Pinkboard Graffiti Wall - Equality Graffiti Wall 5

I had to laugh when John Howard critised the proposed A.C.T. same sex register, as amoung other reasons, it includes a facility for a "ceremony", which by the very fact of having a cerenmony is too much like marriage!
Whilst the existing Tasmanian Register does NOT have the facility for an off-site ceremony, the City of Sydney one DOES.... so how did that one slip under John Howard's radar?????? Being able to have the ceremony performed off-site, means that sympathetic religions can perform the "ceremony" (such as MCC Church), and that is happening, and has already happened, since launch on Jan 15th 2005, with the 44 people who have signed up already having done so at a time & place & ceremony of thier choosing. (including ceremonies performed by REGISTERED MARRIAGE CELEBRANTS... another criticism of the A.C.T. model by John Howard & Philip Ruddock that registered marriage celebrants should not perform same sex union ceremonies.... but hey, they are in Sydney!)
So it just sounds like the Govt picking on the A.C.T. for no good reason, if two of thier "earth shattering" criticisms are of two aspects already taking place in the City of Sydney Relationship Declaration Program.

They've got two very good reasons to stir this up.

IR Laws.

AWB scandal.

It's called diversionary tactics.

This is how the international press is interpreting John Howard's move: http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/04/040206ozHoward.htm
All I can say is hang on to the existing City of Sydney Register with both hands...

"..it just sounds like the Govt picking on the A.C.T. for no good reason, if two of thier "earth shattering" criticisms are of two aspects already taking place in the City of Sydney Relationship Declaration Program."

- This is true... if you look closely at the 9 page Information Pack, and 5 page Application form for the NSW Relationship Register (links below), then you can see that these things can & are taking place already, with 1). actual registered marriage celebrants performing the ceremonies, and of course 2). as part of an actual ceremony at any time or place of thier choosing, including inside sympathetic Australian Church buildings!

General Background info- http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Community/ServicesAndPrograms/RelationshipsDeclarationProgram.asp
Detailed Information Pack on how the NSW/Sydney Register links in to enhance current NSW De-Facto legislation- http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Community/documents/ServicesAndPrograms/RelationshipsDeclarationProgram/RelationshipsDeclarationProgramInfoPack.pdf
Application Form- http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Community/documents/ServicesAndPrograms/RelationshipsDeclarationProgram/RelationshipsDeclarationProgramApplicationForm.pdf

So it is definatly a case of double standards, and the Federal Govt picking on the A.C.T. for two aspects of their register that NSW are already doing in theirs since Jan 15th 2005! The funny thing is that the Govt DIDN'T attack the actual legal recognition (of which there are big differences), but the Symbolic & Societal Recognition. I find that very interesting... & homophobic. By far, then the City of Sydney gives the most Symbolic Recognition in the whole country, yet has slipped under the radar- probably due, as mentioned before to the "launch" of the Sydney one being a total non-event slipped in by Clover in between ducking for cover being attacked daily on the newspaper front pages for putting up the wrong Christmas decorations! A planned brochure & launch never eventuated & the Register was just silently launched by word of mouth & small articles that weren't even aware of the actual launch date of Jan 15th 2005. (unless you went trauling through the council minutes).

"One of the most recent couples to join the register is Tracie Reinten and Rebecca Reynolds from Camperdown, who held a private ceremony in February.
“We decided to go on the register as it provided an ideal opportunity to reaffirm our relationship and commitment to each other and to make that commitment in front of our family and friends,” Reinten said.
“We are also planning to travel overseas soon to work and thought having an official certificate of our relationship status may assist with visa arrangements – particularly where same-sex relationships are recognised in other countries of the world.
“Generally, the kind of formal commitment [the register] intends is respected by most people, even if not by the laws of Australia.”
Ken Adkins and John Kacprzak decided to register their relationship to mark their 10-year anniversary.
Another reason to do it was that he and Kacprzak own properties together, and the registration certificate might come in handy to prove their interdependency.
He hopes that, if Australia one day follows suit with other Commonwealth nations, such as Britain, Canada and New Zealand, and introduces civil unions or marriage, their registered relationship will automatically be recognised as such."
http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=5179
.... that's an interesting angle, on how people who sign up to the register should have it automatically recognised as a civil union or gay marriage when they eventually come into force in Australia. In that case, one huge benefit would be that you can go ahead & have your ceremony & Relationship Certficate NOW while you still look young & hot in your ceremony photos!!! ..then it will automatically be upgraded for you later into a recognised Civil Union.

With 84 glossy pages with everything from planning your ceremony, to same-sex wedding rings, pre-nups, choosing a celebrant, and organising the reception. There's also an interesting feature on the high profile 2Day FM celebrity gay wedding performed by the Metropolitan Community Church in Sydney. It's a real eye opener to see a whole magazine dedicated to this one issue! http://www.dnamagazine.com.au/

And they've even got 2 half naked boys on the front cover. Geez it's bound to be riveting reading.....

Let's try and remember that marriage is different to a "wedding".

Wonderful to see the future direction for exploitation of the pink dollar!

I've read it cover to cover, & it is extremely informative & lays the issues out in the open & thrashes out all the nuts & bolts, including through the in-depth stories & photos of dozens of real life couples. I was very surprised by the detail & research that has gone into this month's issue of the magazine. I would like to see DNA continue like this, making it more like the fabulous & informative U.S. magazine, "The Advocate".

It would be great if they became more like The Advocate. the first step would be to drop the obligatory half naked man/men on the front cover.....

At the very end of the NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby face to face consultations, they asked should they also try for state based civil unions here in NSW.
Well... 1) the words "civil union" are a VERY loose term (originally created in Vermont USA), that can mean almost any union with all manner of varying rights from none at all to some, and .... 2) in NSW we already have a "civil union" option in the City of Sydney Relationship Register open to all NSW residents, that has some exciting aspects to it, namely the option to incorporate a ceremony performed at a time & place of your own choosing (yes- even Dubbo), yet still recorded in the council registry, and also records how long you've already been in your committed NSW de-facto relationship. And, as a bonus, it's open to straights as well.
So the question of whether we need a state-based register in NSW is a mute point, as it's already there & duplicating it would be unneccesary. Whether other states who currently have nothing choose to pursue it is up to them, but in NSW, there is no point even asking the question, as we already have a NSW "civil union" scheme in place.
Just on the face to face consultations in general- the one I went to was fantastic, very well run, and I got such a positive vibe from everyone about moving towards full equality, including access to full equal choice. It will be great to see the final results of it all. I detest paying equal (or in many cases, HIGHER) taxes than straight people, yet are limited in my everyday ordinary life choices like a second class segregated citizen. Especially in the areas of paying HIGHER taxes as punishment for being in a long term committed relationship. Just as the "heirachy" were forced to give equal rights to blacks who were paying equal taxes, but weren't allowed to marry whites, our time will come too.

"A complaint by a gay man to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) against The Daily Telegraph has resulted in the newspaper publishing a letter by the complainant in support of same-sex marriage this week."
http://www.evolutionpublishing.com.au/sxnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=244&Itemid=41
... good on him! The Daily Telegraph single handedly shut down anti-homophobia training in schools last year(with the final honours done by gutless LABOR), and are "well known" for their anti-gay bias compared to say the Sydney Morning Herald/ Sun Herald.
I'm telling you- buy the SMH & vote Greens! We are not invisible & are not to walked all over- especially by LABOR who think they can kick us & we'll still keep voting for them decade after decade. YES- let LABOR win Govt, but only by Preferences by voting Greens as Primary Vote, so Greens will have more of a say in how that LABOR govt is run, instead of the fanatical Christians LABOR seems so interested in at the moment (when their not bo-towing to the Daily Telegraph!). Check out the Greens website for their long standing open & straighforward committment to GLBT Equality, and the thing I love is that their leader is gay!
http://greens.org.au/policies/careforpeople/lgbti
Leader Bob Brown & his partner should be one of the first couples married once full equality is legal here in Oz.

just received this email this morning from the right's lobby.





SBS Insight is looking to record a program on same sex relationships on
May 12 at the SBS studios in Sydney. If you haven't seen Insight, it is
a 52 minute 'forum-based'' current affairs program which tackles just
one issue per program.

In this program we hope to look at 'federal recognition' of same sex
couples, and discuss what same sex couples miss out on by not being
legally recognised. We will then move into the symbolism and choices
around civil unions and marriage.

We are looking for a range of couples, and singles (not to discriminate) to
talk about their ideas and experiences in same sex
relationships. In particular I would be interested to hear from anyone
who might have been adversely effected by the current system. I believe
this primarily effects workplace issues, pensions and supers. But we'd
also be interested to hear from people who have had issues with adoption
and child custody - or any other family law issues.

In a perfect world I would also like to talk to couples who have
travelled overseas to engage in a civil union or marriage - or who are
planning to do so in the near future.

We are looking to have a colourful and lively debate with politicians,
commentators, and members of the general public about the issue of same
sex relationships.

Many thanks for your thought.

Kind regards,
Skye Docherty

Producer / Reporter
Insight, SBS TV
Sydney, Australia

E: skye.docherty@sbs.com.au

".... that's an interesting angle, on how people who sign up to the (Sydney) Register should have it automatically recognised as a civil union or gay marriage when they eventually come into force in Australia. In that case, one huge benefit would be that you can go ahead & have your ceremony & Relationship Certficate NOW while you still look young & hot in your ceremony photos!!! ..then it will automatically be upgraded for you later into a recognised Civil Union."

- I agree.... you get to a point where you just have to get on with your life & do what you want to do whether it's "fully" recognised or not... and at least take full advantage of what tools are already available, such as the Sydney/NSW Register.
John Howard must DEFINATELY have been asleep when he let the Sydney Register slip in, as yes- it does actually cater for an actual ceremony performed anywhere in NSW, (even by marriage celebrants), with the council certificate issued on the spot during the ceremony, and a copy sent back to Sydney to be stored at the council.
Being based around recording your legal NSW de-facto relationship though, the fact it also officially records how long you have already been together is a real innovation.

why dont we organise a mass gay wedding ?
then the government and opposition will have to sit up and take notice as im sure it will attract alot of media attention.we should approach one of the embassys of the countries that allow it and try to get the event on there grounds which i beleive may make it legal but a lawyers opinion here may be required.
but another point that may need discussion is with gay marraige comes divorce how do we approach this especially when children maybe involved. What also will be the cost socially and economically with the tie up of the legal system in such cases.
I think we need to have our own convention on the issues so we have the answers when confronted .

A mass gay wedding, or even a mock version held on the front grounds of, say, the Canadian Embassy would be very embarrassing to our 1850s conservative government. I like the idea!

Just check if people would need passports and visas to legitimately enter the Embassy for such a purpose.

Failing that, go on a cruise outside the five-mile limit (I'm sure it's much more than five miles these days), and get married at sea by the Captain of the ship.

This has already been done, in Melbourne, with 600 gays getting hitched in a mass committment ceremony- unfortunately it was not recorded anywhere, as Melb/Vic have no Relationship Register.
But..... if the same exercise were done in Sydney, using the City of Sydney Relationship Register, it would all get recorded & certificates issued... and yes, that WOULD create QUITE A STIR!
Maybe we can book this in for August 13th Marriage Ban Anniversary (a Sunday this year), & get some marriage celebrants to perform it (who under the Sydney Register, CAN perform the ceremony of the Relationship Declaration & issuing of Certificates on behalf of Council, at off-site locations of your own choosing.) Maybe those 600 people from Melbourne could come too, get an official certificate recording their relationship in Sydney & then demand recognition of thier state/city when they return to Melbourne.

Ok- lets book it in, & get it happening. Perfect next step for the second anniversary of the national marriage ban protests- and it's on a Sunday this year.

It needs publicity. The Mardi Gras doesn't even get TV coverage any more, and that radio wedding is long forgotten (2day was it?). A nice touch would be to fill it with as many johnnie look-alikes as possible...

With the current Gay Cowboy contestant on Big Brother, I think the August 13th Mass Wedding to protest the marriage ban, should not only have everyone sign up to the City of Sydney Relationship Register, but everyone should wear cowboy hats! That would be a great visual protest.

Thank you for telling more than I wanted to know about Big Brother.

Hey everyone!!

I¡¦ve received a couple of emails asking for details on the rally this Saturday, the 29th April, held by us, Queer Action, so hear it is. I¡¦m not really going to go into the purpose of the rally, the main being to support Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, and oppose PM John Howard Blocking the Civil Unions Bill 2006. If you want more detail, please go to our website or email us...

Ok, the basic details are as follows: the place we are meeting is the ACT Legislative Assembly on London Cct in the City there is ample parking on both sides. We will be meeting at 1.30pm, with the aim to start walking at around 2pm. Please bring as much pride colour as you can and our pride spirit.

For the party goers, there will be an after party at Cube Nightclub, which is located in Bailey¡¦s Corner, starting at 10pm. The theme is stereotypical gay, basically think of your favourite stereotype and pull it out if the closet, so to speak. Cover will be $10 as per usual, and hopefully we will see you on Saturday the 29th at either the rally or the after party!!
Chookas!!

Nathan
Queer Action

Web: www.freewebs.com/queer_action

Wearing cowboy hats is great idea- but the only real lasting impact will to be to record all the couples at the mass wedding onto the City of Sydney Relationship Register- as the 600 people at the Melbourne mass wedding are now all but forgotten. But as the homophobic-Christian groups keep updating their members with figures on how many people have signed up to the Sydney & Tas registers so far, imagine thier shock if it recorded an instant jump of 600 people in Sydney! (or hopefully more)

Here is the link for the NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby survey on what type of relationship recognition you would like... For example full equal choice & equality or something less befitting 2nd class citizens.
http://www.dandmresearch.com.au/survey/dw60302.asp
Anyway, it's good we are being asked, and it's interesting this is one of the reasons that David quoted as why he didn't immediatley come out on Big Brother "there are still laws in this country that discriminate" either directly or in what they deny in rights by keeping us as stigmatised 2nd class citizens paying equal or higher taxes with less rights especially if you dare to attempt to enter a long term relationship!

So I have 24 hours to get to Canberra, line up a pair of leathers with the bum cut out, buy an Akubra hat and one of the really metallic looking rave shirts.

Does anyone have a phone number for emergency liposuction?

Seriously, hope you guys can make enough noise to let jwh know that he's ignoring real people. I'll be there in spirit.

Yes- this year's August 13th Marriage Ban Anniversary on Sunday would be perfect for people to sign up to a mass "wedding" recorded onto the City of Sydney Relationship Register.
Not only should long term couples who are not married sign up, but all those who have already married overseas should sign up as well- as that is what the marriage ban was really about- banning recognition of legal marriages performed overseas... so finally getting those relationships recorded here by the welcoming Sydney Register on the day of the anniversary of the ban would be great. (And if everyone wore cowboy hats that would be even better!)

Hi Guys
I am thinking about putting together a mass gay commitment ceremony to be held in Lane Cove National Park, Sydney, on Sunday 10th September 2006. Please let me know if any of you are interested in this. Then, depending on the numbers of positive responses, I will arrange it.
I would reserve a large area, with parking, toilets and a BBQ where it could be held.
Regards
Tim Addison
Civil Marriage Celebrant
Registration Number A7007
e-mail: info@marriages.net.au
Phone: 9989-8525

Is there a significance of the date 10 September? does it coincide with some festival?

good on you tim for organising this
I hope you have a great turnout.Now is the time for us to show people we really want this
Wish i could attend but alas i have not found the one i want to marry(or probably have me)
m

"The ALP has again demonstrated divisions on the issue of queer rights, with a NSW Labor MP airing anti-gay comments in Parliament.
Greens MP Lee Rhiannon reacted stridently to Donnelly’s position on her private member’s bill, saying that Labor should be “ashamed” of Donnelly’s comments. “Labor should be shamed that in 2006 its MPs use parliament as a forum for expressing these kind of outdated, homophobic and dangerous views,” she told SX. “It is exactly this kind of unreconstructed nonsense from Mr Donnelly that the Greens’ private member’s bill is designed to guard against.”
The NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (GLRL) also took exception to Donnelly’s comments, saying they blurred the lines between church and state.
Federal Labor MP Nicola Roxon, who recently censured Prime Minister John Howard for his anti-gay stance, declined to censure Donnelly and would not be drawn on the apparent split within Labor on GLBT rights."


- Labor blurring the lines between Church & State is right! The MP's comments about Marriage are flawed, as many Churches & religions DO perform & support Same Sex Marriage, and Marriage in Australia is a CIVIL function- i.e. we are not run by Taliban-style religeous law. In fact we have many religions (including many who support AND perform same sex marriages), with Marriage ultimately being ONLY a civil funtion first & foremost in regards to legal recognition.

http://www.evolutionpublishing.com.au/sxnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=41
Link for full article...

Labor don't deserve to win government. After seeing the Budget tonight, I really have to hand it to Liberals- they have done a fantastic job of running the country, as the majority of people/voters agree election after election, till they now have full control of the Senate. Maybe we need to try & turn them from the inside into supporting Queer rights- it can't be any harder than trying the same thing bashing our heads against a brick wall with the new Bible-Bashing-Labor.
Or better yet, as previous posters have mentioned- just vote Greens & let your Primary Vote actually count in showing support for their strong Gay Equal Rights Policy (then vote Liberals in #2 secondary vote for the preferences). That combination will REALLY shake things up, in Libs and Labor.
The major parties always take very close notice of any movements in the Primary votes away from the two majors, as with One Nation, and now Family First where both Libs & Labor are both clamoring to copy Family First's policies to counter that increasing Primary Vote trend.
If there were multitudes of Primary Votes going to the Greens based on GLBT & other issues (Greens have publicly axed thier drug legalisation policy, so that's no longer a problem), then both parties will copy their stance- but I would give the Preferences for actually forming government to Liberals. So- number Greens as No.1, then Libs No.2. That way the Libs will have to take notice & hopefully copy the Greens' Gay Equal Rights Policy, yet for actually forming Govt the Preferences go to Libs to keep running the country in a surplus, vs the horrific monetary disasters of a factional & ineffective Labor who voters may not trust to be in office for another 10 years or more.

I just saw a recent advert on television asking people to donate blood. From what I can remember they list a whole lot of things such as "are you pregnant" , "had a blood transfusion" and "lived in the UK between 1980-1996 for more than six months". Then they said if you said "NO" to all of these then you can donate blood!

Because they failed to include did you have "male to male sex" does that mean we can now donate blood... well we no the answer to that one is still no!

I just wonder why they left out some eligibility criteria from thier advert and not others!

You actually believe that trash that little johnnie dishes out?

The $10 billion "Beazley Black Hole" never existed.
The "so-called surplus" is GST withheld from the States and petrol excise on which we ALSO pay GST,
The people who can afford the higher petrol prices because of tax-cuts are those already in the highest income bracket, bugger the rest of us.
johnnie's betrayed us by selling us something we already owned (Telstra), and you can only sell an asset once--kiss the income it was generating goodbye as more profits are shipped overseas. Perhaps I can sell you your car or your house? Would you like to buy the pair of shoes you're wearing from me?

The ideal situation in Parliament would be the Major Party getting two seats (after all Labor and Liberal are ONE PARTY masquerading as two), and the rest of the seats to independents, each sworn to their own constituency.

