriage.

The Prime Minister confirmed yesterday that federal cabinet had agreed to overturn the ACT legislation that for the first time grants same-sex couples the right to celebrate civil unions.

It was not clear last night whether couples would still be able to celebrate civil unions before the legislation is disallowed on August 1.

"The legislation by its own admission is an attempt to equate civil unions with marriage," Mr Howard said. "We don't find that acceptable."

The dramatic decision to overturn the civil union laws could be tested in a divisive vote in federal parliament if an MP or senator moves to disallow the Howard Government's decision.

The commonwealth will intervene under section 35 of the ACT Self-Government Act, which states the Governor-General, on the advice of the executive council, may disallow an ACT enactment within six months.

Despite claims the legislation would allow teenagers to celebrate civil unions at a younger age than heterosexuals are allowed to marry, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said the fundamental concern was the attempt to equate civil unions with marriage. He accused the ACT of being "deliberately provocative" with the legislation.

"The Marriage Act makes it clear that marriage is a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others," Mr Ruddock said.

"That definition reflects the traditional understanding and was supported bipartisanly in 2004. The ACT's Civil Unions Act creates a statutory scheme in recognition of relationships which bear a striking resemblance to the commonwealth's regulation of marriage."

After speaking to Mr Howard last night, ACT Liberal senator Gary Humphries said he had deep concerns about the intervention in the autonomy of the territory to make laws. "Having been granted self-government, the ACT ought to be able to make decisions without the federal parliament pushing it around and telling it what it can and cannot do," he said.

"Although I may not agree with the legislation, I don't think it's right for the Government to tell the ACT what it can do in a way it wouldn't be able to with the states."

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell said he was "very angry" about the decision.

"This is not about the institution of marriage, this is about the raw politics of John Howard and Philip Ruddock's conservative social agenda," he said.

"I think thousands of gay and lesbian couples in meaningful, committed, loving relationships will be angry and insulted that John Howard is seeking to impose his moral agenda on their relationships.

"I will be lobbying federal members of parliament to seek to disallow it. There should be a debate in the federal parliament on this - that's what happened in relation to euthanasia."

Queensland Liberal MP Warren Entsch, who has proposed a private member's bill to recognise same-sex relationships and remove legal discrimination, said he had "mixed feelings" about the ACT legislation.

"I am hoping still they can be the first ones to introduce a civil union bill," he said.

"I am hoping there can be further adjustment. I have no hesitation in continuing my push to end legal discrimination. I hope in the near future South Australia and Victoria will bring on similar legislation. Tasmania was able to get their legislation through without any hassles."

Tasmanian gay activist Rodney Croome said same-sex and heterosexual couples had been able to sign a relationship register since 2004 that granted their relationship the same protection as marriage or de facto status.

"It has proved very important in allowing not only same-sex couples but other couples to provide a sound legal basis, particularly if they want to start a family," he said.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19390256-2702,00.html[/quote:cea3258051]

Well that's gay.
Modest to the top.
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 7346
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:04 am
Cash on hand: 713.70
Location: The Wilds of Tasmania
Mood: Happy
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:58 am
bad Johnny, bad, bad Johnny.
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 14129
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 3:10 pm
Cash on hand: 302.60
Bank: 2,284,148.00
Location: --o00o---°(_)°--o00o--
Mood: feeling festive
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:25 am
:shrug:
Last edited by OJ on Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 11509
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 1:39 am
Cash on hand: 1,111.70
Bank: 5,138,014.00
Location: Perth WA
Mood: besotted
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:10 pm
Interesting to see Bush is doing the same thing in the States.
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 5671
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:44 pm
Cash on hand: 11,013.00
Location: Brisbane
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:37 pm
it's unfortunate, but change takes time.

i stand by my original beliefs on the issue. until gays/lesbians completely dissociate themselves from the word "marriage" and leave that as is, no change will come. there needs to be a strong push for civil unions, entitling same sex couples to the same rights as heterosexual couples. the very words "gay marriage" when used together are simply hurting the cause imo, and won't make any positive change.
[img05]http://i38.tinypic.com/2yoocbo.jpg[/img05]
User avatar
Oscar Nominee
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 4:30 pm
Cash on hand: 2,237.80
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:27 am
This is a civil union and not a marriage. It is Howard that brought the word marriage into it.
User avatar
Oscar Winner
Posts: 2808
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:10 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
Location: New South Wales
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:39 am
I'm with sherry, civil unions is the better title and in time hopefully things will change.
User avatar
Oscar Nominee
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 4:30 pm
Cash on hand: 2,237.80
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:41 am
I don't understand your point. The ACT legislation is for civil unions and yet Howard is still preventing it. I (begrudgingly) accept that marriage has historical connections with the christian faith where it is dictated as between a man and woman and this is why same-sex marriages won't be accepted, however the civial union is to acknowledge couples and give equal rights to them. I don't see how that affects the 'institution of marriage'.
User avatar
Oscar Nominee
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 2:01 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
Location: Brisbane
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:57 am
How is it that Canada is so far advanced on accepting these issues than we are here in Australia? Is it their french heritage? Or proximity to America's rediculously anal laws?

You can have a gay marriage in Canada while you're smoking pot :P but here we're still talking civil unions :roll:
[img81]http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f192/Mook-e/sig_carlinda.gif[/img81]
TV: South Of Nowhere - Season 2 | The L Word | Weeds | Sugar Rush

Oscar Nominee
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:47 pm
Cash on hand: 4,218.10
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:08 am
[quote:a9ca71b02f="Zeal"]Interesting to see Bush is doing the same thing in the States.[/quote:a9ca71b02f]

:thinking:

Maybe Johnny and Dubya wanna make their union official :shhhh:
Next

Return to News, Current Affairs & Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest