Carr: Civil unions first
The federal Government鈥檚 new Foreign Minister, former NSW premier Bob Carr, is a supporter of marriage equality but wants the party to legalise civil unions first as he does not believe the numbers are there yet in Parliament.
鈥淚f the ALP Conference goes for a conscience vote on gay marriage then I guess there will soon be a vote in federal Parliament on a motion for gay marriage and the alternative, a motion for civil unions,鈥� Carr wrote in a December 2 2011 post on his Thoughtlines blog.
鈥淭he motion for civil unions will get up with almost unanimous support.
鈥淪ome advocates of gay marriage oppose civil unions because they think this will mean marriage equality will never be achieved, that is, the community will settle for civil unions and not take the next step.
鈥淚 disagree. After a few years of civil unions, the move to full marriage equality will happen effortlessly. Apparently this is the trend line in the UK, and I can see it happening here. Give it another three years.鈥�
When a reader challenged Carr about this, he responded.
鈥淭here isn鈥檛 a majority for it. That鈥檚 why the strategy I have described makes sense. [Civil] unions now, marriage in a few years an inevitability. Given that there isn鈥檛 a majority now in parliament or party at the moment.鈥�
It is unknown whether Carr鈥檚 opinion has changed following the ALP National Conference in December where the party added marriage equality to its national platform.
Responding to Carr鈥檚 comments, Australian Marriage Equality (AME) national convenor Alex Greenwich said the debate had moved beyond civil unions.
鈥淭he world had moved on from civil unions,鈥� Greenwich said. 鈥淭he public sees them for the political expedience that they are.鈥�
Carr fills a Senate vacancy left by the resignation of Mark Arbib 鈥� another supporter of marriage equality, so the level of support in Parliament remains undiminished.
In related news, the new Gillard Cabinet is the most gay-friendly to date, with a clear majority supporting marriage equality.
Twelve members of the 22-member cabinet are supporters 鈥� Senator Stephen Conroy, Simon Crean, Stephen Smith, Anthony Albanese, Nicola Roxon, Jenny Macklin, Senator Bob Carr, Senator Penny Wong, Peter Garrett, Tanya Plibersek, Bill Shorten and Mark Butler.
The Star Observer understands that only three members of the new Cabinet are opponents while the remaining seven members remain undecided.
So we are to have Civil Unions, as placing the words Marriage and Homosexual together, results in Gillard and Abbott having a fit of Gay Panic?
Well what Civil Union scheme do people think Abbott and Gillard will support? Certainly not one that mentions words like 鈥淭o be treated as if married鈥�, or 鈥淭o be treated equally where the Marriage Act is mentioned鈥�.
Carr is proposing a Civil Union scheme called spin. A scheme that will not offer any couple body armour, should they stare down the barrel of the gun called discrimination. Take private superannuation as just one example, where they blatantly sought to exclude same-sex couples from automatic protection, while selling this as fixing all discrimination in superannuation. They stopped at Commonwealth superannuation, and gave private super companies a lend of the gun called Discrimination and shouted 鈥渟hoot the fags鈥�. Sure not every Trustee does that, but they have the where empowered to discriminate.
Abbott and Gillard have yet to agree on including us in the Federal Equal Opportunity Act.
Tax subsidies? Not putting words into my mouth are you Dave?
The fact is we don’t hear heterosexuals bemoaning the problems of being unmarried. And I daresay that those in defacto relationship are through indifference or happenstance rather than choice. Why then is being unmarried such an issue for same-sex couples? Are we also discriminated against as defactos? Why then is only marriage on the agenda for equality? And why is the heterosexual template for marriage talked about as if it was the only way to recognise relationships? The only phrase in the current law that makes sense is “…voluntarily entered into…”. As long as this remains in the hands of government we will never have common sense, let alone equality.
It will still be far easier to obtain a nationally recognized civil union scheme WITH legally binding equality to marriage than it will ever be to get gay marriage. We can quite easily fix the inequalities of a civil union, if they exist, to have them match up with traditional marriage. Why would we want something that means nothing, anyway,and spend so much effort and resources on it? Some gay men want marriage, yet more than 50% of gay male couples have open relationships and intend to keep it that way. That is not traditional marriage – to have and to love, forsaking all others, till death us do part – anyway.
Dave, how dare you question anybodys mental health and call them a troll. What gives you that right? Have a listen to other peoples opinions before jumping in and stomping all over it. You want to live in this world of unrealistic expectations. Is the law stopping you from living with your same sex partner? No, have you been arrested recently for being gay? No, and for your information a civil union is an alternative word for marriage as it caters to the needs of alternative arrangements. At least bob carr is being a realist and if you are gay, take whatever is available otherwise get nothing at all. Australia today has much bigger problems than energy wasted on gay marriage. Ok dave?