Whilstever these "two parties" vehemently oppose each other, i.e., "Your policy is the correct one, but we have to shout it down," and can only "agree" on self-congratulatory pay-rises the only equality we can expect is "Globalization".

Globalization: The concerted effort of a few rich people to ensure that the rest of us get an equal share of poverty.

"Myth: Marriage is God-ordained and eternal, and same-sex marriage will destroy the institution.
Fact: In our secular, multi-faith society marriage is a civil institution. It has changed significantly over the years: where once marriage treated women like property, forced young people into unions against their will, and was closed to inter-racial or inter-denominational couples, it is now a voluntary union between adults of any creed or colour. In those countries with equal marriage, heterosexual marriage and divorce rates have remained the same or are improving."

Myth: Marriage is for procreation and is therefore necessary for the survival of the species.
Fact: The law allows heterosexual couples to marry even if they are infertile, post-menopausal or choose not to have children. Up to a quarter of same-sex couples care for children. These children should have the same opportunity as other children to enjoy whatever benefits marriage brings to families.

http://www.coalitionforequality.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=70

- interesting seeing proper logical answers against these Myths, rather than just "god will get angry"!
The other one, not listed is that homosexuality is not natural.... well it has been recorded in over 400 species of animals, including the lasted case of 2 gay penguins in a New York Zoo who have partnered up as a couple & even have regular sex though the are both male, through to gay animals with larger brains than humans such as gay killer whales, and gay dolphins.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

"(Canberra) Same-sex couples in the Australian Capital Territory will be able to have civil unions under legislation passed Thursday by the Legislative Assembly.
It is the broadest legislation affecting gay and lesbian couples in the country, stopping just short of offering full marriage.
When ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope first proposed civil unions he said they would mirror civil partnerships in the United Kingdom. The announcement was met with a threat by the federal government to enact a bill nullifying the ACT legislation.
What finally passed the Assembly was only moderately amended but Stanhope said he believes it meets all of the objections of Prim Minister John Howard's government.
The Assembly gallery was packed with gays and lesbians as the vote was taken.
"It's a real feeling of elation," one person told ABC television.
"It distinguishes us from any other jurisdiction in the country. It's something that a lot of us didn't think would come for many more decades."
Australian Marriage Equality called on the federal government to abandon any plans to overturn the legislation.
"Australians are increasingly aware of and uncomfortable with laws which discriminate against and exclude gays and lesbians. Most Australians would view an overturning of the ACT legislation as unjust", said spokesperson Peter Furness.
In 2004 the Australian government passed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman (story) and Prime Minister Howard has refused to consider national civil union legislation.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/05/051106oact.htm

.. This is fantastic news & will really get the ball rolling. This is now 3 Australian States/Terr with some sort of Registration or Union schemes- joining the Tasmanian State Register, and the City of Sydney Relationship Register(open to all NSW residents).
The Sydney & ACT schemes also allow for a ceremony.
South Australia or Melbourne will be next cabs off the rank. Once the whole country is covered, the case can be made for either a national system, or even better national access to Civil Marriage (YES- marriage is a CIVIL function in this country.. we're not run by the Taliban).
The most exciting thing is that couples from all over Australia can come to Canberra to have thier civil union in the nation's capital. Then when they return to thier home states, such as QLD, WA etc who have nothing, they can demand that it be recognised, or in Tas or NSW demand that their existing registration schemes be upgraded to match the A.C.T.
Wooohooo, well done to all the volunteers, and to all the marchers who converged on Canberra last month on 3 days notice to ensure the bill stayed alive.

Gay penguins got a good write up much earlier on this Wall including that MM couples would stay together even after being introduced to female opportunities. It seems the emotional bond already established exceeded anything to do with hormones--right down to the males nesting rocks as replacements for eggs.

Remember: jwh has forced through legislation that says the Federal Government will not recognise a same-sex marriage from another jurisdiction, but as marriage is actually State-based, each State CAN choose to recognise that relationship. As I've mentioned previously, Social Insecurity will recognise gay co-habitation (de-facto relationship) in order to reduce payment--so now we have IN WRITING the evidence that our government is two faced.

The Christian Lobby has launched a full-scale 2-day attack on civil unions. We must show our power in numbers too.

URGENT: Alert John Howard NOT to overturn the ACT Civil Unions bill here: http://www.pm.gov.au/email.cfm

Some reasons:
- civil unions are not marriage
- overturning the laws is undemocratic
- civil unions celebrate love/commitment
- not recognising gay couples is discriminatory
- civil unions give proof of relationship (for property rights, etc)

** Please pass this on to 3 people you know in the next 3 minutes

John Kloprogge
0422 913 942


----Original Message Follows----
From: "ACL National Office" <natoffice@acl.org.au>
To: "Jim Wallace AM" <natoffice@acl.org.au>
Subject: Alert Team Email
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:29:02 +1000

Dear ACL Alert Team Member

ACL has an urgent request to make of you: wherever you live in Australia, please could you contact the Prime Minister today or tomorrow and ask him to overturn the controversial Civil Unions Act which has recently passed the ACT Legislative Assembly.

You can email the Prime Minister by filling out the form on his website. http://www.pm.gov.au/email.cfm

Ask him to overturn the Civil Unions Act which mimics marriage by creating a same sex relationship that is not marriage but is to be treated as if it were and which entails all the same processes as marriage, such as a
statutory declaration, public witnesses and a ceremony at which a licensed celebrant presides. The Act seems to be in conflict with the federal Marriage Act which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

ACL has contacted our alert team because you have made a commitment to act quickly on key issues. Please could you email the PM in the next few days so that he is made aware of the strength of opposition to the Civil Unions Act
across Australia.

If you have any questions, please contact ACL on 02 6259 0431.

Beth

---------------------------------------------------

Beth Micklethwaite

Researcher

---------------------------------------------------

Australian Christian Lobby

Suite 9, Level 1, 16 National Circuit

BARTON ACT 2600


Ph: 02 6259 0431

Fax: 02 6259 0462

www.acl.org.au

Courtesy of PFLAG (Vic), Please pass on.

Regards
John K

***

Hi Guys,

Just to let you know there is a programme on SBS ("Insight") tomorrow night @ 7.30pm. Presented by Jenny Brockie. Examines legal discrimination against same sex couples."

Could be worth a look.

Best regards
John C

That rude Catholic Gay guy on Insight who sat there in a room full of gay couples & said "where are all these gay people in relationships... they don't exist".
Well of course gays lack visibility with tossers in the Catholic church (& their supporters) blocking & shouting down that visibility.
Maybe many of those young gay guys in the bush who commit suicide each time some hateful Catholic speaks out about gays being second class citizens would have some hope if they could see that there are equal rights at the end of the tunnel. What hurts even more are rude loudmouth Gay Catholics who want to ram thier point of view down your throat that gays are second class citizens (although they get to pay MORE tax than straights)- these gay Catholics are the ultimate in self homophobia.
This idiot got some publicity on Rodney Croome's website with his waste-of-time Catholic weblog, then in DNA magazine... but after watching him in action tonight, he's best forgotten completely till he grows up & the Catholic brainwashing starts to wear off. I suggest he starts by defecting to the Gay & Lesbian run MCC church.

"Same-sex parents 'deserve equality'
SAME-sex parents should have the same rights afforded to heterosexual parents, a former chief justice of the Family Court said today.
Alistair Nicholson said it was time the rest of Australia fell into line with modern notions of marriage and what it meant to be a good parent.
"I just don't see why same-sex couples should not be able to receive the same freedoms and rights as other people – and I don't see why their children should be discriminated against, either," Mr Nicholson said on SBS.
Traditional notions of marriage were changing and it was time Australia considered what was best for the children of same-sex couples, Mr Nicholson said.
His comments follow a week of debate after the ACT Government passed a law allowing homosexual civil unions in the territory.
Mr Nicholson said it was time for change.
"It seems to me that to freeze a concept in time is mistake," he said. "
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19160651-29277,00.html

- It was a very good show. Good to see the print media has pounced on it straight away. The regilious kooks (gay or otherwise) come out looking like tossers. Many of the gay couples speaking from experience were very moving & it was great to see such an endorsment from the former Cheif Justice.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/marsden-dies-on-holiday/2006/05/18/1147545424833.html

“I think it is a form of minority fundamentalism to say that you have to, in every aspect of one’s institutions and one’s arrangements in society, have technical equivalence,” Howard said.
He made the comments during a question and answer session with students at University College Dublin on Monday during a visit to Ireland.
....a recent Newspoll showed the majority of Australians supported gay relationship recognition.
The survey of 1,200 Australians found 52 percent thought the federal government should introduce a new law to formally recognise same-sex relationships"
http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=5375

... Well it had to happen. As more & more civilised countries implement equal marriage rights to their citizens, or civil union schemes, whilst our Govt shoved us back in time by writing extra discrimination INTO law (something even George Bush has not been able to acheive, thanks to the Democrats blocking it over there, and gutless Labor approving it here), John Howard is going to be slapped with questions like this whenever he travels overseas. Although Ireland doesn't have equal marriage yet, they ARE debating it.... i.e. moving forward, as opposed to moving backwars with the Howard/Labor Marriagen Ban here.

Its no good bagging howard and the liberals on this page ,in recent times labor and the labor offshoot the greens have failed to bring about significant change.
We should now demand change or withdraw our support from these partys.
But on a serious issue we need to have a convention and have people telling us what they want ...not the over politisised drivel
we need to understand the issues ahead of us
and our social probleums from drugs depression and the self imposed genocide of gay men in their indifference to contracting hiv.

"Warren Entsch, one of the five Liberal backbenchers who called for same-sex civil unions last year, has written to all commonwealth parliamentarians asking for support to end anti-gay discrimination.
Entsch, a Liberal MP from Queensland, wrote to MPs this week, saying he was “alarmed to discover the extent of the discrimination that exists in federal government legislation”, The Australian reported."
http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=5399

... This is becoming like the civil rights / equal rights push for Blacks in the 60's. It has all the same elements, and all the same discrimination & lack of access to equal rights.
Hey- if a Liberal MP can start a letter writing campaign to all MP's to support gay equal rights, then I can too.

Now is your chance to have YOUR voice heard on the issue of SAME SEX, SAME ENTITLEMENTS. The deadline for Submissions is this Friday 2nd June.

For details on what the Inquiry is all about, and for details on how to forward your own personal story about being gay or lesbian & wanting "same entitlements", then go to the National Coalition for Equality website:
http://www.coalitionforequality.org.au/

or the Human Rights Commissions site is http://www.hreoc.gov.au/samesex/submissions.html

Just as Howard distorted the republic referendum by asking the people 'do you want a republic with a president elected by parliament', yadeyada...the question here should not be 'do gays deserve the right to marry', but do we deserve the same rights as any other human being in this country? Marriage is a hetero concept and may not be the model we need to emulate, however equal rights in regard to inheritance, super, tax, prison/hospital visitation, adoption, etc etc....are.

"I had to laugh when John Howard critised the proposed A.C.T. same sex register, as amoung other reasons, it includes a facility for a "ceremony", which by the very fact of having a cerenmony is too much like marriage!"

- This is what all the debate is about in the A.C.T.... the christian conservatives don't want any "public displays" of a same-sex relationship "joining in partnership", like a marriage. Well guys- this IS happening already, right under thier noses in the gay capital of Australia.
I agree- we should utilise this "public ceremony" aspects available in the City of Sydney Relationship Register to have a Mass Committment Ceremony (or better yet, call it a Mass "Wedding"), on the 2yr August 13th Anniversary of the Howard/Roxon Marriage Ban on recognising legitimate same-sex marriages performed overseas. If 2DAYFM can do it, then we can lead the charge- maybe Geoff & Jason can come along too & renew thier vows? The only thing is... if you & you partner are thinking of ACTUALLY signing up to the Register & get your Certificate on the day... you will need to lodge your application with the Council at least 30days before the event- i.e., lodge by 13th July.
Can't wait for this year's Rally- it's going to be bigger than ever as momentum builds. If David is out of the BB house, maybe he can come too wearing his (gay) Cowboy Hat, seeing as he is very very passionate about talking about gay equal rights & discrimination.

"If for no other reason, the people who run the gay-friendly Tillman Park Children's Centre in Marrickville should be condemned for a lack of good business sense.
If their perverse crusade to promote the gay lifestyle to toddlers succeeds, they'll be out of business in a generation. "
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,19265482-5001031,00.html

- The purpose of diversity training is three-fold- 1. it caters to the kids who are already the children of gay/lesbain parents, 2. it reduces youth suicide in those who may be gay themselves in not feeling invisible (gay/lesbian issues are one of the LEADING causes of suicide), and 3. it promotes TOLERANCE & understanding in the remaining "straight" kids- it does NOT turn them gay as the Daily Telegraph editor is clearly suggesting.
I wonder how close his/her comments border on public vilification? Unfortunately the last time the Telegraph single handedly pulled anti-homophobia training in high schools, Labor backed them up & pulled the course.
I don't think it's News Ltd that's the problem- just this homophobic, homohysterical editor of The Daily Telegraph. Maybe he/she should have gone to see all the kids at Fair Day this year.
That was the last straw for me- I won't be buying the Telegraph ever again (or voting Labor). As much as I hate the gigantic hard to read pages of the Sydney Morning Herald, it will have to do.

This is a disgusting campaign by the Tele, and Channel 9, to turn a progressive bit of education into a scare campaign. If kids can learn about mums and dads and boyfriends and girlfriends without getting the details of heterosexual sex, why can't they learn about mums and mums and boyfriends and boyfriends without the details of homosexual sex?

Please get your fingers tapping and write to the Tele.
letters@dailytelegraph.com.au

http://media.theaustralian.news.com.au/20060527-gay_player.htm

Frightening. If Putin can do it, can Howard make it happen here?

I write to you today to express my dismay at a disturbing incident that I have recently been made aware of.

A long time friend of mine who is gay and working at a private Catholic School as a teacher was recently suspended and will probably be terminated from his position because it was discovered that he was in an openly all male gay band. Apparently some of his students "Googled" his name and found the details and pictures of the band on the internet. Complaints from some apparently very narrow minded parents to the education department have resulted in the matter being referred over the head of the school Principle and directly onto the Catholic Education Office. As part of his suspension notice it was deemed that by being in a gay band that had an active public internet site with photos that he was "promoting a lifestyle that goes against the Catholic ethos."

My friend at no time has promotoed his sexuality at his workplace with his students. All the teachers at the school including the Principle are outraged and in full support of my freind however the matter has gone above the Principle.

My friend has told me the outrageous news that he cannot complain about this obvious breache of the sexual discrimination act based on the fact that apparently "religious organisations" are exempt from that same act. It astounds me in this supposed "enlightened age" that a religious organisation is exempt from the act. How can this be ?

Why does he stay in that system?

Aren't there other places that he can teach?

Doesn't he find it difficult dealing with gay students are a quite realistically being psychologically abused by such a system? Doesn't he feel helpless when he witnesses homophobic abuse of young people?

And the principal may be "outraged" - but outraged enough to bring this to the attention of the media? outraged enough to risk his job over it? or just outraged enough so that he can sleep well at night knowing that "I'm not one of those bigots"?

Real progress can only be achieved by real sacrifice. The teachers and principal that support this person need to make a public ruckuss or QUIT. There is no 2 ways about it. you are part of the problem by not actively championing for change.

I guess they like their perks, salaries and cowed students too much to take a leap into the public education system.

John Howard only initiated the Marriage Ban when it was revealed that Canada had legalised & started performing same sex marriage there, and same sex Australian couples married in Canada had lodged claims in Australian courts- which were then immediatly thrown out of court once the rushed-through Ban was put in place thanks to Labor's complicity back when they actually did have a say in the Senate.
So, if the Ban never took place, then those Family Court cases would have continued, and discussions such as what's happening in Israel at the moment would be taking place....

"(Jerusalem) The Israeli Supreme Court has reserved decision in a case involving same-sex Israeli couples who legally wed in Canada but whose marriages are not recognized at home. "Israeli straight couples who marry overseas have their marriages recognized by the Ministry of the Interior regardless of whether they are able or not to marry each other in Israel," Stock said.
Stock argued that the petitioners were seeking no more than those rights granted to all heterosexual married couples. "
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/05/053006israel.htm

(Sydney, Australia) Qantas, Australia's international air carrier, will recognize the same-sex marriages of employees who were wed in areas where gay marriage is legal.
The decision reverses an earlier decision involving an employee who married his same-sex partner in Canada last year. The worker, whose name is being withheld, submitted a copy of his marriage license to the company with a request that his record be updated to reflect he was married and his husband entitled to spousal benefits.
The company in March 2005 refused citing Australian law which bars same-sex marriage.
"We are unable to approve your marital status in eQHR [employee records]) as married because Australian law does not recognize same sex marriages. Pursuant to the terms of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman," the company wrote.
Not satisfied the employee resubmitted his claim and attached a copy of an email response he had solicited from the former Chief Justice of the Family Court.
"While Qantas correctly sets out the present state of Australian law, I agree with your view that there is nothing to stop a private employer permitting your husband to be described as your spouse on its documentation and I can see no legal impediment to it doing so," the email from Alastair Nicholson said.
"Indeed it would in my view be an appropriate step for it to take. It may be that it takes the view that to so describe your husband could constitute an admission by it in the event of your marital status being relevant in proceedings against it, but I do not think that this is so because the description in its records could not operate to change the law."
This week Qantas reversed its position and told the worker that it would accept his claim.
A written statement to the employee from Qantas Executive General Manager People, Kevin Brown says: "Qantas is willing to recognize you...as married and will record your status as married. Qantas will treat you and your family in the same manner as it treats all married staff."
The reversal was hailed by Australian Marriage Equality.
"Qantas is not only a very large employer, with over 30,000 staff, but is also an Australian icon," said Glenn Limond, AME national secretary.
Former Chief Justice Nicholson earlier this month slammed the Australian government for its refusal to recognize same-sex couples, accusing it of looking at society through a rear view mirror.
"I just don't see why same-sex couples should not be able to receive the same freedoms and rights as other people – and I don't see why their children should be discriminated against, either," Nicholson told SBS tv."
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/05/053106qoz.htm

..... Qantas has always been an international gay icon.. so it's great to see this good news hitting the international media. Once private companies start recognising legal marriages performed overseas, surely the Govt will have to cave in?
If Qantas can recognised these legally performed marriages from sister Commonwealth country Canada, then why did Labor effecting provide the ink for the ban by supporting John Howard's homophobia? Labor are a joke- they made a big mistake that's going to haunt them for years.. every August 13th Anniversary Protest... aka Winter Mardi Gras march down Oxford Street.

Legal Equity for interdependent and same-sex unions

Warren Entsch is proposing a private member's bill to extend the principles of anti-discrimination to abolish legal inequities in the treatment of people in interdependent and same-sex unions.

