Civil unions back on the boil?
Two federal MPs from opposite sides of the divide look set to reignite the debate on same-sex civil unions with revelations the pair are considering introducing a civil unions bill.
newspaper today reported Government Whip Joel Fitzgibbon and opposition counterpart Warren Entsch have discussed jointly sponsoring a bill to allow same-sex civil unions, instead of marriage.
Entsch confirmed talks had taken place and said he hoped to soon have advice on wording for a bill.
鈥淢y view is that a marriage proposal will not succeed,鈥� Entsch said.
鈥淚鈥檓 looking at what can be done. It鈥檚 not going to satisfy the hardliners, but I think it鈥檚 certainly going to make a difference for a very significant number of gay couples.鈥�
In November the Labor Party moved to change its party platform to support same-sex marriage, however, instead of voting along party lines Labor MPs will be allowed a conscience vote on any legislation before Parliament.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has so far refused to allow a free vote for Coalition MPs on the issue, meaning any marriage equality bill is likely to fail.
Australian Marriage Equality (AME) national spokesman Alex Greenwich hit out at the civil union proposal saying it was premature and will only draw out the debate on marriage.
鈥淐ivil union legislation is damaging because it entrenches a second-class status for same-sex couples, [it鈥檚] unnecessary because 80 percent of Australians already have access to state civil union schemes, and impractical because it would require referrals of powers from the states,鈥� Greenwich said.
Last week the Greens called for another parliamentary inquiry into same-sex marriage, similar to one held in 2009, to help persuade MPs sitting on the fence.
Labor backbencher Stephen Jones is set to introduce a private members bill to allow for marriage equality when Parliament returns this month and a Greens bill has already been tabled, awaiting a vote.
鈥淚t makes no sense to bring this [civil unions bill] forward before support for marriage equality is tested in Parliament following the Senate inquiry, unless the aim is to take pressure off Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard over their opposition to a same-sex marriage,鈥� Greenwich said.
鈥淭he gay and lesbian community and our families overwhelmingly support marriage equality over civil unions, so all a civil union scheme will do is prolong the debate rather than bring it to an end.鈥�
鈥淲e call on Mr Entsch and Mr Fitzgibbon to test their bill before the upcoming Senate marriage equality inquiry rather than rushing it into Parliament.鈥�
In the UK Prime Minister David Cameron is moving to end the discrimination of Civil Unions.
From pinknews.co.uk
The prime minister, who backed commitment between same-sex couples in his 2005 speech, told supporters today: 鈥淚 stood before a Conservative conference once and I said it shouldn鈥檛 matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a man and another man or a woman and a woman.
鈥淵ou applauded me for that. Five years on, we鈥檙e consulting on legalising gay marriage.
鈥淎nd to anyone who has reservations, I say this: Yes, it鈥檚 about equality, but it鈥檚 also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other.
鈥淪o I don鈥檛 support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.鈥�
鈥淵es it鈥檚 the age-old irony of the liberal left: they practice oppression and call it equality.鈥�
If Civil Unions delivered full equality, if they were part of the Marriage Act, and treated equally under the 1084 laws that reference the Marriage Act, and was not exclusive to the GLBTI community, but open to all, well then who could say no. But what is being proposed is simply a failed experiment in segregation, the imposition of Far Right religious agenda on those who do not seek it. The idea you should have less rights due to your birth, is not something that goes down well with me. The idea Labor and Liberal would collude to stop equality disgraces the core values of those parties. In New Zealand politicians openly lie saying all discrimination had ended. In England, you have a rare leader, not a part of the stop the boats and no, but a real conservative party restoring the party to real conservative values such as Marriage Equality. Who is to say in Australia, the next Liberal Leader, is not another Tony Abbott?
This about shutting down debate, and allowing polticians to lie. Already they have started to tell lies about those who seek the right marry, calling them hardliners.
The only real hardliners, are the people here seeking the segregation of people due to their birth, Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard.