An eloquent Post Baz!
I think I understand you are saying marriage should have nothing to do with government. The goods and services, afforded to those in the Marriage Rewards Program, directly discriminates against those who do not want to marry. Rather then give special privileges to those married, give the privillages to all individuals or give none. Not to do this, creates an elite class of people- those who fit the governments definition of marriage. Presently we are all paying taxes to subsides the benefits of those married.
Is this what you are saying Baz?
The comparison Dave (rather than a link) is that if something is discriminatory then it’s surely better to reduce its influence altogether instead just broadening the membership pool. We’d certainly all be equal if we were all married… but that’s just not realistic, is it? To take a side-step and say equality lies in the choice to marry rather than marriage itself strikes me as intellectually dishonest.
Anything that grants different rights or status in society cannot be promoted as equality. Unless you subscribe to the George Orwell dictum: ‘All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.’
Owen call Lifeline, get help with your trolling.
You get your rocks off abusing same-sex parents and making things up about people, you clearly need professional help. Baz and I disagree, but he is no nasty little troll looking for any excuse to abuse people on the basis of their sexuality.
Its come to the point in society where no one takes their vows seriously any more. I dont see gay marriages being legalised in australia. People can say it will be an economic boost and all that but theres a moral aspect we need to consider as kids are involved other wise we will pander to a hedonistic, elitist and socialist society. So no dave I disagree with you and your ideals.
Baz I agree with you
Sorry Baz, I just cannot see the link between slavery and marriage.
Well Dave, I’m used to your irrational posts but now you’re being downright crass.
Signing up to the rewards club of marriage might be a choice you crave but it’s NOT the equality YOU speak of. Stop lying.
Baz, the size and hardness of a cock, the thrusting raw power, makes some drooling to be slaves, gay or straight, but the slavery you speak of is without choice.
“Marriage is not just a word in law. It is a legal instrument that affords participants special rights and protections. The argument is about equity…”
Contradiction! Anything that bewstows ‘special’ rights on some but not others can’t possibly be called equality. Quite the opposite.
I’ve noticed elsewhere Dave that you’ve adopted an argument about marriage being a club with membeship rewards. Maybe it is but where’s the equality? It just sounds like elitism.
Think of it like this: Slavery was as institution that took many, many years to change. But in order to do that did they open it up to more people in the name of equality? No! They outlawed it altogether. Everyones equality is in their freedom. Marriage in the form of a licesne issued by a government is neither.
People have a right to be hung up on Marriage discrimination.
What did Carr expect? Having Bible Bashers like Jim Wallace wonder into our homes, and lecture us on who we can marry, was always going to cause a stir. Most marriages are Civil and have no Church involvement. The public slams the door when Bible Bashers come knocking, so why would we be different? I have no sympathy for politicians feeling squeezed. The polls show over and over the public supports marriage equality, of course Carr wants to be seen as doing something.
Civil Unions are unable to offer the rights and protections of Marriage. I would love them if they could, and were open to heterosexual couples also- not a form of segregation. Why can鈥檛 they be the same as Marriage? Because it would take years and years, to unravel the 1084 pieces of legislation, that refers to the Marriage Act. Labor and Liberal have already opposed ending all discrimination in superannuation against same-sex couples, their heart is not in it. Every piece of legislation would have to be put before the Lower House, and then go to the Upper House. Carr knows this more than most. He is being sly selling silly spin- a Civil Union certificate with no legal power!
Marriage is not just a word in law. It is a legal instrument that affords participants special rights and protections. The argument is about equity, the inability of people to access those rights and protections based on being same-sex attracted. Call this argument Government sanctioned discrimination against same-sex attracted people- Carr’s Civil Unions, are simply the polite way of saying this.
I agree with Bob Carr, we need to learn to be patient and not act like Veruca from Willy Wonka with her “I WANT IT NOW!!!” attitude. To be perfectly honest, people are hung up on a word, as long as we are awarded the same rights as straight couples I couldn’t give a rats what it’s called, people are going to end up calling it marriage anyway.
Civil unions area a step in the right direction, this fight is a process and one that will take time.
Civil Unions afford none of the eloquent legal protections of Marriage. Labor has been busy removing discrimination against same-sex couples in Commonwealth superannuation schemes, but the major parties voted down extending this to private superannuation. If you die, your partner may be in hot water and go bankrupt trying to pay the mortgage etc. Where a superannuation fund does not recognise same-sex relationships, or provide binding death benefit nominations, beneficiaries are at the sole mercy of the Trustee, who can legally discriminate even if you have a Civil Union Certificate- they cannot if you are married.