You can sign up for the digital petition in support of the bill by filling in the form on http://www.warrenentsch.com.au/interdependency.htm

I feel we have given the major parties and minor wones enough time to come up to the mark in gay inequality.
We now need to demand i feel the democrats but maybe greens need to put some bills to parliment thus forcing the other parties to confront the issues.
In the meantime say the democrats need to get some backbone and think bigger instead of being a novelty two bit party.In this i mean develop sensible policy which is fair.They need to also put a member up for election in each area of the currant sitting members. The members also have to be reasonable and more people inclusive.The party also needs to listen and stop being a closed shop(the same can be said for the greens)and stand up for what they say there going to-not just be in parliament to collect there superannuation.
If we want change we have to get up off our arses and offer real support both finacially and physically.

Community Action Against Homophobia (CAAH) have marched today & had thier voice heard on the News Ltd media that owns Daily Telegraph, as they held Morris Iemma & the paper to account for their comments this last week.
Good on them... these type of attacks on us need to be dealt a quick response with an iron fist. The council is now even considering lodging a complaint agains the paper with the Australian Press Council.

"NEW South Wales Premier Morris Iemma should apologise for "bigoted" comments he made about a Sydney childcare centre's gay-friendly curriculum, a gay rights group said today.
Members of Community Action Against Homophobia (CAAH) today marched from the offices of The Daily Telegraph in Surry Hills to State Parliament on Macquarie Street.
Simon Margan, from CAAH, called on Mr Iemma to apologise for saying that childcare centres should not be used to teach children about gay and lesbian relationships.
Mr Margan said the books, released in 2002, allowed children from same-sex families to feel accepted. "
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19349270-2,00.html

Speed of response is what't most important... so the backlash is instant & gets reported (in the general media, where the attacks actually originated). Unlike the Marriage Ban, where through inaction by the time rallys were organised the issued had died in the media & the bill passed without a wimper in the general media.

The deadline to submit your personal stories of government discrimination against you, has now been extended til 16th June.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/samesex/index.html
http://www.coalitionforequality.org.au/
One of the glaring areas is Superannuation- most of the funds are putting out new booklets this month advising of all the updates such as splitting contributions for spouses/de-facto couples, but they all say that by law it EXCLUDES same-sex de-facto couples. In one booklet I read, it mentions in 7 areas that "same sex couples excluded by law/the act".
But, if that's not enough, you can also talk about this list below of laws that also discriminate against same sex couple in relationships....
A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Goods & Services Tax) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005
Aged Care Act 1997
Bankruptcy Act 1966
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
Crimes Act 1914
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Evidence Act 1995
Family Law Act 1975
Health Insurance Act 1973
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act 1984
Life Insurance Act 1995
Marriage Act 1961
Medicare Levy Act 1986
Medicare Surcharge Act 1986
Migration Act 1958
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004
Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991
National Health Act 1953
Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1976
Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990
Privacy Act 1988
Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1998
Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Sex Discrimination Act 1984
Social Security Act 1991
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Student Assistance Act 1973
Superannuation Act 1976
Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997
Superannuation (Government Co-Contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003
Tax Law Improvement Act 1997
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986
Witness Protection Act 1994
Workplace Relations Act 1996
Youth Allowance Consolidation Act 2000
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/samesex/index.html
http://www.coalitionforequality.org.au/

Religious organisations have been exempt from the anti-discrimination act since it was first brought in by the Wran government in the 80s. At the time, it was a huge step forward in human rights, but certain religious organisations wield a lot of power in the Labor party, so they managed to get themselves exempted on the human rights front. Don't you just love religious organisations like this?

More progressive elements of the party at the time hoped that the exemptions would be removed, but nothing has happened from the ALP. Greens MP Lee Rhiannon introduced an amendment which will remove the exemptions two or three years ago. Because neither of the big parties supported it, it had to go on a waiting list for debate. In the meantime, Fred Nile's "christian" "democrats" have drummed up a lot of opposition to the Greens' amendments.

The bill finally came up for debate in the legislative council this year. It was strongly supported by the Three Greens MPs and the one Democrat MP. It was opposed by the fred nile mob, as well as a few members of the labor and liberal parties who reckon they can call themselves christians by attacking homosexuality. No one from the major party, not even Penny Sharpe, Labor's recently appointed lesbian member who vowed to work for equality, sopke in support of the bill. The Greens, seeing little chance of winning the debate, have suspended debate.

You know it's wrong to exempt anyone from the anti-discrimination act, sov get behind the bill. Contact Lee Rhiannon
Lee.Rhiannon@parliament.nsw.gov.au
and encourage your friend to do the same.

For those wanting to take part in the mass committment ceremony on Sunday 13th August 2yr Marriage Ban Anniversary... you can also have it formally recorded at the City of Sydney, and be issued with an official certificate recording how long your NSW de-facto relationship has been in place. I have signed up already & keep a copy in my wallet to instantly prove my de-facto relationship status with my gay partner of 6 years.
But... you will need to act quickly, as there is a 30 day waiting period to sign up, so you need to act quickly & drop in your forms to council no later than 13th July. For a copy of the form, download from the City of Sydney Relationship Declaration website:
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Community/ServicesAndPrograms/RelationshipsDeclarationProgram.asp
Good luck everyone. The more that have thier relationship formally recorded at the mass ceremony the better.... remember 600 people in Melbourne had a ceremony 2 years ago & it was ignored, but with straight media reporting on how many people sign up to our current registers (in Tas & Syd), as mass "sign up" will definately hit the headlines!
It would be good to see the MCC Church perform the ceremony, seeing as they performing the 2DAYFM wedding, and the MCC were instrumental in getting Equal Marriage put in place in Canada. The MCC congregations in Syndey & Parramatta are fantastic & hope they perform the mass ceremony. But remember- you only have till July 13th to download the forms & lodge to have your participation in the mass ceremony formally recognised & notorised certificate issed.

Call me cheap - but I'm really not willing to pay $150 to register my relationship with the city council. I am not surprised that so few people have bothered to register. I would rather wait & do the "real thing" when the time comes rather than sign up with the council on the basis that it is the only thing currently available to us.
So I will be at the rally on August 13 - as my partner & I have done for the past two years - but I will not be joining in the so called "mass group gay wedding". I applaud the City council for offering such a scheme - but it really is no substitute for proper legal recognition as is available in so many countries more inclusive than our own.

Hi David- myself & my partner felt the same way as you... back when the register was only available in South Sydney Council jurisdiction, and before the marriage ban came into place.
Once the marriage ban happened, we then quickly did not want to take anything for granted especially a register that was already available... then when we heard that it was being updated/upgraded by a legal team to tie in exactly with the existing NSW De-facto laws, and was being thrown open to all NSW residents under the new City of Sydney Council - then, being from outside Sydney we then jumped at the chance to sign up.
We had an off-site service, performed by an MCC Church Minister (he also charged $150) who performed the ceremony & issued the certificate on behalf of council... believe me the $150 the council charge was a drop in the ocean compared to some of the other costs of our $3,000 Wedding & Reception- even the cake cost more than $150. But it was one of the most special days of our lives. When equal marriage does become legal here in Australia, as far as we're concerned we've already had our wedding (while we still look young & hot for our photos ) and we will just sign "the other papers" on an anniversary date. We're just ahead of our time.. John Howard can now catch up to us!
But in the meantime, we have our certificates from the council, readily proving our de-facto status (yes, we keep a photocopy in our wallets too), with the certficate giving us the opportunity to sign off on how long we have been together as a legal de-facto couple, not just the date of our ceremony. That was the best part, having that validation of exactly how long we've been together in black & white, with a copy being stored at the council.
So, use what's available, take advantage of what's there, and read the de-facto laws (Property & Relationship Act) & how the ceremony & certificate are fantastic enhancements that compliment the de-facto law. Why would John Howard be so determined to ban the ceremony component of the Canberra Civil Unions, yet these have slipped under the radar- because council was very clever in playing it all very low key (especially when Daily Telegraph ran an article with the headline "Council to Perform Gay Marriage Ceremonies", so they played it very low key the fact that the council's little register was now open to all NSW residents statewide, with the ceremonies being able to be performed anywhere in the state, like ours.

For some really detailed information & case studies on the Sydney Relationship Declaration Program- have a look at Wikipedia... & scroll down for how the certificate is a standardised form that can be readily used for:
- Ammendment of Death Certificate
- Application for Death Certificate
- Immigration
- Public Repute Test (family law)
- Superannuation (interdependant)
- Identification for 100 point Proof of ID at Financial Institutions (treated same as Australian marriage certificate)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Sydney_Relationships_Declaration_(NSW,_Australia)

perhaps someone should approach the canadian embassy,
because its consided canadian ground the marriages could be legalalbeit only in canada ....but atleast its a start.
perhaps for a bit of titivation(pardon the pun)we could have a nude mass wedding this would ensure media attention.

The federal government has decided to override the ACT Civil Union laws.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gay-rights-law-to-be-overriden/2006/06/06/1149359747326.html

Shame Shame Shame

The U.S. has put thier marriage ban back on the agenda, but once again it will never happen without the support of the Democrats.
But as we know, the Australian Marriage Ban DID get passed thanks to support of Labor Leader & now disgraced bully Mark Latham. Now is Labor's chance to distance themselves from Mark Latham's homophobic gay marriage ban, and fight this civil union override without hesitation (yes, perenial procrastinator Kim Beazley has already said today he "needs to read the bill" before he can comment about this abuse-of-power-override that you'd have to be living under a rock not to know about- especially if you're the leader of a major party).

Howard & Ruddock are a disgrace. Lets hope that the ACT government gets some support from Federal labor - although I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
The Herald is running a poll http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/2006/06/07/form.html

You can be sure Labor will be doing their own polls and only if it scores votes will they come out against it.

Sadly we have no real opposition in this country, only parties who rely too much on opinion pools instead of forming real policies.

Why are we waiting for "labor" to be the "opposition"?

There are plenty of other smaller parties that will support us. WHy do we bother giving the two major parties our preferred votes?

Why do we still have community leaders and papers like the SSO who put the Labor-"It's a storm in a tea cup - but my premier thinks otherewise"-GLBT pacifier on the front page of their paper when there are other people out there in politics who are actually supporting us and putting themselves on the line.

There are two elections coming up in 2007. Make sure your vote counts because we will just get the same-old-same-old if we keep on voting the same way.

And just how many of those other parties have any sort of power?

The answer is none.

Nor will they have enough to hold balance of power, so really a vote for them is a wasted vote.

Remember how effective the Democrats were when they had the balance of power in the senate? All those backflips by the leaders of that party must have qualified them for the Aussie Gymnastics team.

i agree but any vote cast at the moment is a wasted vote.
we need to somehow force the issue.Perhaps we should demand a minister to deal with these affairs(everyother minority group seems to)

Sadly while religious groups are allowed to make donations to political parties, we will never get a fair hearing. If any party stood up for us, they would lose funding and guess which one speaks loudest to politicians?

It's interesting though that according to stats, less than 4% of australias population are classed as church going!

Australia's unique preferential voting system allows us to GIVE power to smaller parties without wasting our vote. You just vote 1 for the candidate you like the most, and you keep numbering the other candidates in order of preference.

That way, if your first choice doesn't win, they count your second choice. If your 2nd choice doesn't win, they count your 3rd, and so on. If it comes down to, say, Labor or Liberal in the end, you will still get your vote counted, as long as you have numbered one of those parties SOMEWHERE in your preferences. Even if you put one of them last and the other one 2nd last, you vote for 2nd last will count just as much as a #1 vote for the same candidate.

If you number your preferences, it's IMPOSSIBLE to waste your vote. Don't just take my word for it; ask someone you trust who knows the system.

Considering the fact that Labor and Liberal get such high #1 votes despite the fact that most voters think their candidates are scum, I'm pretty sure most voters just don't understand the preferential vote.

Be informed. If you vote for Labor or Liberal ahead of a party with more respect for your rights, you ARE wasting your vote. That last sentence was of course my opinion rather than fact, but I'm right.

Quote of the week from Bob Brown on SBS news tonight:

"So John Howard goes and has dinner with George W Bush and comes back to tell us that gay marriage is dangerous and nuclear waste is safe".

If less than 4% of the population are religeous swinging voters that both Libs & Labor need to woo away from voting for Family First, then why don't the 10% of the population who are Gay & Lesbian start swinging to voting The Greens (who have a clear cut GLBT policy).
At the moment, there is no use as Labor thinks that all Gays & Lesbians will keep voting Labor no matter what (most still are), no matter how much they degrade gays, ban anti-homophobia training in schools, ban recognition of legal same sex marriages performed overseas etc, etc.
STOP automatically voting Labor no matter how hard they kick us & then maybe they might start taking notice of us, not taking us for granted & even start to woo us like they have been wooing the 4% Christian extremists since 2004.
Now THIS is a Policy (10 pages)- http://greens.org.au/policies/careforpeople/lgbti

Last night, at the Pride Week media launch, Tanya Plibersek promised she would fighting the ACT law being overriden. She also claimed it was a ploy to take the focus away from the IR legislation.

I have just sent the letter below to the Prime Minister. If you would like to send your own letter you can do so at http://www.pm.gov.au

Dear Prime Minister,

I am quite upset that the Attorney General has decided to overturn the ACT Civil Union legislation. Especially after your recent comments saying that the states are free to implement their own Civil Union legislation.

I urge you to support The Hon Warren Entsch's forthcoming private members bill to show to us that you are not homophobic.

Larry Singer

Of course it's a ploy, and a big one. But unfortunatley Labor (& Tanya) are the first suckers to get pulled in by it all, starting when they guaranteed the passing of the original marriage ban in 2004 & the unprecendented homophobia it created by turning back the clock & writing extra discrimination into law, all thanks to Labor who should have known better, but wanted a few quick votes for Mark Latham's campaign without thinking about the future. My personal experience with Tanya is that she's not that good with the current 2006 GLBT issues, and you will get better passionate advocacy from Liberal backbenchers such as Warren Entsch's grass roots gay equal rights campaign, incl online petition. http://www.warrenentsch.com.au/interdependency.htm

Quote from Nine MSN - 8.6.2006 -

"A Liberal Senator is considering voting against the federal government's move to overturn the ACT's laws allowing same-sex unions. The Australian Democrats and the Greens have already said they would fight the government's plan to use its powers to quash the civil unions legislation, with Labor likely to follow suit.
ACT Liberal Senator Gary Humphries, a former territory chief minister, said the ACT had every right to press ahead with the laws and he was considering crossing the floor to oppose the Howard government."


Lets all STRONGLY encourage this brave Liberal Senator in his decision regarding crossing the floor.

Emails of encoragement can be sent to

senator.humphries@aph.gov.au

If you dont have time to write an email cut & paste mine -

Dear Senator Humphries,

I write to you in the stongest of possible terms to congratulate you on your decision as stated in the media that suggests you are considering crossing the floor regarding the the federal government's move to overturn the ACT's laws allowing same-sex unions.

I want to encourage you to continue with this action and cross the floor and vote against the federal government colleagues.

I wish you well and admire your decision to vote against what many see as an unjust and discriminating law.

Regards

the probleum with bob brown he comes across as a bitter poofter.He was rude to bush on his last tour,no matter what we personally think their is a protocol.He embarrassed us as a nation. He should get his act together develop real policy-its fine to hug trees but you have to prove value without all the emotional bullshit.He should demand a debate/enquirey on same sex rights. As for nuclear energy a debate is long overdue,hw hypocritical wesell uranium but dont use it ourselves.

Myself & my partner of 8 years will be sending in our application forms to Sydney Council by the July 13th deadline to be able to have our ceremony performed on Sunday 13th August. (although not sure about the cowboy hat.. we were going to wear matching white tux's).

Who do we contact to be part of the mass ceremony?? ... as we found out that only the person performing the ceremony can pick up the two blank certificates to be used in the ceremony. Will it be performed by an MCC Minister like the 2DAYFM wedding?

Yeah all those tree huggers are just don't havea clue do they.

They kept on going on about climate change all those years ago - how wrong they've been! The environment isn't worth caring about! There's nothing wrong with the way the earth is shaping up! I don't care what this irratic weather is supposed to be saying - those greenies are just plain wrong!

Bob Brown does not come across as a "poofter" at all. He seems much more concerned with environmental and social justice for all.

In fact Howard has embarrased us more than that one incident of Bob Brown's. He has embarrassed us to more nations and on more occasions than Bob Brown ever will.

As for the uranium debate, no one has answered my post on the Green wall.

"Same-sex couples now will be able to have civil unions as of June 26, a month earlier than first planned and long before the federal government of Prime Minister John Howard can bring in legislation to void the ACT law.
The ACT government also has appealed to the Governor General to disallow Howard's bill when it passes Parliament.
Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock issued a warning Friday that civil unions performed before the legislation is passed will be voided.
That prompted ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell to announce the civil union law will be open to any same-sex couple in the country.
"In the same way that if you have a child born in another state . . . in the same way if you die in another state, your death is registered there. The same thing would happen in relation to civil unions," Corbell said.
Despite Ruddock's threat gay and lesbian couples from across Australia are planning to rush to Canberra on June 26 to tie the knot.
Corbell said that officiants will be licensed by June 26 and predicted there will be an onslaught of couples seeking to enter into civil unions.
The ACT law is based on Britain's civil partnerships and offers all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage without using the term.
Prime Minister Howard's government believes civil unions violate the federal law banning same-sex marriage that his government enacted in 2004."
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/06/060906oz.htm

For details- http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.asp?media=1386§ion=52&title=Media%20Release&id=52
and application form, go to the site for Dept of Births, Deaths, Marriages & Civil Unions- http://www.rgo.act.gov.au/bdm.shtml

When Bush, an American, spoke to the Australian parliament, the forum where Australian laws are debated, and in the interests of democracy, is open to every Australian citizen to observe, Howard decided that no member of parliament would have the right to ask a question to Bush, and that the public gallery would be available only to guests invited by him.

If anybody still held a faint notion that this country was democracy, it must surely have been obliterated on that day. personally, I applaud Bob Brown and Kerry nettle, the only MPs who dared to go against Howard and Bush's wishes.

As for the "bitter poofter" remark, I see Bob Brown's public image very differently. He generally comes across as reasoned and thoughtful, and almost never refers to his sexual orientation. I think it's fantastic that a poofter can gain such a prominent public role for reasons other than being a poof.

In fact Kerry Nettle has held the Greens LGBTI portfolio for the last 5 years, so she is the one who should be speaking on the ACT civil unions. Unfortunately, the media always make a beeline for Bob Brown.

"Inquiries by the Federal Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and NSW Department of Community Services (DOCS) have provided opportunities to push for equal treatment under the law for same sex partners.
In my submission to HREOC's National Inquiry into Discrimination against People in Same-Sex Relationships, I argued that Commonwealth laws affecting taxation, immigration, employment, superannuation and health insurance benefits all discriminate unfairly against people in same-sex relationships, and should be amended. The deadline for this inquiry has been extended to Friday 16 June, and I encourage you to make a submission.
I recommended in my submission to the DOCS review of the Adoption Act 2000 that the NSW Government allow same sex couples to adopt. The growth of same sex parenting has made this change more urgent. At present, non-biological parents in same sex relationships cannot to take on the legal responsibilities for their children through adoption if the biological parent dies.
The Government should provide equal legal treatment for all citizens irrespective of gender and sexuality. Discriminatory laws reinforce social discrimination that allows violence and abuse of lesbians and gay men. All Governments should act to reduce homophobic violence and abuse.
The City of Sydney's landmark Relationships Declaration Program provides the opportunity for any couple to have their relationship registered. While this does not give state or federal recognition, the City has acted to provide the highest level of recognition possible at the local level.
Information:
* HREOC Inquiry: www.humanrights.gov.au/samesex
CLOVER'S eNEWS - Friday 9 June 2006 - No. 300"

... Only a few days left to send in your own personal stories of discrimination (just check out the list of 43 laws in the above posting that discriminate against us- especially if we dare to actually enter into a same sex relationship). Submissions of your own personal stories due this Friday 16th June.

