Pledge to continue fight for marriage
Australian Marriage Equality have taken the arrival of new year and new same-sex entitlements, as an opportunity to renew their pledge to continue fighting for equal marriage rights.
AME have once again called on the government to introduce same-sex marriages in Australia, to stop gay and lesbian couples from being forced to prove their status when accessing entitlements.
Being eligible for financial entitlements is one thing, but accessing them is quite another, said AME spokesman Alex Greenwhich.
If we had marriage, the difference would be that you wouldn’t have to go through a whole process when trying to access services, you would just have to show the relevant people your marriage certificate and you wouldn’t have to have friends or colleagues interviewed to prove your relationship. You wouldn’t have to have to provide other forms of evidence.
If you are married it is a pain free and stress free process whereas if you’re in a same-sex relationship you’ve got to go through all these checks and have everything proved, which is not a process which everyone would be keen to go through.
AME’s case is looking no brighter in the new year however, with a spokesman from the Attorney-General’s Department issuing a statement which read, the Government’s position on marriage has not changed. We do not support same-sex marriage.
It is the Government’s view that couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life should be able to have their relationships recognised.
The Government’s policy on relationship recognition supports a state based, nationally consistent scheme for the registration of committed adult relationships, that are not marriages, he furthered.
Civil Unions better than Marriage
As a proud and open gay man I must say that the current strong push for marriage equality for gay and lesbian’s is increasingly making me feel uneasy. I feel like Australian Marriage Equity are working hard at trying to get gay and lesbian people to fit into a heterosexual and religious model that fundamentally debases gay people. Dont assume we should all fit into this debasement.
I dont want to settle for second best which is equality in marriage laws for all genders and sexualities. I want equality for my union with my gay partner protected in Australian law AND I want that law to be fully secular with a removal of religion and religiously based morals from the picture. and I want this for my heterosexual friends who are also having to settle for the current relgiously based Marriage laws in Australis. A Federal Act Civil Unions act that recognised civil unions of all genders and sexualities would be a better than a Marriage Act that might protect our rights but would still have a dubious moral and values basis.
I think we are pushing for an inferior option by argueing for gay marriage and need to use our gay lobbying power to argue for a more robust, value based and profound instituion for all Australian, regardless of sexuality. The Church can then be left to sort through their own moral issues!!!! Our gay civil unions are not their concern.
I think that Brendan of Wollongong NSW does not have a clue about marriage at all. In Vermont SSM got made legal because of 100 lawmakers voting for the SSM bill in Vermont – now that works well – no votes on refaremdoms please!!!!
Jason – you don’t exactly make a valid point on the majority voting on the rights of a minority. Do you propose that we allow paedophiles to vote on child sex laws?
Jason, vica versa. James dont waste your time with Chris.
Chris – Dont waste your time with James.
chris – I’m not trying to get away with anything. I just agree with the philosophy of “one person, one vote” on all issues. Personally, I can’t think of anything fairer.
You’re just angry that California voted down gay marriage twice (LOL!!!), and so you’re now looking for an easy way to vote on an issue with a known outcome whilst feebly attempting to be percieved as “fair”.
James – Maybe you should actually read my orginal comment. I’ll give you a hint, a majority voting on rights for a minority.
Jason…very good point! James you are not going to get away with this one mate , as much as you may try lol!
Jason – do you could vote and I couldn’t? Sounds fair….
It is unscrupulous and untenable for the Australian government to continue to foist an ostensibly religion-oriented version of marriage upon all Australians.
The government of our secular nation should either regulate marriage RESPONSIBLY by enabling marriage equality (ie. gender neutral marriage, consistent in principle with its other recent anti-discrimination reforms) *OR* openly profess the conflict of its politico-religious interests with that of the wider public interest and accordingly get out of the marriage business altogether.
Rudd Labor keeps deferring to state-based schemes. Australians are watching and waiting, Mr Rudd & Mr McClelland. What is your plan for ensuring every state implements such a scheme? NSW, QLD, SA, WA ? What’s the hold-up? What are you doing about it? When will we see in-principle support become a fully-implemented practical reality?
James – commonsense suggests that allowing the majority to vote on rights for a minority is wrong. If the population was 50% hetrosexual and 50% homosexual then a referendum might be fair. Also if there was a referendum and gay marriage was voted down then it still would not be the end of the issue.
Why not have a referendum on the matter and be done with it?
Part of the problem with the phasing, is that we were promised a full 12 months of equal rights before the equal responsibilities kicked in. That has now been reduced to less than 6 months. (due to the Libs dragging their feet- not to mention that with Brendan Nelson in power it didn’t look like we’d get anything at all).
After all the Liberal-imposed delays, Kevin Rudd should then have done the right thing & delayed the responsibilities component until Jan 2010.
As far as Centrelink, they are obliged to keep your details & status confidential.
As far as the “new ‘centrelink’ of the future”….private superannuation that is meant to replace the pension by 2020…. we are still discriminated/excluded until the laws are strenghtened, or Australia gets a bill of rights to challenge the discrimination.
Regarding Marriage, many would have to now agree that going after de-facto first & marriage second was the wrong strategy….. we should have gone after marriage FIRST, so all those that wanted it could access it, without roping in defacto couples who weren’t ready- but you’d need to speak to Labor & the NSW GLRL about that.
Why don’t ACE first focus on fixing the first round of botched reforms to include grand parenting of those (particulalry older people) on Centrelink pensions.
Older people are facing discrimination twice over: once in their working lives and now in retirement thanks to the efforts of the self appointed and unrepresentative ACE.
The “there are winners and losers” response is totally inadequate let alone naive, arrogant and incompetent. Thefact is that the Gen Ys running this agenda are the winners and the babay boomers and builders are the losers.
George Bush failed to implement a marriage ban because the opposition Democrats wouldn’t support it. But former Labor head kicker & leader Mark Latham did, and it was rushed through in 2004.
Kevin07 after being pressured by the Australian Christian Lobby, now supports for the ban to continue. So a Christian evangelical group with only 200,000 members is dictating the futures of 2,000,000 same sex attracted (SSA) aussies.
More and more SSA Australian couples are getting married overseas (full Equal Civil & Equal Religious Marriage) & return to Oz to have those marriages ignored by Rudd..
Our Mandarin-speaking PM even extinguishes the “gay marriages” performed in our heritage mother country Britian, including those performed in British consulates on Australian soil. Even New Zealand has National Civil Marriages/Unions.
That pretty much sums up what it’s like having “Christian Kevin” running the Labor party- we are mow 5 years behind NZ & UK, and lightyears behind Spain, Sth Africa & Canada. But on the upside, with all that Mandarin flowing, we are catching up to China on internet censorship, where equal rights sites can be blocked for good.