Marriage or Civil Union, it’s still government defining what relationships are. If you want it on your own terms then government has to stay out. You can’t have it both ways. And if married people get benefits that others don’t then that means marriage is discriminatory. You can’t beg government to include you in it’s discrimination under the guise of overturning it. It’s self-defeating and delusional. That’s why no progress is being made. You want to argue that it’s the politicians fault??? Go back to the beginning of this message…
John – I am not sure when the halcyon days of “politicians doing what is best for us” was…
Progress was steady but slow under NSW, starting with Australia’s first de-facto recognition in 1999 and same-sex adoption in 2010.
Each step required a push and there were compromises along the way.
At the moment, we don’t have gay marriage, like Spain or the Netherlands and we don’t have civil unions, like the UK and New Zealand.
Do you take your Civil Unionist to be your Civil Unionist?
I am David, and this my Civil Unionist KC. Not quite the symbolism of husband? You are being socially engineered so you never call the love of your life husband or wife. This suites the Prime Minister鈥檚 Far Right Catholic Union, the SDA Union who holds her numbers, and George Pell, the Far Right Catholic Puppet Master of Tony Abbott.
A Civil Union Certificate is a Certificate of Official Discrimination by the Australian Government. It is a Certificate of segregation of the benefits and protections of Marriage. It is a document that does not give any of the benefits or protections of the 1084 pieces of legislation that reference the Marriage Act. It is a document that is exclusive to the GLBTI community, it is simply awful segregation. In South Africa, the government once used Certificates of Race to define your rights also, in Australia some want to use Civil Union Certificates to define that your love, your relationship, is so bad that it does not have the protection of the Marriage Act. It is simply not worthy.
As the super advertisement go, compare the two couples. Same love, same taxes, but very different laws based on their sexuality. It is clinical and deliberate apartheid, and represents the crushing of your Civil Rights and the worst of Australian politics. In Australia you also had to apply for permission to marry an Aboriginal person, even they had to apply for permission to marry each other. The Civil Union Certificate is the same discrimination. It makes you needy of permission just to have your relationship recognized. I simply do accept that social segregation or want it. The Civil Union Certificate teaches children discrimination against people based on sexuality is always acceptable.
Do you think in South Africa people would welcome back the Race Certificate and all it represents? Would Aboriginal people welcome back having to apply for permission to marry? Or the fact young Australians should learn discrimination against GLBTI people natural? It demeans us all and teaches children segregation is always acceptable.
I did some Civil Union Certificates in Word last night. Civil Union Certificates can be made by anyone. The difference between yours and one the Government would do? The Governments, would have a message supporting your discrimination and segregation by Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Do you want a certificate from him accepting of your discrimination?
Now I am lucky enough I am able to marry overseas if I want. Some people have taken the plunge. But many people are not able to. Why should your economic status now be used to define if you marry? It is a severe punishment. In South Africa under apartheid, people sometimes went to work and live overseas, as only in those countries could they receive equal Civil Rights, and not have government sponsored Certificates of discrimination.
I am not for segregation of people simply because of their sexuality. I am not for making your birth a punishment. I simply do not accept a Civil Union Certificate that defines you to have less rights then other citizens, and I do not seek this discrimination promoted as something is better than nothing. Teaching children segregation of GLBTI under the law is acceptable, is not what I want. A Civil Union that offers no powers or protections of the Marriage Act, with a rubber stamp by Tony Abbott, is vandalism of our Civil Rights 鈥� it entrenches discrimination and makes it harder to move forward. It supports governments to continue to lie, and say all discrimination has ended- it suffocates debate and is dangerous. It stops us ending those last areas of discrimination, such as being excluded in the Federal Equal Opportunity Act, and national adoption rights. It sets us back years as public debate about is watered down. Civil Unions are a political solution to satisfy the Far Right sections of the Catholic Church, not a real solution to end to discrimination, or eloquently brings us forward. It is a dirty bomb that will damage the quest to live as freely as the next person.
While i symapthise with Dave the reality is that politics unfortunately is the art of compromise. Gone are the days when politians did what is best for us!!
As said they would know better if marriage equality will pass and the reality is it’s not likely to occur.
Civil Unions may not be what we want but i would prefer to have that then nothing at all.
We have to realise that Laboor is gone and we will have to live with Abbott for the next couple of elections at least – while i don’t think it will be as bad as some might think i would prefer to have these laws in place before he’s in governement.