I represent one of the 90 % who agree with John Howard . " Marriage is a legal entity to give naming rights (surname) to their children between a man and a woman " As a gay we have so many rights and advantages comapred to straight > Most of us get embarrased when the little group keep stirring up the marriage debate.
But as in any democracy free speach lets u view your angst , but also as in any democracy the majority of opinion wins.
So please dont attck this post as i have free speach too as well as u.

I am afraid I do have to comment on your post as I believe it contains a lot of errors and misconceptions. You are welcome to reply to my post however.

First, my life has not got a lot better, or even a bit better under Howard. Not even economically.

Second, I don't know where you get your 90% from, but in my circle of gay friends it is probably closer to 10%.

If marriage is purely to give naming rights (surname) for children, then why are couples who are not going to have children allowed to marry? Marriage is a whole lot more than this.

You say we have "so many rights and advantages compared to straight" people. I understand this to mean we have rights that straights don't have. Under NSW law we do have the right to seek redress if we are villified, but I am not aware of any other rights that are denied to straights. I do, however, understand how faaaaaaaaabulous we are. But even this advantage doesn't outweigh the many rights we don't have and the discrimination we still face.

As to democracy, Mr Howard is a past master of using it to his advantage. He uses it whenever he wants to convince us of something, quoting his supposed mandate. He also ignores it when convenient, such as the war on Iraq.

Dear Arti , there is more to gay life than the freinds who scream up and down oxford st . 90-95 % are hidden away in the suburbs feeling terribly embaressed about a few throwing up the marriage debate.
Also you may of not benefited personally under 10 yrs of liberal reign but the general populous has.( documented , verified by OECD , etc etc )

Who says the the people out in the burbs are "embarrassed" by the marriage debate?

If anything I'd think that those of us in the burbs are definite supporters of gay marriage. I know that most of my friends are.

And just because one group of people has economic prosperity, doesn't mean that we are better off as a community.

It wouldbe interesting to see if discrimination levels have gone up as economic prosperity for hte middle class has.

Democracy without an underlying set of laws that protect the rights of people, is just mob rules.

And that's what we have. A system where it's just the majority who get their way regardless of the rights of others they trample on.

Little johnnie has ripped this country apart. Unemployment is at "an all time low" because people who get starvation wages on a mere fifteen hours a week are now classified as being full time employed. Both Telsta 1 and Telstra 2 sales have been dismal failures, people hanging on to their shares are clinging to dead money, and those who give up and sell see their shares then leave Australia.

Our citrus farmers are pulling trees out of the ground because they can't compete with cheap Brazilian imports, yet starving Brazilian people don't even know what an orange is.

If "Billy McMahon in short pants" is successful in manipulating the voters at the next election, I fear we will see our first significant "assassination", and in the chaos that follows people will be left wondering if they have any rights at all.

I said elsewhere that basically people are stupid. That jackboot johnnie has retained power for so long only proves my point.

Phillip Rudock on ABCTV news tonight stated that the reason he stopped the Canberra Civil Unions was because they included a "marriage-like ceremony", and "celebrants", and "other characteristics".
Well HELLO! Doesn't the City of Sydney Relationship Declaration Program already give couples from all across NSW access to having a "ceremony" performed by "celebrants" of your own choosing with the ceremony performed at a place & time of your own choosing.
If Phillip Ruddock actually quoted some of the legal rights the ACT register gives (same as the rights in Tasmania) as being the reason, then fair enough, but to criticise the ceremony is ridiculous.... all those A.C.T. couples should take part in the August 13th National Day of Action Mass Commitment Ceremony & sign up to the City of Sydney Register.... and have it performed by registered celebrants, and have the ceremony in the A.C.T. as the "time & place of thier choosing" (the only thing is, they need to apply 1 month prior- i.e. by July 13th). I'm sure the gay-run MCC Church will perform the ceremony.
Then what is John Howard & Phillip Ruddock going to do- take on Clover Moore & ban the Sydney Register for it's "marriage-like ceremonies"... but the problem here is that Clover launched it very low-key (the previous Sth Sydney Register didn't have a facility for a ceremony, let alone performed by a celebrant & time/location of your own choosing)& they have actually been taking place since lauch date 15th January 2005! Very clever Clover.. good on you- it will be very hard to ban something that's already been running for a year & a half.

If you can do no more than attack me personally (when you don't even know me) then please don't bother.

"But Ms Roxon today said the ACT Legislation did not offend the Marriage Act.
"We believe that the Marriage Act should be between a man and a woman," she said in Canberra.
"Obviously we made this decision as a parliament several years ago."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19467767-29277,00.html

.... "SEVERAL years ago" honey??? You must be kidding Nicola... it was in 2004! That fateful day on August 13th when Federal Labor stabbed us in the back by writing EXTRA discrimination & pure homophobia into law against us- something even George Bush couldn't do as the U.S. Democrats who DO have a spine blocked him.
Can't trust Labor EVER again. This year's SECOND anniversary of the Howard/Nicola Roxon Marriage Ban will be bigger than ever honey- watch out Nicola & start to learn how to say Equal Rights for Equal Taxes Paid.

The current Labor party should be renamed the "wish-wash" party.

They are no longer a party of substance, simply a party wandering in the wilderness making desperate attempts to win votes by pandering to whom ever crosses their path.

Their betrayal of so many minority groups over the past couple of years is disgraceful. no backbone what-so-ever.

Even NSW Labor is all over the place - as the Gay Daycare drama illustrates: Lesbian Upper House MP says "it's a storm in a teacup" to the SSO, her Premier says "children shouldn't be dragged into gender politics" to the Daily Terror. Obviously they think that by telling each readership what they want to hear will get them votes - not realising that sometimes the readerhip overlaps.

Unfortunately we will be stuck with Howard and whom ever his successor is for a couple more years yet because Federal Labor is not a very effective Opposition - nor alternative government.

Remember 13 August 2004 when the election rolls around next year and use your preferential vote to it's maximum effect.

"4. State legislation
To varying degrees and in different ways, Australian states and territories have legislated to give
same-sex partners rights and benefits previously confined to married couples. Such changes
undermine the unique role of marriage in providing the best environment for raising the next
generation of Australians and are counterproductive for the future well-being of our nation."
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/samesex/submissions/031.html

... To counteract this, and tell YOUR personal story about being gay & discriminated against, e-mail your story (even just a short paragraph) to this site:-
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/samesex/
or e-mail direct to- samesex@humanrights.gov.au
Must e-mail your story by this Friday 16th June.

On the contrary, they recognise and understand these concepts as well as any other politician:

1 for you, 1 for you, 7 for me.
1 for you, 1 for you, 7 for me.

Sinple when you learn how.

it is fair enough to attack howard but in reality labour is the more evil.
howard we know where we stand
labour will not make a stand,they say they support us but in reality they tax us more,dont deliver on promises
and are real snakes in the grass.As for workers rights they did more damage reduced job creation thru there unfair dismissal laws where the boss should have a right tto whom they employ. I managed a hotel we had a theif on staff we knew whom it was but she always gave other people the oppertunity to be a suspect she cost us two other honest workers-whats fair in this?and no you couldnt just sack them cause it would of cost us 60,000 in unfair dismissal.
If labour gets back in beazley will reintroduce death taxes and as gay people we have more to lose in this.
seriously we gotta start thinking about which party can deliver for us as labours just stringing us along.

Protest the Federal governments latest homophobic act in squashing the ACT civil union bill.

RALLY and SPEAK OUT

Monday 19th June 5pm
@ Taylor Square, Oxford St Darlinghurst

On his way into Parliament on Thursday Wilson Tuckey (the member for O’Connor in WA) made a statement in support of tightening Australia’s entry requirements for migration by stating publicly that and I quote "if you want people from all over the world living on your street, then tell me". So let’s tell him!

Email: W.Tuckey.MP@aph.gov.au

Or Post:
The Hon Wilson Tuckey MP
Member for O’Connor
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

if your partner's family banned you from visiting him in hospital, or took all his worldly possessions from him if he died, you might rethink your status under Howard. If you were dismissed because your boss was a homophobe and you had no recourse to the law, you might feel a little let down by your idol. If you realise that tens of thousands of dollars in tax breaks go to 'traditional' families, you might get a bit miffed. If unemployment is low because employers can employ more staff by paying them all slave wages, like the ad on pinkboard offering $8 an hour for a cleaner, you might like to rethink your position. 300,000 innocents in Iraq might also find your position difficult to understand. So might all the legal asylum seekers denied their legal rights offshore. And those who have spent years behind behind razor wire for no offence.

I cannot disagree more , most gays do not want marriage and it is very embarrassing to us as gays to have a small group rattling on about it.
Why dont you protest about something that is worth protesting about for example. the collaspse of the public transport system after 10 yrs of labor state govt

Howard supporter Mon 12 Jun 2006 12:23:58

That is actually a rather sexist way of viewing it, Howard Supporter, as any woman is legally entitled to register her child's birth in her own surname or to change that surname with no need to marry at all. Do you have some reason to believe it obligatory for every child born should have its father's surname?

While I've had to agree to disagree with my gay brothers and sisters about particularly wanting gay marriage legislation, I can't oppose it either when so many want it so strongly. My own view is that the reality of such legislation will make marriage representational only in terms of dollars and cents, which to me seems mercenery, demeaning and unsymbolic of personal committment. So many hetero marriages fail (i in 5?) in the first years, and what a nightmare sorting it all out in family courts in the event of divorce. And I don't want to marry, really, I'm capable of having the relationship without the bit of paper to prove it. But I have aquaintances lobbying like mad for this, and I have to agree with them on the issue of equality alone. Why shoud we accept entitlement to fewer rights than straights, whether we want to use them or not?

Back in the dark ages of 1980, my partner of four years was found in pieces on a train track in London. I was refused access to any investigative information surrounding the odd circumstances in which he died, as the law did not recognise our relationship. The police and coroner treated me like a nuisance and I was refused access to any of our mutual posessions (we had a houseful of personal effects plus a house, car and boat) and was even denied a funeral invitation by his homophobic family.
No one at my work or in my family (or his) offered any sort of support to me and I grieved silently for decades.

I had, only a few years before that, been arrested for being in a same sex relationship, which had involved my 26 year old partner living with me in my mother's house (I had not reached age of consent). Even though he and I had cohabitated for two years, we were seperated by the authorities and forbidden future contact until I came of age. My partner was bashed and knifed in his remand centre while awaiting crown prosecution trial and had to go under rule 43, solitary confinement - that was standard acceptable treatemnt by fellow inmates for offenders involved in same sex under age type cases - people viewed him as a monster, even though I'd been a full on scene screamer for some years before he and I had met. I was removed from my mother's custody and threatened with borstal before my ageing paternal grandparents stepped in to save me from that fate - my homophobic father had remarried and was ashamed to take me with him in his new home for fear of what the neighbours would say after reading my case in the local papers, and he and I have remained on frosty terms ever since.

Is that the sort of society we want to encourage and perpetuate? Things have improved for gays legally in subsequent decades I know, but after the Howard Govt first changing the federal marriage definitions etc and now actively overturning ACT legislation, it may not be too long before we return to a life like that of my youth.

I won't be rushing to the alter, my relationships have never been defined in $$$ or registered certification, but I know others do want that. And gay marriage aside, I say get rid of this nasty little homphobic goblin heading our nation (and his party heirs apparent are no sweeter). It's been one big fib after another and a stripping away of human rights on various levels. The way of the Howard future is not what I struggled through the birth of the gay liberation movement for. CHANGE IS OVERDUE

Most gay men want the same rights as any other Australian. Most gay men are not happy to be treated like social outcasts in their own country. Most couples don't want a hetero ceremony, they simply want their union acknowledged in law and in the culture. You must have a very low sense of self worth to acquiesce to Howard's derisive treatment of you so easily.

Yes- when I had a "commitment ceremony" / wedding to my same sex partner, I changed my last name to that of my partner's & her three children.
But- marriage is a CIVIL function of the state first & foremost, then it has other functions such as religeous (including religions that embrace & perform same sex marriages), and naming rights such as in my case, just like any hetero. BUT... my sister who had a hetero wedding 2 years ago chose NOT to change her name. So there! Naming rights is just a periferal, but even so we should still have access to that CHOICE just like any other hetero that pays taxes just like us. (In fact, since I'm in a same sex relationship I actually have the privelage of paying even higher taxes that heteros, with less rights & lack of equal choice).

"Rumours are circulating within the Liberal Party that Prime Minister Howard wants to maintain the momentum of his ACT civil union override by rolling back the recognition of same-sex relationships in the skilled migration program.
In response to publicity about Australia missing out on the much-needed skills of medical specialists who settled in New Zealand instead because it recognises their same-sex relationships, Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone, announced that Australia will allow skilled migrants and students to settle in Australia with their same-sex partners from July 1st.
It is happy with giving same-sex couples some spousal rights if this is buried within what it sees as the lesser category of non-conjugal interdependent relationships.
But as soon as "same-sex" appears alongside "married" or "de facto", it sees red.

At the moment the Feds would probably baulk at, say, the far-right demand for an override of Tasmania’s relationship registry (although there have been reliable rumours that a kind of American-style constitutional amendment which would do just that is being seriously considered).
But there are still many different ways Capitol Hill can appease those who hate homos.
A skilled migration roll-back is one. Banning overseas same-sex couple adoption is another.
Whichever issue is up next, be under no illusions that the Government is already planning its next anti-gay move, and that it will act soon.
If the Federal Government rolls back the recognition of same-sex relationships in immigration policy it will cite the 2004 Marriage Act amendments entrenching the heterosexuality of matrimony as justification.
It’s did the same with its ACT civil union override, its refusal to issue necessary documents to Australians seeking to marry same-sex partners overseas, and its instructions to marriage celebrants to drop the term "partner" and use "husband" and "wife" instead.
http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/weblog.php


... Interesting how New Zealand is leading the way on this issue, and reaping the benefits of skilled migration. Amanada Vanstone's half-hearted attempt to catch some of the action must now be in tatters anyway.

Yes Sandra but after all that you still didn't explain a reason to name a child any other than its mother's surname.

NEARLY 50 per cent of Australians support the Australian Capital Territory's attempts to formalise same-sex relationships, an ACNielsen poll has found.

The Senate voted last week to void the ACT's legislation despite Gary Humphries becoming the first Liberal senator to cross the floor since the Howard Government came to power 10 years ago. The ACT has been trying to find a way around the Senate's decision, saying it will press ahead with its civil unions legislation.

The new poll found 45 per cent of those surveyed supported the ACT laws and 34 per cent opposed them. Younger people were more likely to support the territory's move.

Fifty-six per cent of those aged 18 to 39 said they were in favour of the territory's legislation. Support fell to 48 per cent of those aged 40 to 54 and to 29 per cent of people aged 55 and older.

Labor voters were more likely to be in favour (55 per cent) than Coalition voters (30 per cent).

My sister also did not change her surname to her hetero husband's name when they got married either- so yes, this is just a periferal point.
Though, I know of numerous same-sex couples who have changed thier surnames after having a commitment ceremony to either both having hyphenated names or one changing thier surname to that of the other.

"Just in case anyone imagines Howard is acting on the basis of sincere conviction rather than playing political games, a bit of background is called for. When the first draft of Stanhope’s legislation was produced, the federal government threw up its hands and said it conflicted with the Marriage Act, which defines marriage as “the union of a man and a woman”. Unless the ACT government amended the proposed civil unions law, Howard said, it would be disallowed. Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock was instructed to write to the Stanhope government explaining which aspects of the legislation were unacceptable. This Ruddock duly did, nominating four areas where he said the legislation would have to be amended. But he did not specify how it should be changed, and there’s the rub.
Ruddock originally intended to set out details of the changes that would make the legislation acceptable. When the PM’s office got wind of this, however, the attorney--general was jumped on and told to write only in the most general terms. The reason, as I understand it, was that – for tactical reasons – Howard wanted to retain maximum flexibility. “If we’d laid out our requirements and Stanhope did what we asked, we’d be bound to accept his legislation,” a federal government source told me. So the ACT government had to guess at what the feds would accept. Even though all four sections identified as problem areas by Ruddock were amended, Howard was able to dismiss the changes as not going far enough. One federal Liberal MP – in private conversation with colleagues – has described what Howard and Ruddock did as “a sting operation”.

My information is that Howard wants the ACT’s civil unions law watered down to something like the model that operates in Tasmania – basically, a registration system. The ACT legislation provides for ceremonies at which people entering into civil unions make declarations before civil union celebrants. It is this ceremonial aspect which gets up the nose of the PM and his cabinet allies. If Stanhope had changed his legislation to something close to the Tasmanian template, Howard would have copped it. This, I suspect, was what Ruddock was not allowed to say in his letter. "
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/site/articleIDs/D857CAA2A15FDF91CA25718B00128BFB

..... so there we have it- Laurie Oaks advises that the reason for the A.C.T. ban is cause the "ceremonial aspect gets up the nose of the PM"!
This is NOT a valid reason for banning the A.C.T. model.... for one, gays can still have commitment ceremonies (although word has it that Phillip Ruddock even sniffed around the 2DAYFM gay wedding & made the venue pull out of performing it with them saying "we don't want to violate the Federal Marriage Act"- does that sound like a special events venue manager talking??? And secondly, gay couples can currently have a ceremony AND have it officially recorded in the City of Sydney Relationships Declaration Program...the ceremony aspect of this is something that even the Tasmanian Register does not allow for.
So if it is just the "ceremony aspect" that gets up Howard's nose, especially if it is tied in with being recorded, then don't worry about the A.C.T. law being banned.. just fly hell bent into having a ceremony recorded by the City of Sydney to get up Howard's nose. Once more people sign up (only about 100 people on it so far) it will gain visibilty like the A.C.T. one & it will then REALLY start to get up Howard's nose. (especially if gay couples legally married overseas do it too, to get at least some recognition on home soil)
It will also be harder for Howard to ban something that is already in operation, so he'll be caught between a rock & a hard place (or a Gay Wedding & Clover's fury).

"This month marked the third anniversary of equal marriage in Canada. On June 10, 2003, the first marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples following the historic Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that day.
Last year the then Liberal government passed legislation extending same-sex marriage across the country. Since then, over 10,000 same-sex couples have been legally married in Canada."
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/06/061906canada.htm
- and I thought John Howard was all for the British Commonwealth?? Yet he rejected recognising Canadian Marriages here, and has now rejected U.K.-style Civil Unions as well. Maybe he should remove the Union Jack from our flag & replace it with the U.S. flag?? But then again... the U.S. has gay marriage in the state of Massechuesettes, and George Bush can't enact a national ban without the support of the opposition... something maverick John Howard was able to acheive with the horrific ill-fated decision by the Labor opposition in a monumental blunder of judgement they will have a hard time ever living down.