Civil Unions are not armed with the legal authority of Marriage. They offer no protection against discrimination from the 1084 pieces of legislation that refer to the Marriage Act. They give hope to some, that the government recognises their love, while to others, they offer a certificate of apartheid, a form of segregation from the legal benefits and protections of marriage.
My concern is, Civil Unions allow Labor to continue a narrative that all discrimination has ended. They say this now about superannuation, and no doubt will say about this about your relationship once they introduce Civil Union legislation. It is worth putting into perspective, we are not included in the Federal Equal Opportunity Act, but Marriage is, so how will you fair will a Civil Union go giving the legal rights and protections of Marriage?
Thank you davo , for your comments. A lot of same-sex couples who support the national introduction of civil unions are being howled down. Also, so many gay singles making a lot of noise on behalf of couples who have been together for yonks! I am not worried about that because when the marriage vote is lost ‘hugely’ in the Parliament and Abbott becomes the PM , there is going to be a lot of ‘thinking’ time for so many!!!!! Meanwhile, across the Tasman our New Zealand friends can continue to enjoy the privilege of having civil unions and increased rights. At the recent New Zealand election, marriage equality bleeped on the campaign for about 10 seconds!
I was all bent out of shape about gay marriage – but after given it a great deal of thought, I would be perfectly happy with civil union – nationally.
We bought ourselves matching wedding bands years ago – and with laws protecting our rights – and with legally binding and accepted documents in place – (wills, medical directives, etc.), I am no longer willing to waste time, money, or energy on Gay Marriage at this point in time – We don’t have the votes and will not have the votes until Gillard is out and Abbot is out – and spending $31,000 to have lunch with them is not going to change a thing. Perhaps it is better to fight a smaller battle that can be won.
uuuuarrrgh
Just another Labor hack
No wonder the party is bleeding to the far right and the greens
Carr is worse than a used car salesman
His slick one liners and fawning over Gillard made my stomach turn
I think he imagines that labor is still in power but every day the polls tell a different story.
I honestly believe that he imagines he’s doing gays an ENORMOUS favor thru his school mamish approach to “I know what’s best for you” attitude.
If he really took his foreign affairs job seriously he’d see that other countries have already legislated marriage equality and the UK is poised to enact such laws.
Bob Carr stuffed up NSW, and now Labor have taken him to Canberra so he can do the same for the entire country!
As for his opinion on marriage equality – who gives a rats. The man is a verbose, arrogant, non-entity.
Carr was a boat anchor when Premier, now a mere parasite. He will not lift a finger to assist with Gay marriage. The old Labor right strikes again.
Carr is spot on! The numbers are not there for Marriage Equality. Bring on civil unions and place the Coalition under enormous pressure to act! The conservatives have been saying,”We support civil unions”, time and time again! So prove it in the Parliament. The Australian public are watching this debate and if the Liberals/Nationals backtrack on civil unions then ones knows that they are totally homophobic and totally in bed with the ACL! It is time that the Conservatives grew up because they know there are thousands of same-sex couples in this country and such relationships are being recognised worldwide. Get civil unions in and my partner and I will be laughing all the way to the registry!
Civil Unions are not referenced in the 1084 federal laws that reference the Marriage Act, and do not offer any of the good and services of the Marriage Club, from tax breaks, to family to law, to inheritance rights, regardless of the State you live. The Marriage Club in Australia is an exclusive Rewards club that we subsidise with our taxes. How extraordinary, Carr proposes to deal with discrimination, by bringing in further discrimination- a union for homosexuals.
The polls show the majority of Christians and Australians support Marriage Equality, so who is Labor representing? It seems the faceless men in the far right Catholic SDA Union? They are certainly not resenting the public!
Gillard has done the dirty with Abbott. They are spinning a web of deceit; they are telling you they own your intimacy, your love, your marriage. The only thing Gillard and Abbott own is the ability to deny access to their Marriage Club. You own your marriage, and can marry at any time, and register it when Marriage Equality happens, and your birth is nolonger made a punishment by Labor or Liberal.
These were Carr’s comments last year Poo Fter BEFORE the Conference – not as Foreign Minister!
We must put up our own Gay candidates for election into parliament.
How hard can that be ??
What. We appoint a person to the world stage and his immediate interest is whether
gays might marry or not. take that line to the next meeting in Beijing and see how silly we look.
P.F.
Carr is right about the numbers – they are not there.
Whether or not that means we should take civil unions is another question.