As Civil Union has no currency before the 1084 laws that reference The Marriage Act, people might as well pull out their Epson and print off a Civil Union Certificate now. Why bother with a piece of paper from the government that gives no powers or protections such as a Civil Marriage? What is being proposed is useless.
These pollies should tell their leaders to grow up, rather then abuse those who seek equality. They can send troops to war on a lie, and have a million civilians killed without a free vote. But they refuse to support the majority of Australians?
I think to be fair to Fitzgibbon and Entsch, they are in Parliament and they know the numbers! Both also know that tough times are ahead for GLTBI people when Abbott becomes Prime Minister. There will be a huge arch-conservative majority with many religious types elected and there will be NO further progressives laws for many, many years in this country. I would say that civil unions could be introduced in the current parliament and at least that would give some formal recognition to same-sex relationships. I think the marriage or nothing else push is going to leave thousands of same-sex couples with no other alternative to eother marry overseas or indeed, move overseas.
It is also amazing that with poll after poll showing such massive support for marriage equality, these two party hacks call the majority of Australians, hardliners!
What planet are they on with such outrageous spin. What this shows is they are not interested in the views of most Australians and are against equality in the law, and have decided to listen to Margaret Court and Jim Wallace instead.
Why should people have to travel to other countries and marry? It is a few minutes of parliament time to alter a few words in the Marriage Act, that the vast majority of Australians support. Oh but that is right, even Turnbull told parliament his electorate strongly supports equality but he does not. He said he supports only Civil Unions, but of course he does not want the discrimination for his wife, for his love, he would only accept marriage.
Margaret Court is now deciding if we marry? Fuck off!
Fitzgibbon and Entsch can divorce their wife if Civil Unions are so good and get one. But they do not want second class weddings for good reason.
Civil Unions are spin for less is best. The Marriage Act is referenced by 1084 pieces of legislation. It is the same spin that says there is no more discrimination, when we are not even given the protection of the Federal Equal Opportunity Act, and in some states cannot even adopt.
Do you really think pollies will spend 15 solid years altering 1084 pieces of legislation? They will lie, like the do now, and say their is no discrimination anymore, we fixed it.
Be realistic some say, get a Civil Union, then get married in a few years that never comes! Fuck I am realistic. I pay equal taxes and expect equal rights before the law. You can die for these pollies on a distant battlefield, but when you seek to marry your love they treat you as a criminal, as a second class citizen. Well fuck those cowards, and they are cowards. There will so many areas of discrimination with Civil Unions so why would they want that for themselves? Of course they do not, they just want to stop people having equality, and save their leaders.
These people have no right at all to decide if I will marry or not. That is a basic Civil Right we all have. The inconvenient truth is they have absolutely no right denying any couple marriage just because Margaret Court and Jim Wallace throw a hissy fit.
We will decide if we get married, and not some Bible Bashing Looney Cult, or a Far Right Extremist like Tony Abbott who is on the record using his mongrel tongue against us.
This debate has gone on long enough, it is time for equality, not political convenience designed to shut debate down about equality. They use spin to say there is no discrimination now, so what spin will they use with Civil Unions?
You can struggle all you want and try to make our birth a punishment, but I will never let you get away with that, not for a moment.
Look at what happened in the UK – they introduced civil unions first – and when the sky didn’t fall in after a few years they’re now going to legalise same sex marriage. Whether we like it or not, it takes time for the wider community to change its views on contentious social issues. Let’s be realistic and not be pig headed about this. I agree with this being referred to the Senate inquiry along with marriage but we should seriously consider accepting a compromise in the short-medium term, otherwise we will end up with nothing just to spite ourselves.
Malcom Turnbull is a supporter of civil unions and opposed to same-sex marriage.
Wow! Apparantly I’m now a “hard-liner” because all I am asking for is equal treatment before the laws of this country!
Go figure!
Here I was thinking that to be a hard-liner I needed to man a picket fence outside a dockyard and hurl abuse and punch at anyone trying to get to work; or demand that the christian myopic view of right to life be forced on all and sundry! But no, all this time it was just quietly asking to be treated as an equal!!