I don't understand how anyone can legislate to prevent you daying vows in front of a celebrant. I believe you can organise a celebrant for a commitment ceremony (which has no legal standing). Or is there something in the Marriage Act that prevents celebrants from performing certains types of ceremonies?

When you say "most gays do not want marriage" do you mean that most gays believe that we should not have the right to marry? Or are you just saying that most gays do not wish to get married at present?

I suspect it is the latter.

Hi Arti. This is how they do it... Marriage Celebrants are now forced to apply to renew thier licence every 5 years... plus, Phillip Ruddock in the last 2 years has sent out special "orders" to celebrants that they are "forced" to follow (otherwise their licence will be immediately revoked). The lack of democratic process & the sheer secrecy is very sinister, as not only are the general public not cosulted about these "orders" Phil is giving out, but are also not even aware of them. The most recent edict this year is that celebrants are now strictly banned from using the word "partners" which has been commonplace since the 70's. Previous edicts from old Phil since 2004 also include banning them from peforming a "ceremony" that may mock the new 2004 Marriage Act.... Phillip Ruddock was sniffing around the mock wedding in Tasmania last year as part of the Natioanl Day of Action- this is though police gone wild where you can't even do a mock-protest-wedding. Then came the 2DAYFm gay wedding, where pressure was put on the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority to not permit it to take place, with the Foreshore Authority quoting the risk of prosecution for "mocking the 2004 Marriage Act". The MCC Church was to perform the ceremony at the site, and when they perform "gay weddings" they call it a Holy Union ceremony. Luckily with intense media pressure & assurances from MCC, the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority gave in & allowed the ceremony to be performed.

Where the loophole exists currently in NSW, is how gays & lesbians can COMBINE an MCC Church Holy Union Ceremony (either in one of their churches, or off site), PLUS combine that with having the celebrant REGISTER them DURING the ceremony onto the City of Sydney Relationship Declaration Program that in its new revised format allows for a ceremony to be performed off site by any celebrant.

"I don't understand how anyone can legislate to prevent you daying vows in front of a celebrant. I believe you can organise a celebrant for a commitment ceremony (which has no legal standing). Or is there something in the Marriage Act that prevents celebrants from performing certains types of ceremonies?"

Yes, as another poster points out, the licensed celebrants have quietly had their hands tied by Ruddock in recent times etc. However, I have had a marriage ceremony and the celebrant was not licensed, which is another way to hold your own legally unrecongised ceremony without legal hurdles. A licensed celebrant is only required for a legally valid union ceremony, and seeing as ours aren't legally recognised we can pick anyone we want to act as celebrant. Still, the problem needs fixing.

someone should ask howard how he would feel if his son told him he was gay? but failing that there was an article in the west australian on saturday.In the U.S.A
a guy wrote a letter to an anti gay person quoting references from the bible ie it says its ok to seel my daughter to slavery what do you think is a fair price today,My neighbor works on the sabbath am i morally obliged to murder him...There was more to this we should get the original letter and get a sympathetic pollie to take it to parliment and get both sides to answer and follow up there answers in the newspapers .The replies should be interesting.

One thing that everyone seems to miss in this push for 'gay marriage' is that it's going to seriously disadvantage gay couples on welfare. There are lots of couples, positive guys for example, where one or both are receiving benefits. Legal recognition of their status would mean a loss of up to $400 a fortnight for each of them.

Of course we want the law to say we have the right to visit our partner in hospital, inherit his estate, superannuation, children etc. But I don't get the need to role play a hetero convention especially when it's at the expense of the many less fortunate. It almost seems to me that the calls for marriage are like some desperate plea for acceptance, 'please, let us be like you.' My feeling is that we should be proud of our difference and demand that that difference be respected legally. And those basic rights should not impact on those who have fallen to circumstances where they rely on state support.

pixguy
Nobody said that they were making civil unios/marriage compulsory

i am saying that most gays do not want to get married , and i am saying i disagree with it , however i do beleive in peoples right to protest although i think there are more important issues like getting rid of the nsw labour govt, and i also respect peoples desire to get married , its just i disagree with it and its a discussion board, so its healthy to discuss without abuse.

The only difference between hetero and homo relationships is the genders of the people involved. Everything that doesn't stem from that is purely cultural conditioning.

Pixguy, I for one would have thought that you'd be all for legalisation of same sex relationships as it would mean that slowly all those closeted ethnic men would feel more able to live their lives openly when they saw that they'd be protected by the state, and their families would come to accept "this is how it's done in the new country" (just like women are allowed to go to university here in Australia and have their own careers instead of being raised to only be a housewife who bears the children and takes care of her family).

Legalisation of samesex marriages will have a flow on effect to the whole of the australian community (just like all previous law reform has) and we ALL stand to benefit from it. even those people who are on centrelink benefits. The quality of their lives will be inherently better as a result even if they don't have as much money coming in.

"Nobody said that they were making civil unios/marriage compulsory"

But even so, as is already the case for male-female hetero couples cohabitiating, their relationshp is automatically seen as defacto in welfare's eyes. Once same sex relationships are legally recognised this would apply to us too.

"Legalisation of samesex marriages will have a flow on effect to the whole of the australian community (just like all previous law reform has) and we ALL stand to benefit from it. even those people who are on centrelink benefits. The quality of their lives will be inherently better as a result even if they don't have as much money coming in."

I disagee that everyne will be better off. Thousands of gay men who work part-time AND have their low incomes subsidised by welfare will be worse off if they are sharing accomodation with another gay man, as they will be seen as a couple and have their income deducted accordingly by government (even if they really aren't a couple). Many HIV positive people who have for years now been encouraged by all including gay community groups and leaders, to relinquish full pensions and resume places in the workforce, and who, out of sheer good will, choose not to claim the DOH rental subsidy to bask in the luxury of their own rented property, but instead opt to forgoe that and share full rent with a mate, will be penalised.

60 Minutes is apparently running a story on same-sex marriage this Sunday night 25/6/06 for those who are interested. It features several Australian same-sex couples who have married in Canada.

PS. If anyone wants to vote in a poll on same-sex relationship recognition go to http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/

"Legalisation of samesex marriages will have a flow on effect to the whole of the australian community (just like all previous law reform has) and we ALL stand to benefit from it. even those people who are on centrelink benefits."

Just because there will inevitably be a flow on effect from most areas of [social] law reform that does not automatically mean we ALL stand to benefit from it at all. Where on earth do you get the idea that Centrilink clients would be better off if their income was dramatically deducted because of who they live with?

While I have gone with the general flow of support on here re same sex marriage being a case of equality and a basic human right, I have also made it clear that many not fighting for it as hard but not actively opposed to it either (such as myself) are caught between a rock and a hard place, as we want those in NEED (of recognition re existing partners etc) to get it, yet won't be necessarily making use of the entitlements ourselves.

I genuinely hope it comes off, for the sake of equal rights (only) but let's not pretend we all want or need it, indeed some will be the worse for it financially, so any of that group showing even just lip service support will be literally supporting something that will work against them. I think that's admirable and worthy of appreciation.

No offence, but thanks for the good laugh.

"Legalisation of samesex marriages will have a flow on effect ...we ALL stand to benefit from it.... even those people who are on centrelink benefits. The quality of their lives will be inherently better as a result even if they don't have as much money coming in."?

I actually have a little experience with couples living in financial hardship, and a piece of paper, or a title inherited from another sexual culture, may have less relevance to them than how they are going to pay the rent, the power bills, being isolated by inabiility to pay phone/internet utilities, or just getting a bit of protein in their bowl, once they lose their dole.

And to me, there is more difference between hetero and homo relationships than the genders of the people involved. Queer is a politic, a lifestyle, a mindset, an avant garde experiment in human relations. Its not a concept encompassed by "married".

And finally, to "all those closeted ethnic men" coming out and celebrating their sexuality, I think you will find that those cultures and religions are pretty insulated from popular culture. i doubt if Muslims, Jews, Catholics, etc etc are sunddenly going to be singing the praises of the faggot sons.

Do you want the benefits of a legally recognised partner, but without the potential cost?

I would not be in the least bit surprised if this one financial benefit gets taken away well before we get civil unions or marriage. The federal government has already defined us as a having a relationship in two areas - terrorism and sort of in superannuation.

I think the ones against gay marraige are also racist and wifebashers thus the recognition of a minority like gays will flow on to others.

Well, its routine for Centrelink's fraud investigation spooks to spy on hetero welfare recipients to see if they are living with someone 'defacto' so they can cut their dole. If you live with a partner, you are declared a 'dependent' and get less welfare, lost your rent assistance etc.

I bet they can't wait for the floodgates to open on gay men living together. Slash goes the welfare budget, down go the unemployed figures, just in time for the next election.

I have pointed out before that Social Insecurity already does recognise same-sex relationships in order to reduce payment.

So two uni students of the opposite sex who share a place are automatically assumed by Centrelink to be a co-habitating couple?

Of course not. and it'll be the same with two gay men who share a place.

I think you are abit paranoid and now just clutching at straws to support your argument.

"Queer is a politic, a lifestyle, a mindset, an avant garde experiment in human relations. Its not a concept encompassed by "married"."



Yeah and that's why we have identities like "gay" "lesbian" "bisexual" and "transgendered".

They aren't always the same thing as "queer".



"i doubt if Muslims, Jews, Catholics, etc etc are sunddenly going to be singing the praises of the faggot sons."

who said it would ever be "sudden"? You obviously have no long term vision.

"I have pointed out before that Social Insecurity already does recognise same-sex relationships in order to reduce payment."

Only in certian situations, bu not mandatorily, Professor. If two gay men reside together they are not automatically assumed to be in a relationship, just as if three reside together they are likewise not assumed to be in a polygamous relationship and financially penalised.

"So two uni students of the opposite sex who share a place are automatically assumed by Centrelink to be a co-habitating couple?"

Indeed yes, many cohabiting straights are subject to rigorous interviewing to establish the precise nature of their relationship, with the aim of saving money by reducing government payments, were you not aware of this?.

'Yeah and that's why we have identities like "gay" "lesbian" "bisexual" and "transgendered".'... and soon, a new gay identity...'married with children'. Spare me.

'who said it would ever be "sudden"? You obviously have no long term vision.'...how long does your long term vision predict that it will be before the pope will be blessing same sex unions, that muslims will embrace us, that jews will learn to interpret Leviticus in a way that embraces all their brethren? And will this be before the sun burns out?

so let me get this straight (as it were)... if one of a couple dies fighting for his country, his partner is not entitled to a widow's pension, but if they are on the dole, then they are in a relationship. we can be partners if we are terrorists but not according to the taxation dept. you may not have the right to visit ur partner in hospital because ur not partners, and he may not be entitled to health benefits because u are.

well, that all sounds fair to me.

'clutching at straws to support your argument.'

Can't be as much clutching at straws to support an argument as telling people who'll lose money they'll "really be better off".

Yes- there are numerous areas where we don't have equality, the majority are negative, but there are also positive areas where inequality works in our favour such as for HIV patients, or those who are in a relationship & one partner chooses not to work (or part-time) & gets the dole.

All of the GLBT rights groups have said that a major committment to reform is that the "positive inequalities" will be the LAST to be removed.
So that means they will ONLY be removed once full equality is achieved in EVERY other area.

"A NATIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SAME-SEX COUPLES ATTRACTS A LARGE AMOUNT OF INTEREST.
More than 260 submissions have been received by the inquiry into financial discrimination experienced by same-sex couples being conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
Among the high-profile organisations to make recommendations are the Australian Council of Trade Unions, The Judicial Conference of Australia and The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia.
http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=5469

The federal government has banned its departments from making submissions to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission inquiry into financial discrimination experienced by same-sex couples.
A spokesperson for Attorney General Philip Ruddock told The Australian Financial Review government ministers had discussed the inquiry and agreed to instruct their departments not to make submission.
They argued the inquiry should be left to HREOC to do, rather than their departments.
The decision has outraged gay rights activists who say it directly contradicts the prime minister’s recent statements that he supports removing discrimination against same-sex couples in financial areas.
“The pigheaded and unreasonable directive not to co-operate with HREOC shows Mr Howard’s true colours. He talks the talk on discrimination, but he walks in the opposite direction,” she said.
In December 2005 the prime minister said that while he was opposed to same-sex marriage and civil unions, he was “strongly in favour … of removing any property and other discrimination that exists against people who have same-sex relationships”, Sydney Star Observer reported.
In January this year Ruddock said that while the government was against gay marriage, it was “concerned that people should not be disadvantaged in their other arrangements, whether they’re matters relating to superannuation benefits or employment, a range of other factors where we seek to ensure that people are not discriminated against or disadvantaged”.
http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=5490

... interesting how Howard banned his own Govt departments from making submissions! Well 260 is great... and many were from the general public, and average gays & lesbians telling thier own personal stories of how they have been discriminated against.

"The majority of the couples were married in England and Wales where 6,516 pairs tied the knot. In Scotland, some 350 couples have exchanged vows.
Unlike most other countries which allow same-sex couples to solemnify their relationships most of the British couples were male - by a margin of almost two-to-one figures released Friday show.
In England and Wales 4,311 couples were male and 2,205 female. It applies only to same-sex couples and offers all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage but without the name.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/06/062306ukpart.htm

... now that "gay marriage unions" have been such a success in the U.K., there are now moves underway to move the unions onto the general marriage registry along with straight people, instead of having two separate aparteid systems. That way when gays get married instead of it being a "gay marriage union" it will just be an "equal marriage".

"Yes- there are numerous areas where we don't have equality, the majority are negative, but there are also positive areas where inequality works in our favour such as for HIV patients"

In what way are you saying HIV 'patients' enjoy 'positive inequality' (which means 'special privilege')? I'm only aware of their having basic entitlements (many of which aren't even claimed) to reflect their disadvantageous condition.

"or those who are in a relationship & one partner chooses not to work (or part-time) & gets the dole."

That's a generalisation, based on the assumption all non-working partners are dole-claimers, when many partners CAN'T work due to health issues. Dole is only unemployment benefits and even a high majority of unemployed don't 'choose' to be.

"there are also positive areas where inequality works in our favour such as for HIV patients"

Please explain.

So... I don't get it....tell me again... does Australia have it's heritage in Britain... or are we part of America now instead??? And I went to all those Pro-Monachary meetings for nothing... now I can't even have access to British Gay Marriage??

Yes- why should those in same sex partnerships where one is working, and the other is not due to health issues rake in more money in Centrelink payments than straight partners in in the same circumstance?
But, I agree with all the lobby groups that any "positive areas of inequality" where extra benefits not available to straight's be the LAST inequalities to be removed ONLY after EVERY SINGLE other peice of inadvantageous inequality is gone.

"The first woman elected as leader of the US Episcopal Church, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, last night said homosexuality was not a sin and that gays and lesbians were created by God. Schori, who is married and has a daughter, supported the ordination of the openly gay bishop Gene Robinson in 2003.
http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=5467

- We need more of these good news stories to get out there to show that not all religions reject gay relationships- especially here in Australia where the Catholics & the new Politcally-placed Evangelical Churches now have a stranglehold on the laws governing our lives, and are driving the "gay rights rollback agenda".
Good on the first woman bishop to speak out in support of her gay co-Bishop, and gays in general.

"It's one of those red hot issues — one that really can divide a nation. On one side, it's a basic human right. On the other, it's a perversion, an attack on the most sacred institution of all. We are talking about gay marriage. Here in Australia, it's banned. Simple as that. There's no way John Howard will allow it. And just last week, his government went a step further by blocking legislation in the ACT to allow civil unions, basically gay marriages in all but name. Behind all the politics though there are ordinary people desperate to be just like everyone else, happily, legally wed.
Brenna Harding — with the help of one of her mothers, Vicki — has written a series of four children's books. The books, published by Learn to Include, are early readers for five- to eight-year-olds, which feature families with same-sex parents. My House, Going to Fair Day, The Rainbow Cubby House and Koalas on Parade are being used in primary schools all over Australia to assist teachers to include families with two mums or two dads in their teaching."
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/

.... Very timely. The radical Evengelical Christians can do thier back room political deals, but with the majority of ordinary Australians supporting same sex unions the real life stories of these same sex couples need to get out & be told. No more invisibility!

That's alot of weddings in only 4 months! Go the Brits, go the Queen! Hey- but aren't we supposed to be part of the Commonwealth too??????????????????

"Can't be as much clutching at straws to support an argument as telling people who'll lose money they'll "really be better off"."


Money isn't everything. If you have people around you who don't want to beat the crap out of you, i'm sure people would be happy to forgo some payments. maybe even, gasp!, move to western sydney where the rent is cheaper and therefore they'll have more money to be spend on essentials.

One day homophobia will be brought down to a level where we won't want or need to only live in inner city centres wher the rents are sky high.

perhaps even the nonpolluted air and more space might be good for those "pensioners" health.

And anyway, if we want the "rights" then we have to accept the "responsbilities" as well. You can't have it all your way.

Heterosexuals who are on the pension seem to be able to cope with it. how come queers can't?

"happily, legally wed."
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2006_06_25/story_1685.asp
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/

Fantastic that 60 Minutes is taking on this issue & showing some of the Aussie gays legally married in Canada, as till now there has been very little visibility of the actual couples who have gotten married over there & come back.. or those who went over there to get married & decided never to return to Australia to live.
Let's see if John Howard & Phil Ruddock try to say that airing the 60 Minutes story on Australian TV contravines the 2004 Marriage Act by "mocking marriage" by "showing same sex couples in a marriage-like ceremony".
Well hello Johnny.... this is not a "marriage-like ceremony", this is the real thing- legal EQUAL marriage, performed in sister commonwealth country Cananda. But then aparantly Australia has more in common now with Texas in the deep south of the U.S. than the U.K., or other commonwealth countries, or even the northern U.S. state of Massechussets which has legal Equal Marriage.

...in areas of centrelink payments etc- these should be the VERY LAST areas on inequality to be removed, on our road to full relationship equality.
In addition, I think an additional HIV allowance payment should be paid to people anyway. Gay or straight.

Just saw the ads on tv during Sunday program- can't wait to see 60Mins tonight. To be honest, even just seeing the ads, this is the first time I have seen a gay wedding on tv. The one with the two young guys dressed in white tails looked great- I think that's the couple that got married over there & now can't face coming home to Howard's ban on recognising overseas marriages that don't fit into his Straight Australia Policy.

perhaps even the nonpolluted air and more space might be good for those "pensioners" health.

And anyway, if we want the "rights" then we have to accept the "responsbilities" as well. You can't have it all your way.

Heterosexuals who are on the pension seem to be able to cope with it. how come queers can't?

---------------------------------------------

Sounds to me like you're going the wrong way about getting any gay pensioners onside. It's OK for those not on pensions to benefit financially from new rights you want, but as for queer pensioners, "why can't they manage?"

They did start the post off with saying that money isn't everything. it's hardly like we are going to financially reap high rewards through access to marriage as oposed to civil unions.

the fight for access to marriage is about social equality as much as it is about legal equality.

