Att anyone in the ACT. Re: Civ il Unions Bill.

[foreigncorrespondent]

I heard that they were going to be voting on this bill last night, so now I am trying to find out how the voting went. Can someone who has heard let me know, please?

[Matilda]

1. Passed last night.

Here you go:


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gay-groups-applaud-passing-of-civil-union-bill/2006/05/12/1146940712544.html

Now just wait for the "Christian" Right to start screaming.

[foreigncorrespondent]

2. Oh this is wonderful news!!!

Thank you so much for passing this along. :)

Yep! Just can't wait for the "xian" right to begin their bullshit. ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

3. I heard church groups were going to try to get it overturned...

And the likelihood is that Howard will intervene and attempt to overturn it. Bunch of wankers....

Violet...

[PinkUnicorn]

5. Not try, did

Commonwealth to overturn Civil Unions Bill

The Federal Government has announced it will move to disallow the ACT's Civil Unions Bill. The ACT Government has passed legislation to recognise same-sex relationships, despite opposition from the Federal Government. Federal Cabinet considered the matter today, and Prime Minister John Howard has announced he will move to disallow the legislation.

And guess whats cabinets answer was? (saw it on the evening news)

What caught my attention was this snippet of Howards announcement - "...our founding fathers...". Um, the US had 'founding fathers', not us.

On edit: I'm interested about the timing however. With a thorny ACT budget being announced today it means people would be distracted during the decision.

[foreigncorrespondent]

6. Fucking typical!

Guess I shouldn't get all excited about the fact that I might have ac tually been able to travel to the ACT and marry Sapphocrat for real. Fuck, just the other day we were looking at wedding rings online and chose the ones we wanted.

This week has not started off well for me. Monday I lose my job (unfairly), Tuesday I find this out. You bet I am dreading tomorrow now. How much worse will it get?

[Violet_Crumble]

13. If you can get here before August 1 then you can still do it...

At least that's what I heard today. Whether it's right or not I don't know...

Sorry about yr job. That sucks :(

[Matilda]

7. I caught that "founding fathers" bit too. Bloody suckhole.

I just wonder what the ACT government was doing - they must have known that it could, and probably
would, be overturned by Howard. Was it all a big publicity stunt?

What we need now is for a courageous state premier to bite the bullet.

[PinkUnicorn]

10. Possible paths

From what I read the options now are to convince the Governor General to tell Howard to stuff it (unlikely as Howard selected Jeffery, and Jeff is a bit of a bible thumper as well), or if that fails to get both houses to tell him to stuff it (not very likely either).

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=political&story_id=485646&category=political&m=6&y=2006

[Djinn]

19. To be honest I don't think Howard

or the majority of his party give a stuff about gay marriage. What they do care about is the next election. The IR laws have many traditional Coalition voters and more importantly many old ALP voters who switched to Howard a decade ago, very nervous. Couple that with the "time for a change" theme that tends to emerge after a government has been in power too long and Howard is facing probably his tightest election as PM yet.

A little wedge issue that'll get the Family First party on board is just what the doctor ordered. After all we've done Asians, Indigenous people, refugees and Muslims already so we need a new flogging horse. Looks like it's gonna be gay folk. It'll fly too, sometimes it's easy to forget because the area I live in and the people I socialise with are all generally leftish at least, but there is an enormous well of bigotry in this country and for some reason this issue tends to get people talking more than other issues which keeps it in the public's tiny mind - just take a look at the number of responses to this thread compared to most other in the Oz oubliette.

If the issue keeps up (or is reheated closer to the election) I bet we see a few more FF MP's.

[foreigncorrespondent]

9. The age has his full quote today!

His quote: "Our view is very simple," he said. "The founding fathers, in their wisdom, gave constitutional authority in relation to these matters to the Commonwealth."

It is in this article: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/i-do-oh-no-you-dont-government-says/2006/06/06/1149359745261.html

[PinkUnicorn]

11. And he's wrong anyway

The Commonwealth Marriage Act (from 1961) didn't even contain a definition of marriage ( from Ruddocks own site) until that was changed by the 2004 amendment bill put through by Johnny and Co.

Interesting that our *cough* 'founding fathers' in the 1800's (or 1901 if you count federation) didn't get around to 'assigning powers' until 61 years later and didn't include a definition for another century anyway. Maybe Jackboot is having delusions of grandeur?