Maybe the problem here is that couples get smaller welfare payments than singles. Does anyone know why this should be? Is it to offset the advantages they get during their life? Or is it just because it is assumed they can manage with less?

a couple usuallly live in same house and share fixed cost such as mortages/rent and then they have individual cost that is why a couples welfare pyt is less, dont forget we have the highest welfare pyt in the OECD ( we have passed sweden ) due to conscientous govt with good economic management. We sometimes forget this when we bang on about some of the minor inconveniences.

Yes- with people in straight relationships where one partner is working & the other is on welfare, the payments to the one not working are less, as they are seen to be in a relationship & partnership living together.
When applying equality to gay & lesbian relationships, this area of inequality needs to be the LAST area of inequality removed after ALL other areas of all other inequality are removed. The Lobby groups have all set this as a minimum benchmark.

"They did start the post off with saying that money isn't everything"

Money isn't everything when it's YOU not losing out. That's all rather laisez faire with neo-con elitist frills sweetie, suggest you get in touch with planet Real here. I won't be supporting your tribe with that attitude, you've managed without queer marriage rights all this time you'll manage in the future too.

What do you mean it's not anout money? It's ALL about money: wills etc, seperation settlements, superan...

I have just been reading Rodney Croome's blog. http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/weblog?id=P2172

He is speculating that, not only will the Howard government be blocking future reforms, but they will continue to actively wind back our rights. Unfortunately I believe Rodney is correct. His past actions speak to me much more loudly than his words.

Howard is a consumate politician and will find a way to placate his gay supporters while removing our rights.

Have been watching the ads showing all day- with the two Aussie couples kissing as they exchange vows. I haven't seen this much male to male lip action since Queer as Folk. The more people see it, the less afraid they will be of loving couples. I think the British figures of 14,000 gays married in four months is important too- shame that Elton John didn't let 60 Minutes film inside his wedding too. The two Aussie couples on tonight look great. Interesting that one of the couples in inter-racial, since only a short while ago this was also banned- good to see civil marriage has evolved & will continue to evolve with the times. Good news too about how religious marriage is evolving too, with more & more religions now performing gay weddings in countries where they are legal such as Canada & Spain.

I'm in full support of the social equality entitlements, but on a practical level many pro-same sex marriage enthusiasts are only thinking of themselves I feel. People who will suffer financially will obviously not be enthused by the idea, especially if they are content enough without the proposed changes. In which case the least effective way of recruiting those groups and individuals is to try bullying them around to your way of thinking, it just looks very shallow. (And why are you persistently stabbing at people on this wall without a good word to anyone and not even a signature - do you expect to be taken seriously?). You are not exactly a walking example of solidarity by adopting this manner of posting.

"...in areas of centrelink payments etc- these should be the VERY LAST areas on inequality to be removed, on our road to full relationship equality.In addition, I think an additional HIV allowance payment should be paid to people anyway. Gay or straight."

That doesn't explain the claim made that HIV+ people enjoy 'positive inequality? They do not. They will, however, suffer NEGATIVE inequality after same-sex relationships are formally recognised, and so whether this is done last, first, in the middle or in any order at all is irrelevant to them.

I agree with you Arti, Howard is a reflection of the neocon fundamentalists of the US and the queer politic is as anathemous to him as communism was to Menzies.

As for finding a way to placate his gay supporters, last election he played the fear/greed cards of guaranteeing mortgage interest rates would be safe (they went up) and we were at threat from the scourge of Islam (we weren't). A lot of poofs bought it. Let's hope some have learned from their mistake.

"VGLRL’s policy on relationship recognition, based on extensive 2005 Relationship Survey.
VGLRL’s preferred model for formal relationship recognition at the Federal level
is marriage; that is, the marriage under the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) should be
available to all those in same-sex relationships. We believe that this is the
simplest and administratively the most effective way of ensuring equality of
relationships whether they be same-sex or mixed-sex."
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/samesex/submissions_index.html

- there are quite a large selections of submissions on the site now. By the numbering system, it looks like there are actually well over 300 submissions, including from Unions, then general public and the AMA.

HIV patients who are in existing committed relationships in the U.K. can enjoy the protection & stability of equal protection & equal benefits under the law... and equal responsibility as far as welfare payment disclosure about being in a relationship.
So many with HIV in Australia who have been in relationships & can only choose the semi-invisible de-facto status as thier maximum level of status & protection of thier relationship (in conjunction with individual & confusing legal contracts) are often ripped apart & left with nothing- especially when pushy family members take control of medical treatment & even funeral arrangements, before the surviving partner gets a chance to cash in thier "legal contract" & go through the lenghty process of having it heard in a court- by then it's too late. In same cases, couples have even kept pretend separate bedrooms for when the family visits to keep their relationship in the closet & say they are just roommates- this makes it even harder, as the body of evidence is in the family's favour then anyway, making stating the case they are de-facto very lenghty, whereas if a marriage certificate (yes, they can elope & still keep the relationship secret), or a civil union certificate, or even a local council register such as the City of Sydney NSW De-Facto Relationship Register Certificate, would prove the status instantly.

Good on them for opening up Australia's eyes from the Howard-created Blackout of visibility of the very existence of same sex relationship couplings.
Aparently one of the couples has decided that they enjoy the access to equality & hence lack of homophobia so much that they have refused to come home & have remained in Canada indefinately.

The issue of same sex marriage has divided the country and the community right down the middle. It's the strategy of wedge politics that John Howard has always manipulated to his advantage. It almost seems, on the one hand, that the calls for marriage are like some desperate plea for acceptance, 'please, let us be like you.' But I think we should be proud of our difference. It is that difference which should be acknowledged in law to grant gays and lesbians the right to visit our partner in hospital, or prison, inherit his/her estate, superannuation, medicare, raise children etc. There is more difference between hetero and homo relationships than the genders of the people involved. Queer is a politic. It has a proud history of pushing the boundaries in interpersonal relations.

Those that demand "marriage" over "civil union" may not have considered the cost to many in the community.There are many couples, HIV positive guys for example, living in financial hardship, and a title inherited from another sexual culture, may have less relevance to them than how they are going to pay the rent, the power bills or just get a bit of protein in their bowl, when they lose their benefits. Legal recognition of their status could mean a loss of up to $400 a fortnight for each of them. We need to think it through carefully. Under the new IR laws, a lot of queers can lose their jobs, with no recourse to unfair dismissal laws, just because the boss is a homophobe . If we are "married" living with your partner will classify you as dependent, so welfare won't be available either. A lot of guys could be up shit creek.

So of course we want recognition of our basic rights. If this government retains power next year we will probably see even more of our rights being rolled back. We need solidarity, and we need to stand up now. But charging head first into a matrimonial ambush is a mistake we will regret for generations to come.

'Money isn't everything...' may not wash well with the queue at BGF of pozzies struggling to keep a roof over their heads.

'If you have people around you who don't want to beat the crap out of you, i'm sure people would be happy to forgo some payments...' are suggesting that homophobia will be legislated out of existence by legalising gay marriage...?

'move to western sydney where the rent is cheaper ...' is EXACTLY where they do beat the crap out of you,', inner sydney is a haven compared to those regions where you are suggesting we dump our poor...

'perhaps even the nonpolluted air and more space might be good for those "pensioners" health...' perhaps you could be more condescending in your next post.

'if we want the "rights" then we have to accept the "responsbilities" as well. You can't have it all your way...' civil unions grant both. The responsiblity you seem to dismiss is that which we have to the disenfranchised and impoverished of our community who find themselves in dire situations because of ill health, age etc.

I think you're missing the point that many (HIV+ & -) people living together would be seen as being partners and financially penalised.

Money isn't everything. If you have people around you who don't want to beat the crap out of you, i'm sure people would be happy to forgo some payments. maybe even, gasp!, move to western sydney where the rent is cheaper and therefore they'll have more money to be spend on essentials.

Western Sydney Essentials: Electric fences, barred windows, security garage for even the daggiest car, self-imposed curfew--and that's just to keep the relatives out! I've lived there, so I speak with personal experience when I say that the only working car alarm is a block of C4 under the driver's seat; and rents aren't much cheaper either.

if you want to have a say in the world of politics why dont the G and l run a few senate candiates , they might just get one up in NSW with enough media adverstising , I am sure gays would be happy to vote liberal or labour as house of reps seat but then vote gay party in senate , imagine if you held balance of power in senate , what could you bargain for to either party especailly if u were not aligned.

"What do you mean it's not anout money? It's ALL about money: wills etc, seperation settlements, superan...
NEVER - Sun 25 Jun 2006 12:22:26"


That's the legal side of "marriage". But the social equality is just as important - and to some of us the more important part that can't be brought about so easily.

But let me ask you a question. Why do you think it's ok that a straight couple has the negatives in centrelink benefits, but that queer couples should be exempt from that same notion?

Is it because it's all about you? If straight couples can manage, then why can't queer couples? what's wrong with them that they can't cope with the same financial and health circumstances that straight couples can?

"But let me ask you a question. Why do you think it's ok that a straight couple has the negatives in centrelink benefits, but that queer couples should be exempt from that same notion? Is it because it's all about you? If straight couples can manage, then why can't queer couples? what's wrong with them that they can't cope with the same financial and health circumstances that straight couples can?"

Nothing to do with couples, just people living together will be seen as partners and penalised as THOUTH they were a couple. Now let me ask YOU a question. Why do you think it's OK for some queers to "just manage" while you rake in the bucks from reform? Is that all about YOU? (Of course it is!)

'That's the legal side of "marriage". But the social equality is just as important - and to some of us the more important part that can't be brought about so easily.'

If it's not all about money then why don't you forego the financial lobbying and just aim for the "social" side? I'll tell you why, because it's about penny-pinching and sod everyone who'll lose out as a result of your personal gain.

Obviously you don't know many HIV+ guys. CSN has 91 clients on their books in this city in need of help. BGF queues go around the block. Poz guys are often in dire need due to the demands of their condition. HIV positives are categorised by their doctors according to their condition. Those doing very badly with their disease are entitled to 'special' benefits. HIV does not go away, it is a lifetime affliction which is accompanied by special ongoing costs for retrovirals, and meds for nausea, diahorreah etc etc. Most in this category live below the breadline even with the extra help. Some are acopic due to HIV dementia.

Pozzies also become a special case because of the rampant HIVphobia in the community, especially in public housing which is not appropriate. Others with disablity don't face bashings and graffiti like "DIE AIDS FAGGOT' in public housing either.

As for "If straight couples can manage..." the short answer is, they don't. From SMH Letters this morning:

"David Urquhart (Letters, June 23) may spend his $102.80 from the Government on lollies if he likes, but I would assure him that for many single pensioners it will mean they can afford three proper meals a day for a couple of weeks.

The trouble with this money is that it is a one-off payment. If the Government were to make it a fortnightly payment to single pensioners it might just about drag them above the poverty line.

Duncan Charig Dapto"

Its easy to plan social policy from ur Jason Recliner when you obviously have little or no experience of HIV+ves or the housing estates where they would end up without special assistance. If you would like to get some first-hand knowledge, your community is always looking for HIV volunteers.

However I suspect that many are more excited about the prospect of frocking up for a champagne and pavlova wedding reception at the Intercontinental than the plight of others.

"Is it because it's all about you? If straight couples can manage, then why can't queer couples? what's wrong with them that they can't cope with the same financial and health circumstances that straight couples can?"

Actually you're quite wrong, queers have a track record of having coped with a much broader and more complex range of issues than heteros. Imagine if these straighties had some of our "stuff", imagine the therapy bills to public health then? No, I think it's more a case of some queens can't manage without having to share a flawed hetero institution - they're just itching to squeeze into their big sisters' old wedding dresses. And BTW your efforts at reaching out to disadvantaged queers is a tad lacking in something (...could it be empathy?). Whatever, you don't inspire any calls for silodarity in my circles.

"Pozzies also become a special case because of the rampant HIVphobia in the community, especially in public housing which is not appropriate. Others with disablity don't face bashings and graffiti like "DIE AIDS FAGGOT' in public housing either."


and you don't think that Homophobia and HIVphobia are related?


"As for "If straight couples can manage..." the short answer is, they don't. "

It still doesn't answer the question of why queer couples should have more money allocated to them than straight couples on centrelink. what makes them so special that they deserve more than others in the same predicament?

It's been noted that centrelink benefits may be targeted by John Howard long before we ever have access to marriage. When that happens and we are treated the same as hetero couples in that regard, will you still be opposed to same sex marriage? After all the advantages of not being recognised will have disappeared for queer couples on centrelink benefits will you then be ok with the rest of us attempting to gain access to marriage? or is your objection to marriage much deeper than just caring about the financial bottom line for centrelink recipients?

Was a very inspiring story. The best part was seeing all thier family members come together to celebrate & reaffirm their relationship.
It's all about not being pigeon holed & having access to equal choices in life for equal taxes paid. The amount of money I have lost due to not being able to claim the Medicare Rebate with my partner & no access to Superannuation Splitting has cost me a fortune.

'and you don't think that Homophobia and HIVphobia are related?' ...of course i do, and which one of them do you think is acceptable for gays living in poverty to have to live with?

'It still doesn't answer the question of why queer couples should have more money allocated to them than straight couples'....HIV does not go away, it is a lifetime affliction which may be accompanied by ongoing costs for any of more than 50 different drugs prescribed, like Fluconazole, AZT, Clarithromycin, Pentamidin, intravenous immunoglobulins, Aciclovir. meds for nausea, diahorreah, complementary therapies, out-patient treatment, etc etc. Which of these benefits do you think should be forfeited so that we can play hubby and wife with his-and-his rings?

'is your objection to marriage much deeper than just caring about the financial bottom line for centrelink recipients?'...The issue of same sex marriage has divided the country and the community right down the middle. It's the strategy of wedge politics that John Howard has always manipulated to his advantage. It almost seems, on the one hand, that the calls for marriage are like some desperate plea for acceptance, 'please, let us be like you.' But I think we should be proud of our difference. It is that difference which should be acknowledged in law to grant gays and lesbians the right to visit our partner in hospital, or prison, inherit his/her estate, superannuation, medicare, raise children etc. There is more difference between hetero and homo relationships than the genders of the people involved. Queer is a politic. It has a proud history of pushing the boundaries in interpersonal relations.

We want recognition of our basic rights. If this government retains power next year we will probably see even more of our rights being rolled back. We need solidarity, and we need to stand up now. But charging head first into a matrimonial ambush is a mistake we will regret for generations to come. Let the straights keep their awful 'ceremony' with the fat bridesmaids in apricot tulle giving pissed speeches thanking Aunty Ethel for the gorgeous floral arrangements and the passionfruit pavlova,...give us a civil union with all the rights and protections we deserve.

The 60 Minutes site now has Video clips & a Transcript of this fantastic story of equality in Canada experienced by young Aussies travelling there to sample the wonderful quality of life that a nation with gay equality enjoys.
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2006_06_25/story_1685.asp

Transcript- http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2006_06_25/story_1689.asp

Video- http://ninemsn.video.msn.com/v/en-au/v.htm?f=39&g=f3eafb85-41db-4296-80d5-04ffde9fe2d9&p=aunews_au60minutes&t=m163

"We have more rights as tourists in Canada than we do as citizens of our own country, and that hurts — when your own country gives you less rights than a country we're visiting. "
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2006_06_25/story_1689.asp

- This was my favourite quote. With Equal Marriage now in Canada, parts of the U.S., catholic Spain, and parts of the European Union, and pending in South Africa, Italy & Ireland, PLUS Civil Unions now in the U.K. and New Zealand.... then why on earth should we continue to be treated like second class citizens here by both Libs & Labour writing extra discrimination against us into law?
In the U.K., the passage of Civil Unions was met with so little protest that authorities are now questioning running two identical parralel aparteid systems, and are open to converting civil unions into marriage & have everyone on the same system. The longer John Howard delays, the longer we can learn from the mistakes & shortcomings from the other countries, and so when we finally do get progess here we may well go straight into full Marriage Equality -especially if Britain goes that way too (there are cases currently before the British courts already where those married in Canada don't want thier legal Canadian marriage recognised as a british civil union but as as marriage).

"It's been noted that centrelink benefits may be targeted by John Howard long before we ever have access to marriage. When that happens and we are treated the same as hetero couples in that regard, will you still be opposed to same sex marriage? After all the advantages of not being recognised will have disappeared for queer couples on centrelink benefits will you then be ok with the rest of us attempting to gain access to marriage? or is your objection to marriage much deeper than just caring about the financial bottom line for centrelink recipients?"

I don't think anyone has any place to come on here making sweeping judgemental assumptions about those on Centrelink benefits when individual circumstances vary and are not known or anyone's business. This wall is, by the title I read, about achieving equality for gays, not making bigotted, uninformed comments about other gays. Personal prejudices and petty jealousies about welfare belongs elsewhere.

"WARREN ENSCH: We've got cemeteries littered with the graves of people that have never been able to come to terms with their sexuality or, worse still, have tried to come to terms with it but have been ostracised by family and friends and, worse still, ostracised by governments."

The website for the petition is- http://www.warrenentsch.com.au/interdependency.htm

....You need to enter the name of your local electorate, as this QLD Liberal Senator will represent you no matter where in Australia you come from and hammer that home to your local federal member.

'It still doesn't answer the question of why queer couples should have more money allocated to them than straight couples'....HIV does not go away, it is a lifetime affliction which may be accompanied by ongoing costs for any of more than 50 different drugs prescribed, like Fluconazole, AZT, Clarithromycin, Pentamidin, intravenous immunoglobulins, Aciclovir. meds for nausea, diahorreah, complementary therapies, out-patient treatment, etc etc. Which of these benefits do you think should be forfeited so that we can play hubby and wife with his-and-his rings?




there aren't heterosexual people living with HIV or other chronic diseases?

i agree i am disgusted of howard as an individual to go to the extent of banning civil unions.I am more disgusted at fence sitter beasley to say nothing again hes clutching to hope to not offend anyone that may vote for him.What kind of leader will he make answer he wont be a leader hell just keep plodding on.Why are we being treated as such a joke over a serious issue.If labour was serious in helping us they would of organised for every state govt (yes they are all labour)to simultaneously introduce appropriate legislation through their parliaments--------think abut it what would the federal govt do if each state passed it,highly likely nothing as its a united stand from all of represented australia.

"there aren't heterosexual people living with HIV or other chronic diseases?"

I don't think heterosexuals will be affected by gay marriages will they?

Ok, screw those in financial hardship because you can't settle for Civil Union, you have to have the full Stepford Wives Wedding. The irony is that as long as Howard is in power, you'll never get that right. And the only gays that vote for Howard are those rich enough to afford the whole catered straighty 'tatie wedding - because they are worried about the security of the mortgages and investments under labor.

i agree howards not perfect but labour is worse , it represents a few elitist school teachers and union zealots from the 18th century. one of its recent leaders was a oxford street gay basher in his youth.So back to one of my earler posts , why doesnt NMG or Acon etc run a candiadate for one of the 6 senate seats in NSW at next election , i think you need a quota of about 10% of vote with preferences to get a senator up from a individual party.

"When determining the level of subsidy available to a person entering aged care, an assets test is applied under the act. For a person in a marriage or ‘marriage-like’ relationship, their assets are taken to be 50% of the sum of the value of both their’s and their partner’s assets. This assessment is not available for people in same-sex relationships, meaning that in many circumstances they will qualify for less assistance as they are not able to spread the value of their assets amongst two people.
The exclusion of same-sex relationships and same-sex parent families under federal and state legislation is one of the most important human rights issues in Australia today.
One of the most important social determinants of health, as recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO), is social exclusion . People in same-sex relationships and their families are subject to social exclusion in Australia through a continual lack of legal recognition. This exclusion acts as a determinant of health in two ways. First, same-sex couples and their families are not able to access the numerous financial benefits and entitlements that are made available to couples and families through both federal and state legislation. This places greater burden on same-sex couples and their families in meeting the costs of everyday living, including medical and associated expenses.
Legal discrimination against same-sex couples in regards to financial and work-related benefits has a strong impact on the lives of people living with HIV/AIDS, given the prevalence of HIV/AIDS amongst gay men in Australia . Whilst discrimination across all areas of federal legislation, and the remaining areas of state legislation, has negative financial and non-financial consequences for PLWHA, there are specific areas which are responsible for significant financial and non-financial burden. Examples of these include Medicare, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Carer’s entitlements.
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender people are subject to widespread discrimination under federal law through a lack of comprehensive recognition of same-sex couples as spousal or de facto relationships. With the exception of the Anti-Terrorism Act , same-sex relationships are not present in federal legislation.
Living with a serious illness such as HIV/AIDS means that PLWHA are subject to considerable medical expenses, with many experiencing difficulty in meeting the costs of such essential services. The 2004 HIV Futures IV survey found that the mean weekly medical expenses for PLWHA was $50.90, and more than 50% of respondents experienced difficulty meeting the costs of medical services and complimentary therapies and just under half had difficulty paying for HIV/AIDS related medication .

Given that GLBT people are more likely than heterosexuals to be susceptible to poor health in a significant number of areas , ensuring that GLBT people are able to access medical services is also important. The discriminatory definition of ‘family’ under the Medicare Safety Net and the Pharmaceutical Benefits (PBS) Safety Net schemes further exacerbates the ability of PLWHA and GLBT to access medical services through the imposition of costs that people in heterosexual relationships are not subject to.
The primary purpose of the Medicare Safety Net scheme is to assist Australians in meeting ‘out of pocket’ (OUP) medical expenses, being those expenses not covered by the Medicare rebate. Under the scheme, the costs that a couple pay over and above the Medicare rebate count towards one safety net threshold of $716.10. As same-sex couples are not considered to be a ‘family’ under the Act , they each must incur costs of $716.10 before they qualify for the safety net, as opposed to heterosexual couples who can combine their expenses together, and therefore incur less medical costs in order to receive the benefit.
Given that it is necessary for PLWHA to spend a significant amount each year on medical expenses, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the definition of ‘family’ under the Health Insurance Act 1973 has significant consequences on the ability of PLWHA to meet the costs of essential medical services. Allowing same-sex couples to combine their expenses in order to reach the one threshold, would ensure that many PLWHA and GLBT people would save significantly on their medical costs.
By excluding same-sex couples from the definition of ‘de facto spouse’, and thus ‘family’ under the National Health Act 1973 , PLWHA in same-sex relationships are required to reach the individual safety net threshold of $960.10 ($253.80 for concession card holders), whilst heterosexual couples can combine their PBS expenses to reach the same threshold. Therefore, PLWHA in same-sex relationships must pay double the amount in medication before they are entitled to the same benefits, meaning that one of the groups that the PBS Safety Net is designed to assist continues to face unnecessary disadvantage in meeting their medication costs.
The failure of the federal government to recognise same-sex relationships in a number of areas of superannuation has a significant impact on the financial and non-financial wellbeing of many PLWHA and GLBT people.

Superannuation and other forms of financial planning for the future are important for PLWHA, given the possibility that they will need to cease employment due to illness, as well as the high medical costs associated with HIV/AIDS. In certain circumstances, PLWHA are either not eligible for disability or death benefit, or must wait for two years before they are covered. By excluding same-sex couples from a number of superannuation benefits, the federal government is further disadvantaging people for whom financial security is paramount.
There are a number of tax benefits afforded to couples through the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 as either rebates or credits, as well as increases in tax-free thresholds in some circumstances. The exclusion of same-sex couples from the definition of ‘spouse’ and consequently ‘resident’, ‘relative’ and ‘dependent’, means that people in same-sex relationships are denied these entitlements.

Social Security - Section 4 of the Social Security Act 1991 requires a person to be in a relationship with a person of the opposite sex in order to be defined as being a ‘member of couple’. This has both advantages and disadvantages for people in same-sex relationships in accessing social security entitlements.
Bereavement Allowance - The same-sex partner of a deceased person is not entitled to the bereavement allowance.
Widow and Widow B Allowance - Lesbians and other women in same-sex relationships are not entitled to either the widow or widow b allowance as this entitlement is only made available to women who were in a heterosexual relationship and have either been widowed, deserted or divorced.
Means testing under the Social Security Act -Eligibility for a number of benefits and pensions under the Social Security Act is subject to means testing. Where a person is a ‘member of a couple’, the income and assets of their partner may also be taken into account in determining whether applicant can receive payment under the Act. As people in same-sex relationships do not fit within the definition of a ‘member of a couple’, they are advantaged by this exclusion.
Given that changes to social security would bring significant obligations as well as rights to people in same-sex relationships, reform in this area should not take place before rights are given in legislative areas. Further a “phase in” period should take place to allow for people who will be negatively impacted to adjust their financial situation.
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/samesex/submissions/281.doc

- This is quite comprehensive- there are so many areas where we miss out financially where sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars are at stake. Yes- there are some instances where gays are raking in hundreds of dollars more centrelink benefits than straight people would in the exact same equal situation- but why should they? But when it comes to some of the other areas of discrimination, gays are duped out of thousands & sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars both in Govt benefits, concessions & rebates, and for taxation purposes when working or in a relationship with someone who is working. With only 1 in 6 gays being infected with HIV say in inner Sydney, then that is only 16% of the population (of inner Sydney). If we were to presume (just for this exercise) that all of those people were not working at all & only on centrelink benefits, but only half were in reltionships with someone who is working (for those gays that are single there is no effect at all), then that would only be 8% of gays affected (who are getting more money than straight people in the same situation - again, why should they). Meanwhile for the other gays that are working & in relationships, there are hundreds of throusands of dollars at stake per couple. Even for those not working, there are widow pensions, PBS etc, etc at stake as outlined above by ACON.

Marriage in Australia is currently a Civil function & by nature are civil unions anyway! YOU as an individual (if you are straight), can CHOOSE whether you would also like a religeous ceremony incorporated (in Canada the Uniting Church performs same sex weddings), or whether you would like to CHOOSE to just have your marriage as a Civil Service in a registry office, or whether you would like a "Stepford" Wedding with all the trimmings such as some of the couples here- http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/people.htm
But in Canada, it's amazing how the mindsets of gays change when THEY TOO have access to that EQUAL CHOICE.

ok, coffee's kicking in...

'gays are raking in hundreds of dollars more centrelink benefits than straight people would in the exact same equal situation- but why should they?' Even ACON has acknowledged "Living with a serious illness such as HIV/AIDS means that PLWHA are subject to considerable medical expenses, with many experiencing difficulty in meeting the costs of such essential services...more than 50% of respondents experienced difficulty meeting the costs of medical services and complimentary therapies and just under half had difficulty paying for HIV/AIDS related medication ." That's WHY they should, we live in a civil society where, sometimes, the social contract provides for each according to their needs.

Your paradigm seems to be that we sacrifice them for the greater needs of those more well off becoming even better off. After all, *only* 1 in 6 gays being infected with HIV say in inner Sydney, is only 16% of the population which we can whittle down by your reckonings to a mere 8% that we can throw on the garbage heap. I can vaguely recall a time when community was inclusive, but selfish queen is the new black and I am guessing that most will happily jump on your bandwagon.

And finally, while I cannot say I am surprised by ACON once again betraying HIV+ peeps, I still find it disgusting. Just what does "a “phase in” period should take place to allow for people who will be negatively impacted to adjust their financial situation..." mean? Just go away somewhere and die?

What part of "Regardless of the obtrusive copy and paste of ACON's annti-PLWHAs shpeel, Mark, HIV 'patients' do not enjoy enjoy 'positive inequality' (which means 'special privilege')? They only have basic entitlements (many of which aren't even claimed) to reflect their disadvantageous condition. Many same-sex partners CAN'T work due to health issues. Dole is not "pension", only unemployment benefits, and even a high majority of unemployed don't 'choose' to be. Thousands of gay men who work part-time AND have their low incomes subsidised by welfare will be worse off if they are sharing accomodation with another gay man, as they will be seen as a couple and have their income deducted accordingly by government (even if they really aren't a couple). Many HIV positive people who have for years now been encouraged by all including gay community groups and leaders, to relinquish full pensions and resume places in the workforce, and who, out of sheer good will, choose not to claim the DOH rental subsidy to bask in the luxury of their own rented property, but instead opt to forgoe that and share full rent with a mate, will be penalised.

""there aren't heterosexual people living with HIV or other chronic diseases?"

I don't think heterosexuals will be affected by gay marriages will they?"


Good side step there - even managed a drag queen-like attempt at humor.

but the fact remains that the argument that gay men in r'ships and on centrelink benefits remains flawed because there are heterosexual people living in the same conditions with less benefits than what gay men get.

there is no reason that there should be such inequality. yes it stinks that gay men might lose out on some money because of gay marriages in the future, but they'd only be brought down to the level playing field where their sexuality wasn't an advantage nor disadvantage to their circumstances. ie. it shouldn't matter whether you are in a hetero r'ship or homo r'ship and on centrelink benefits - you should be treated the same.

"Good side step there ..."

I believe you are the one "side-stepping" (actually that was taught at my granny's ballroon studio). The fact remains that many people affected adversely by the proposed changes either have special conditions requiring specific expenditure, or, more importantly, may NOT BE IN relationships but are just SHARING RENT. But of course I didn't expect you to answer to that.

Howard has also done nothing (yet) to stop the Tassie Register which DOES give extra rights... but it's more the actual Ceremonies he's interested in stopping- so Clover Moore has done well to steer the City of Sydney "Gay Wedding Ceremony" Register "under the radar". The original version did NOT have a ceremony- but by quietly upgrading it last year to ADD an optional ceremony component it was a stroke of genius, as Howard can't as easily ban something that is already up & running, unlike the A.C.T. one that never even got to perform thier first ceremony. Maybe the Tassie model should be "upgraded" to add in an optional ceremony too to REALLY get up Howard's nose!

Was a fantastic story. Australia really is a mushroom, surrounded by gay marriage in New Zealand, the U.K., and Equal Marriage in Canada, Spain, part of the European Union, and even parts of the United States.

"The marriage legislation gives same-sex unions the same status as heterosexual ones, including inheritance rights and adoption, a plan that drew hundreds of thousands of Spaniards into streets to march both in favour and against."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19601195-23109,00.html

- the next countries set to grant equal rightst are South Africa & Ireland. U.K.'s civil unions may also give way to Equal Rights with court cases pending of same sex couples returning home from being legally married abroad.

I did not introduce the fact that the Department of Social Insecurity may specially recognise a gay relationship as a way of pointing towards potential financial losses faced by fully recognised gay marriages. I mentioned it, because it happens now, and is a prime example of this government's two-faced policies as to how it deals with marginal issues. Whether a hetero couple or a homo couple can live on less as a couple than as two individuals is NOT the argument I introduced.

An unrecognised widowed gay partner gets nothing, because it saves the government money. A DSS recognised gay couple gets less money because it saves money. The government is making up the rules as it goes, and as soon as someone gets a handle one what is going on, the goal posts get moved once again.

PJ: "Co-habitation" and "sharing rent" are interchangeable at the department's whim.

Who said gays just "sharing rent" need to get married to each other???
You must be talking about de-facto recognition not Equal Marriage Choice. Phleease.. why would room-mates get married to each other.... stop the anti-equal-marriage hysteria & look at the facts.

Anyway, well how do opposite-sex room-mates at the moment prove that they are not de-facto? ....

"Sole mothers and unemployed men who share accommodation (and who are NOT in a de-facto relationship) can together gain about $127 a week in benefits and rent assistance if paid as a singles rather than as a couple. Last year the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled that a 65-year-old man and 72-year-old woman whose pensions had been reduced were not living in a marriage-like relationship even though they "certainly were friends and are very considerate of one another".
They had no joint property, did not pool resources, engage in joint social activities, had no sexual relationship, and did not regard themselves as a couple."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Centrelink-prove-youre-single-or-lose-the-cash/2005/03/30/1111862468013.html

- I'm sure that instead of Australia remaining a "Mushroom", we can learn from more advanced countries such as New Zealand who now have Gay Marriage, or Spain who have Equal Marriage, and how they handle de-facto recognition that may or may not come with marriage recognition.

'we can learn from more advanced countries such as New Zealand'...

from http://www.ilga.info/Information/Legal_survey/Asia_Pacific/new_zealand.htm
"Because gay/lesbian relationships are not legally recognised, some gay/lesbian people in committed relationships have felt able to declare themselves "single" and therefore claim Social Welfare benefits where straight people in the same situation can't without committing a eliberate fraud. This is a legal loophole which the Government is currently working to plug by defining gay/lesbian relationships as "de facto". (Action for Gay Marriage web site)

'how do opposite-sex room-mates at the moment prove that they are not de-facto?'...
If you own joint property, like say you buy a sofa together, if you pool resources, say you have a food kitty, engage in joint social activities, go out partying every weekend, have sex, or someone dobs you in, you will face an interview and likely lose about $150 a week. Centrelink relies on others dobbing in those they suspect might be defrauding them.

By being ignored, gay and lesbian couples gain an advantage under individual asset tests and in not being declared 'dependent spouses'. Even ACON, above, has ackowledged that PLWHA's need help with their many extra expenses, (though they seem resigned to let them lose that extra assistance anyway.)

In the stampede to gain equal rights, let's not leave the disadvantaged behind.

'how do opposite-sex room-mates at the moment prove that they are not de-facto?'...
If you own joint property, like say you buy a sofa together, if you pool resources, say you have a food kitty, engage in joint social activities, go out partying every weekend, have sex, or someone dobs you in, you will face an interview and likely lose about $150 a week. Centrelink relies on others dobbing in those they suspect might be defrauding them.
-------------------------------------------------
But non-couples who share rent can buy sofas, have food kitties, party etc (even bonk occasionally) and will be penalised. So this recognition of de facto status can be pinned onto people not actually in relationships.

Listening to the radio station on 104.7 at 7.35am Tuesday 27/6/06, really gave us a nasty suprise. They used the term "poof" on-air in the context of refering to someone they disliked, specifically saying the person was a "thumb sucking poofter". Whilst the General Manager agreed to an on-air apology, in the same breath he later stated privately "we plan our breakfast show carefully, hours before we go on air" and then "using the word poof is no different to using the word idiot". The General Manager whilst making a general public apology, refused to apologise to a gay guy who lodged a complaint. The matter has now formally been referred to the ACT Human Rights Office.

Do we as homosexuals continue to allow this ongoing vilification because of our sexuality, or do we take a stand...we as consumers can make decisions affecting who we listen too and the products we purchase. I urge everyone to provide feedback to the station about the genuine disatisfaction of the vilification, and let them know we won't be listening to their station nor purchasing the products of any company who use their station to advertise. Lets hurt them where it counts, their hip pocket. They need to get the message we are real people and WE matter.

Register your disgust/boycott to their General Manager at bigwigs@fm1047.com.au (tell your friends, tell everyone...and get them to tell 5 people each...lets start a chain e-mail and get some real results)

"disadvantaged" - how can gay poz's raking in thousands of extra dollars more than straight poz's in the same situation be disadvantaged. Yes they are generally disadvantaged for being poz just like straights, but when it comes to money they are raking in thousands extra than straight poz's in the same situation & in that respect have an exclusive "Advantage".

But... where it all comes unstuck is in the areas highlighted by ACON, where HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars can be at stake in all the other areas. Not to mention those majority forgotten people in this disussion who actually work & miss out entirely on EVERYTHING. I am neg, my late partner was poz & I missed out on $487,000 in super as we didn't classify as interdependant as we retained separate addresses (although we never spent a night alone & we stayed over in both places). We did it to keep up appearances to family... but if we had access to marriage, we could have eloped to show each other our committment & I would have definately whipped out the marriage certificate at the appropriate time to show everyone else. We also would have had no hesitation claiming the Medicare Rebate which we are also not entitled to. My partner worked part-time right to the end & paid his own way- I'm sure the minority on benefits who then in a further minority enter into a marriage or de-facto relationship will be looked after in the transition to equal rights.

And I voted for a Republic!
Instead I should have thrown my support behind being even more a part of the U.K.
Will be interesting how Elton John's gay marriage union will be treated by Customs/Immigration if he travels to Australia with his husband, with Australia's current "Homophobe Mushroom-Zone" Policy.

For the first time in 6 years, the new army of Christian Exremists taking a stranglehold on federal Libs & Labor have successfully banned Big Brother Adults Only. Gretel spoke yesterday morning on 2DAYFM & although was gagged from speaking on the subject, let loose a couple of times & revealed that less than 10 complaints were received, vs the almost 1,000,000 viwers. She then hinted that the 10 complaints were from Political-Religeous Exremist Leaders.
The reason they targetted BB this year, was because they were terrified of the air-time David was getting talking about the mechanics of gay sex. (though for the last 6yrs we've heard about all the types of kinky hetero sex).
- Wed 28 Jun 2006 07:43:13
---------------------------------------------

... This is terrible. Libs AND Labor are simply copying the policies of the Family First Party, to stop a repeat of the One Nation scenario where O.N. got a staggering amount of the primary vote forcing Howard to immediately copy their policies to stop the rapidly growing situation. For those who truly understand our Preferential Voting system, you will know that if Labour win there will be no policy direction change as the continue to diflect the F.F. party that has now taken a stranglehold in the wings for decades to come. The best outcome would be to paralise the Govt with a minor party such as the Greens (who actually stick to thier principles) taking over the balance of power. This can be acheived by voting Greens as primary vote, then directing the actual governing/winning party just the preferences only.

If you live with someone and "even bonk occasionally" you ARE in a r'ship. That's describes most married people anyway.

"The fact remains that many people affected adversely by the proposed changes either have special conditions requiring specific expenditure, or, more importantly, may NOT BE IN relationships but are just SHARING RENT."


which already applies to heterosexual relationships. And there are heterosexual pozzies out there you know. why should gay men get exemptions?

If they aren't in a r'ship then they will not lose the benefits. heterosexuals living together have to jump through the same hoops - and in some ways more because there is an assumption that opposite sex people who live together are less likely to be "just friends".

How will Centrelink know that you are a gay man anyway? Does this also mean that heterosexual men living with another heterosexual man will have to prove that they are not in a relationship?

and will you change your view onsame sex marriage once Howard recognises same sex r'ships for centrelink purposes long before we ever get access to marriage rights?

"So this recognition of de facto status can be pinned onto people not actually in relationships."