[Violet_Crumble]

14. The thorny budget...

I'm kind of wondering about the timing as well. The budget was worse than everyone thought it was going to be, but it hasn't distracted the media here from the federal govt overturning ACT law....

[PinkUnicorn]

16. Another possibility

The other thing I noticed on DU (and didn't know about) is the big stink in the US about pretty much exactly the same thing at about the same time. Jackboot could be sucking up to the Chimp to provide 'moral support' or vice versa.

[Matilda]

17. Some in the government are also talking about banning flag-burning.

Gee, the smoke pall hanging over our cities from all those burnt flags
could cause serious health problems.

[PinkUnicorn]

18. Comparing

Similarities between Oz/US

Gay marriage scare..............check
Flag burning....................check
The terrorist illegals..........check
Vilifying muslims...............check
Sucking up to fundies...........check
Reducing workers benefits.......check
Skirting the NPT (ie: India)....check
Tax breaks for mates............check
Snubbing Kyoto..................check

~Lots more (ramming though legislation, gutting health care, delusions of grandeur, birth control, etc)~

One could think they are dancing to the ame tune here.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. From our local newspaper...

High emotion as civil union laws pass

Jay Hinton was ecstatic when told the ACT's contentious civil unions laws were finally passed late last night.
"It's fantastic," he said from Sydney, where he lives with his 29-year-old partner Gavin Seibert.

The Canberra pair, who will return to the capital later this year after they finish working in NSW, say they are likely to make use of the laws within the next two years.

The legislation - Australia's first to allow civil unions - formally recognises gay and lesbian couples and gives them the same rights that territory law grants to marriage, such as access to wills, powers of attorney and medical consultation.

Mr Hinton, a 28-year-old retail manager, said the laws would bring same-sex couples a step closer to equality.

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&story_id=479851&category=general%20news&m=5&y=2006

[Matilda]

8. The ACT is going to fight.

It goes to the G-G, who apparently is the one who can make the final decision.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/act-to-fight-to-keep-gay-law/2006/06/07/1149359778513.html


Unfortunately, I don't think this G-G was chosen for his backbone. I'm afraid he'll do what Howard
tells him to.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I think yr probably right about the G-G...

Howard has no right to overturn this. The ACT govt made sure there was nothing in it that was straying into the areas the Commonwealth is responsible for...

Here's a copy of the legislation for anyone interested in reading it...

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/b/db_21568/default.asp

I found out today that someone I work with is opposed to gay civil unions. What gave me a big shock was that he's gay himself and is in a long-term relationship with another guy at work. He's definately not a conservative, but his rationale is that if gay civil unions are allowed, it's making gay unions just like straight ones and he likes being different. That sort of reasoning doesn't work for me, mainly coz it's selfish as he's only thinking about himself, that the same sort of argument could have been used to argue why women shouldn't have equal rights to men, and coz I'm positive that G wouldn't have the same attitude if his partner were to die and the superannuation wasn't paid to him as doing that would make it just like any other next of kin...

[Matilda]

15. Sounds as if your workmate is probably young.

I know of one case where a gay man left his house to his partner, but
his family challenged the Will in court, and got the house. The partner
had no legal rights at all, although he had contributed by way of
maintaining the house and contributing to its upkeep. I guess the
judge saw him as being on a par with a mistress, not a spouse.

So unfair, and I'm amazed that this guy can't see what can happen.

[Djinn]

20. That can actually happen

to married straight couples as well, people tend to think if they have a will then their wishes will automatically be carried out, I know a woman who lost of chunk of assets to her dead husband's girlfriend, a girlfriend she knew nothing about, as far as she was concerned they were a happily married, faithful couple.

I completely and totally support the right of anyone to get married and wish the churches would stop acting like marriage is something they invented, however marriage doesn't neccesarilly solve issues of inheritance etc

[Matilda]

21. As Dickens said - the law is a ass, the law is a idiot.

I heard of a man who sued his ex-wife for a share of her father's estate, and got it. I don't
know what percentage of the estate he got, but I thought the whole idea was ludicrous. But it
happened.

[Matilda]

22. The G-G is going to disallow the ACT Civil Union Bill.

Jeffery is doing his master's bidding, and has agreed to overturn the new civil union laws.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1661737.htm


This is the second time in my memory that a pissant Governor-General has intervened with the will
of the people. I have no idea what the legality of it is, but I don't think the G-G should intervene
in any constitutional matter unless the safety of the people is endangered. Howard sure picked his
man.

[Djinn]

23. As much as I detest Howard

I'd prefer the GG took the government of the days advice/request and acted on it. Unlike the US, our vile leader was legitimately elected and no matter how horrid his actions he does have a mandate for them. Anyone who didn't know fine well that Howard would attack workers, unions and gay people if given control of the Senate, is clearly hovering just above amoeba brain wise.

The Territories do not have the same legislative powers as the States (a cynic might say that is precisely why controversial legislation - gay marriage/civil unions and euthanasia - gets on to party platforms there, because the Feds can and will override territory legislation, territory governments know that they can have their cake and eat it too) the Federal govt can override it, if the GG refused the request of an elected government in favour of the dubious power of his reactionary role, then I'd be horrified.

Civilians disobeying governments I'm all for, some old appointed vestige of a dead era doing it for us?, just doesn't sit well with this born Republican, as I said at least Howard was elected...more pity us.

[PinkUnicorn]

24. Unfortunately

Anyone who didn't know fine well that Howard would attack workers, unions and gay people if given control of the Senate, is clearly hovering just above amoeba brain wise.

Unfortunately than means roughly 50% (give or take due to the way preference deals work, etc) of the population is brain dead, though sadly that is not unexpected given that many believed he could control interest rates and actually voted for Assemblies of God Family First. Then again Labor is so useless with the 'walking windbag' that I can see their reasoning...somewhat.

As for the GG, if he's just essentially a rubber stamp, then whats the point in having him? I suspect it was an end run because they only had the executive veto the decision and not the full house and needed the authority - and he is a Howard man all the way in any case. Though I am mildly surprised Jackboot didn't milk it more and drag it out, such as in the Euthanasia scenario, so as to throw up a cloud of smoke against his other problems, such as IR laws, uranium to India, etc.

[Djinn]

25. there is no point to the GG

that's why I'd prefer he didn't make his own decisions.

btw: "reducing workers benefits" is a very very mild description of Workchoices. I hope all Aussie DUers will be at their state rally on June 28th!

http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I'm really rusty on this stuff....

The Territories do not have the same legislative powers as the States...

but I thought the territories do have the same legislative powers as states. I thought that as with the states the territories do have the power to make legislation that doesn't cover anything that's the responsibility of the Commonwealth, eg legislation that's passed in the ACT Legislative Assembly carries the same power as that passed by the NSW state govt. I'm not sure about the NT Legislative Assembly, but the reason why there's much more likelihood of 'controversial' legislation happening in the ACT Assembly is that the ACT is the one state or territory where the population is located in one city with only a small handful of rural dwellers. We've been traditionally strong Labor seats when it comes to federal elections (which is why the public service gets punished after every election), and when it comes to local politics, some of the Liberals in the Legislative Assembly are downright moderate compared to their bigger cousins in federal politics. I think some of the 'controversial' legislation of the past may even have come from the ACT Liberals. Gary Humphries crossed the Senate floor today for good reason - he spent years in the ACT govt prior to moving to federal politics, and even now he knows that he's answerable to the people of Canberra and not homophobic pricks from elsewhere. While some friends of mine today were saying he's set himself up for an arse-kicking from Howard, he's ensured he'll survive politically when it comes to the next federal election...

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Anger as gay civil union ban upheld

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell has lashed out at the Senate decision to reject a move to overturn the federal ban on civil union laws, describing it homophobic.

Senators today voted 32-30 to reject the motion which would have reversed the federal government's ban on the ACT law.

"I am disappointed by the decision, but not surprised,'' Mr Corbell said. "It is a homophobic decision.''

<snip>

ACT Liberal senator Gary Humphries crossed the floor to vote with the opposition and minor parties against his own colleagues.

That made him the first Liberal senator to vote against the government in its 10 years in office.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/anger-as-gay-civil-union-ban-upheld/2006/06/15/1149964653749.html

[PinkUnicorn]

28. I wonder

Now which non-liberal senator voted with the liberals I wonder?

Hmm...now thats a hard one... :sarcasm:

Still, it's interesting to see Jackboot starting to lose control (probably because it's difficult to see whats happening while you're nose is up Bush's arse). His backbench getting a bit restless especially over the Immigration and IR laws - perhaps they may rediscover their spines soon.