It would/will happen but hasn't YET though. According to the Welfare Rights Network's "The Independent Social Security Handbook", Chapter 17, section 1.2 ("Definition of 'member of a couple'"): "People of the same sex cannot be regarded as being “members of a couple” for any Social Security purpose." http://www.welfarerights.org.au/search.php This means that same sex partners are currently protected and that recognition of same-sex relationships will undo that. The definition of a couple (currently, for opposite sex couples) is set out in the same section and chapter:

1.2 Definition of “member of a couple”
Centrelink must consider whether a person is a “member of a couple” when it decides whether a person qualifies for certain payments (such as Parenting Payment) or when it decides at what rate the person should be paid (“partnered rate” or “single rate”). Centrelink does not decide whether a person is “married”, either in law or “de facto” but rather whether the person is a “member of a couple” under the rules set out in the Social Security Act. A legal “marriage” is only one of the indicators that shows that a person may be a “member of a couple” or not. A person is regarded as being a “member of a couple” where the person is:

legally married and not, in the opinion of the Centrelink, “living separately and apart from the other person on a permanent or indefinite basis”; or
not legally married, but having “a relationship with a person of the opposite sex” which, in the opinion of Centrelink, is a “marriage-like relationship”.

[People of the same sex cannot be regarded as being “members of a couple” for any Social Security purpose.]

Some people may be regarded as being a “member of a couple” even though they do not share the same residence. It would be most unusual for a person to be a “member of a couple” in this situation unless they were legally married (see 2.1). Whether legally married or not legally married, Centrelink must consider all the circumstances of the relationship. This will include considering a list of factors (listed in Table 17.1 and described in section 3) as required by the Social Security Act. It is only where all of the relevant factual circumstances have been assessed that Centrelink should form an opinion that a person is in a “marriage-like relationship” or is not living “separately and apart” from their married partner. It is not enough for Centrelink to make a decision based on only one or two of the factors.'

"the fact that Roman Catholic neighbour Spain has legalised gay marriages has put pressure on France to review its position, especially in the run-up to the 2007 election, with parties looking to hammer out new, eye-catching manifestos.
"It is essential that everybody has equal rights and dignities and the chance to express themselves freely," Royal told the gay magazine Tetu this week.
"Opening up marriage to same-sex couples is needed in the name of equality, visibility and respect," she said.
A recent opinion poll said 60 per cent of France supported gay marriage."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Politicians-back-French-gay-pride-march/2006/06/25/1151174055138.html

- Interesting how they are falling like dominos- especially being a neighbour. With New Zealand introducing Gay Marriage Unions & our "heritage" mother coutry Britain having Gay Marriage as wel, it's little wonder that John Howard has turned Australia into a virtual mushroom to keep his "Straight Australia Policy"

"which already applies to heterosexual relationships."

Not talking about those in relationships, just sharing.

"Does this also mean that heterosexual men living with another heterosexual man will have to prove that they are not in a relationship?"

The onus will be on them, yes, as it is now with opposite sex sharers, otherwise (with your proposed legal reforms) the assumption by Centrelink can legally be made that anyone living together is de facto and money can be cut: guilty until proven innocent (of being a "member of a couple").

"and will you change your view onsame sex marriage once Howard recognises same sex r'ships for centrelink purposes long before we ever get access to marriage rights?"

It won't change (my view) if that happens, I think Gay marriage is an elitist, insecure attempt at approval-seeking from straights. I'm queer, different from straights and refuse to adopt their most flawed institution (only 1 in 5 lasts), which stems from religious superstition and has no place in my world. It's about money and is mercenery and unsymbolic of personal committment. You can make do with properly thought out wills and pre-nupts as far as I'm concerned.

I totally agree, we do all need to stand up to homophobia. Here's a cc of a letter I just sent to this station:

'Sir,

I refer to an incident on your radio station in which the term "thumb sucking poofter" was used. You then likened a 'poof' to an 'idiot'. Homophobia is a crime. Your yellow brand of journalism is beneath contempt. Using your public forum to vilify a minority which already faces considerable oppression betrays the trust given you in your license to broadcast. My friends and I will be boycotting your station and all your sponsors and writing to them to explain why.

sincerely,'

"Not to mention those majority forgotten people in this disussion who actually work"

PLWHAs claiming benefits since the recent Disability Supposrt Pension amandments were made DO work, they must work part-time and subsides their incomes with Newstart, assuming they don't voluntarily accept full-time work. And in any case the "older"/pre-amendment generation of DSP claimants are longer term progressors with perfectly legitimate reasons to not work.

"I am neg, my late partner was poz & I missed out on $487,000 in super"

Who do you think is the most in need, a pensioner living below the poverty line indefinitely, or a couple with that much in assets etc?

I'm glad that you are "sure the minority on benefits who then in a further minority enter into a marriage or de-facto relationship will be looked after in the transition to equal rights." However I don't see anyone, particularly their paid advocates, (I contacted them days ago, and was ignored as usual) showing the slightest bit of interest.

The point that is lost in this discussion is that we do have a choice in whether we lobby for hetero-style marriage at the cost of much needed welfare benefits for those in need, or a civil union, as suggested by Warren Entsch, where all gays and lesbians would share the same rights as hetero's. If that was achieved, you would have inherited your $487,000 etc. Centrelink does not recognise same sex relationships. The petition for hetero-style marriage would change that to their detriment.

Centrelink does not currently recognise same sex relationships. But their definition, "you are living with someone in a "marriage-like relationship" (this means living like wife and husband without being legally married)" would certainly include gays if we attained a hetero marriage staus. That would mean those sharing or in a relationship on bebefits would get a visit from Centrelink or be called in to be asked:
do you provide financial support for each other?
do you have any joint accounts or credit cards?
do you have a joint loan or have you signed loan papers for each other?
whose name is the telephone/electricity/gas in?
who pays the bills and how do you work it out?
do you jointly own large items, eg, house, car, furniture?
do you know about each other's financial affairs?
are either of you listed as a dependent spouse for tax or Medicare?
has either of you named the other person as a beneficiary in your will or superannuation?
do you lend or give each other money? Why?
if the other person lost their job or had no income, would you feel obliged to offer them financial help for a short or extended time? Why?
do you live at the same address?
how long have you lived there?
have you lived together at other places?
why did you first decide to live at the same address?
has the way you live together changed since you first moved in?
do you intend to continue living together in the future?
do you have separate bedrooms or living areas?
whose name is the lease or mortgage in?
how do you arrange your domestic chores?
- cooking
- shopping
- cleaning
- laundry
- ironing
- lawn-mowing
if you do not live at the same address, is this temporary or permanent? Why?
do you share the same circle of friends?
do you tell each other where you are daily or what you are doing when you go out?
do you frequently go out together or do you regularly go out separately?
do either of you have a girlfriend or boyfriend?
do you visit each others families?
would your friends and family consider you a couple? Do you correct them?
do your family or friends make plans for you as a couple?
have you ever let a government department, real estate agency or bank assume you are a couple?
do you use the same family name?
do you take holidays together?
do you have a continuing sexual relationship with each other?
does either of you have a sexual relationship with anyone else?
is the person you live with the father or mother of the child?
do you share parenting activities, e.g. feeding, dressing, disciplining, and taking them to school?
who would care for them if their parent could no longer do so?
how long has the relationship lasted?
is it different from a normal friendship?
do you consider the relationship is likely to continue?
who do you talk to when you have a problem?
if you suddenly got sick, who would you call?
have you any long-term plans involving the other person?
do you think you are likely to marry? Why?
do you think your relationship is like a marriage? Why?

and finally, 'we're sorry, we're going to take $150 a week off you.'

"Come Saturday it will be a year since Steve Fielding took his place in the Senate, the first Family First politician to win a seat in the federal parliament. Prior to Fielding's election from Victoria no one much had heard of this new political force.
The party was founded in 2002 by a Pentecostal pastor from Adelaide, Andrew Evans, with the declared aim of promoting the interests of Australian families. Evans had a seat in the South Australian parliament, but 2004 was the first time the party contested a federal election. In Victoria, particularly, it was expected to sink pretty much without trace. In fact Fielding floated to the surface, though it was a rising not of his own making.
Only 56,376 Victorians marked him first on the upper house ballot paper, giving him little more than one-tenth of a Senate quota. His victory was essentially due to the arcane workings of the Senate's proportional representation system and to a fundamental miscalculation by the Victorian ALP's head office whose above-the-line preference flows went disastrously awry.
Labor's vote slumped, they lost a sitting senator, Jacinta Collins, and the preference flows from both major and minor parties surged to Family First. Fielding found himself in the Senate sharing the balance of power with maverick National Party senator Barnaby Joyce.
For Family First, and the evangelical Christian churches that backed the party, Fielding was a sudden and accidental hero. "
http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=10121

- Australian Christian Lobby are behind such wins as the banning of "The L Word", "Big Brother Adults Only", almost banned Queer as Folk (probably took the credit anyway, as they stepped up their campaign as the last few eps aired making it look like the banned it), and helped firmly plant religeon into politics.
Labor are very wary now of pandering to the Christian Extremist vote.

While heterosexual pozzies qualify for many benefits like the special assistance subsidy, you will find that many have to hide their relationships to protect their income. It means getting food on the table. Is that the situatuion you wish on gay pozzies too? Just because they are getting a pittance that you are not, you begrudge them their few crumbs? What a selfish country we have become. While the rest of the community wants to stand up and declare their relationships with pride, you think poz gay men, pensioners etc., should hide theirs?

"will you change your view onsame sex marriage once Howard recognises same sex r'ships for centrelink purposes long before we ever get access to marriage rights?" if we had leadership and direction that would not even be an issue, but the HIV advocates have already sold pozzies up the river in their submission.

Civil unions. Welfare rights. Simple.

they might support gays but they are away with the fairy's( do u like my pun ) on their other policies .
Stick to running a G/L candidate for NSW senate elections unless u are a green supporter and u are worried the G/L ticket might actually beat the greens to hold balance of power.

"Not to mention those majority forgotten people in this disussion who actually work & miss out entirely on EVERYTHING."

What "EVERYTHING"? A pensioner's penalty for living with a oartner is a far greater proportion of their living allowance than you are taking about with you super, AND most new pensioners WORK TOO (how rude).

Chatting on the international sites last night, it was interesting that many observed that a lot of long term gay relationships had broken up since they became legally married. I wonder what could have changed?

Btw., I put the : Canberra Radio Station 104.7 story in the chats and they'll be getting emails from all over the world. That is how gay community works, without borders.

Excellent news,

The more of us which write to them and say we are boycotting their station and thier clients, the more they will listen.

SEND AN E-MAIL to 'bigwigs@fm104.7.com.au' registering your boycott and objection to the discrimination and vilifiction of homosexuals.

Remember, start a chain e-mail...send it to 5 people and ask them to send it to 5 people...(and get everyone to write to the station). Our str8 friends can also help.

"Civil unions. Welfare rights. Simple."

No matter if we get marriage or civil union rights, the centrelink advantage will be lost. the marriage/civil union difference is only the word that is being used to describe the legal relationship.

"While heterosexual pozzies qualify for many benefits like the special assistance subsidy, you will find that many have to hide their relationships to protect their income. It means getting food on the table. Is that the situatuion you wish on gay pozzies too? Just because they are getting a pittance that you are not, you begrudge them their few crumbs? What a selfish country we have become. While the rest of the community wants to stand up and declare their relationships with pride, you think poz gay men, pensioners etc., should hide theirs?"

how do you know what i'm getting?

and as i said, i believe that your sexuality shouldn't an advantage nor a hinderance. it shouldn't matter whether you are hetero or homo. if heteros are struggling on the pension, then i don't see why it should be different for gay men. fight for higher pensions - fine, but don't let others have a disadvantage just because they don't share your sexuality.

a level playing field is what i am after. which isn't about becoming a "selfish country" but a fair country.

and all those people bemoaning the horrors of western sydney, you should really take a second look. i live and work in western sydney and it's really not as bad as people make out. i feel more self conscious in oxford st than i do in bankstown or parramatta.

...

I want to also point out here...we are all talking about same sex marriage and equal rights, well the vilification of LGBT community only perpetuates homophobia in the community and makes it hard for us to obtain these equal rights...we need to stamp out vilification in the media or we won't get anywhere...

Make a stand...hit where it hurts (lodge an objection and boycott their station and clients)

Send an e-mail to bigwigs@fm1047.com.au (correct e-mail address)...tell you're friends!

"if heteros are struggling on the pension, then i don't see why it should be different for gay men. fight for higher pensions - fine, but don't let others have a disadvantage just because they don't share your sexuality."

What? Now you think we should be fighting for heteros to have our entitlements - I don't think so, they have the compensation of all the societal perqs that straightness brings (acceptance for one). Legal recognition of our relationships will not eradicate homphobia, just as legal residency of people from other cultures has never eradicated racism. However, all that aside, the argument being put forward here has not necessarily applied to those in relationships, it's been that renters sharing will be penalised by being seen as de factos when they aren't.

"What? Now you think we should be fighting for heteros to have our entitlements"


well if you think that it's the rate of the pension that people get that's the problem, then yes. Just because they are heterosexual doesn't mean they don't deserve to be treated with respect.


"I don't think so, they have the compensation of all the societal perqs that straightness brings (acceptance for one). Legal recognition of our relationships will not eradicate homphobia, just as legal residency of people from other cultures has never eradicated racism."


But it has diminished it over time. The Greeks and Italians who came here 30 years ago felt very much like outsiders and suffered alot of discrimination. Now we only see them as Australians with a different cultural background - we join in the celebration of their cultures, even if we aren't a part of that culture.

So too with homophobia. Over time, with the advancement of legal rights, it has diminished. Will it ever be erradicated? probably not, but it will definitely come down so much that saying something homphobic in public will seem rude and unacceptable just like saying racist things is now considered rude and unacceptable.

Having "civil unions" will only leave us separated from hetero/mainstream culture instead of celebrated like other non-anglo cultures are.




"However, all that aside, the argument being put forward here has not necessarily applied to those in relationships, it's been that renters sharing will be penalised by being seen as de factos when they aren't."

Heterosexuals have to go through that rountine too - and have a harder time because it is automatically assumed that two people of the opposite sex living together must be in a relationship. Just because it is difficult, doesn't mean we don't go there. The overall effect will be a positive one.

so the answer to homophobia is to BE LIKE THEM? I would have thought it was about being accepted for what we are.

I pay FULL taxes, and I want EQUAL rights & EQUAL freedom of choice.
The longer John Howard delays allowing Gay Relationship Recognition, the more likely we are to get full equal rights once they finally come through, as people become more educated from countries running equal marriage.
It's great to see the 4million strong Uniting Church in Canada now actually performing same sex equal marriages.
We are a diverse community & can't all be pigeon-holed as pixguy is suggesting into a queer counter culture with no intention of integration, engagement & ownership.

When Inter-racial couples were banned from marrying, they could have asked for aparteid civil unions, but instead they changed civil marriage, made it evolve & took ownership of it. Then religion followed. (marriage is primarily a civil function anyway). Same as when Slavery was made illegal & religeon then followed too, abandoning a "critical" element of their "biblical teachings" that Slavery was natural & holy.
That's what we need to do, take ownership of what's already available in marriage for straights & have it evolve to be more inclusive & equal as we also take ownership of it, as gays have done in Canada, with again religion following & the Uniting Church now performing same sex weddings.

"Britain, New Zealand and Spain mark civil union and gay marriage milestones this month, a situation activists say is embarrassing Australia.
At least 7,000 British same-sex couples have formed civil partnerships since the landmark legislation took effect last December.
British government figures released last week show 6,516 gay and lesbian couples had formed partnerships in England and Wales by the end of March this year. Gay male couples accounted for around two-thirds of ceremonies.
New Zealand is also celebrating a landmark in its recognition of same-sex relationships, with more than 500 civil unions registered since the scheme began in April 2005.
Of these, about 200 were between male couples and about 230 between female partners, New Zealand government statistics show.
Meantime, Spain has seen about 1,300 gay weddings – and one same sex divorce – since equal marriage legislation came into effect mid-2005.
Australian activists say the international progress is a poor reflection on this country’s rights record, including the recent veto of the ACT’s civil unions law.
“Other countries are moving forward in small steps or very large steps, and by contrast Australia seems to be actually going backwards,”.

... Good to see that male couples are more than well represented in the figures, with them making up two thirds of the U.K. ceremonies.
In Australia the gay community itself is divided on whether they deserve equal rights. The shrinking gay ghettos (where 1 in 6 are HIV+) are often against equal choice, whereas gays who enjoy suburban life in the fast growing gay/straight intergrated outer suburbs are pro-integration into society & all it has to offer, including equal choice of equal rights. There is no need to "run & hide" in the ghettos anymore, as gays & gay couples can remain in the areas they grew up in & love with very little homophobia, and with the internet can meet gay locals without having to move house to be near a gay bar. We live right in the west of Sydney & the only homophobia we've experienced is from our Federal & State Governments... to the embarrassment of our gay-friendly westie neighbours.

Why do you take everything the wrong way?? no-one will force you to get married. But for those of us for whom "marriage" describes the r'ship they are in then let us fight for what we want. For what we deserve.

It's not like Howard isn't going to take away all the supposed advantages of having unrecognised relationships.

As usual this flamewar has claimed another victim. me....

Those of you who are totally against civil unions and marriage please read this blog http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2006/06/dreadvictory-act-back-door-gay.html to see the company you are keeping

'If you live with someone and "even bonk occasionally" you ARE in a r'ship. That's describes most married people anyway.'

People who share rent may have tumbled into the sack together once or twice on a cold or tipsy night, but that doesn't mean they're "in a relationship". I sleep with my cat and have a relationship with it but it's not my de facto partner.

i gather 'cya' means u won't be reading this. but nobody wants to take away your marriage rights. the argument is for everybody's rights to be respected.

'It's not like Howard isn't going to take away all the supposed advantages of having unrecognised relationships'? you must know a different Howard to the homophobic fascist that i do.

'Why do you take everything the wrong way?? no-one will force you to get married. But for those of us for whom "marriage" describes the r'ship they are in then let us fight for what we want. For what we deserve.'

When it comes to legal recognitions and defintition of how I live my life and who plays what part in it, I expect to have a say, and I and many others do not want the "marriage" model of same sex relationship legislation. It is not appropriate for what many of us want and will deprive many disadvantaged gays of vital financial means. (It's not just about what YOU want). Why don't you practise what you preach and let us fight for what we want and deserve?

In 2005, a large database compiled by Roy Morgan Research using self-completion interviews with 24,718 respondents aged 14 and over was used to identify the extent of homophobia in Australia.

http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Homophobia%20webpaper%20Final.pdf

In Sydney, the regions of highest homphobia were the southern, north west and west.

In 2005, a large database compiled by Roy Morgan Research using self-completion interviews
with 24,718 respondents aged 14 and over was used to identify the
extent of homophobia in Australia.
http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Homophobia%20webpaper%20Final.pdf

In 2004 a report commissioned by
the NSW Attorney General’s Department showed that violence against gay men and
lesbians had changed little in the last ten years.10 Key findings included:
􀂃 during the previous 12 months 56 per cent of homosexual people experienced
homophobia or violence;
􀂃 during their lifetime 85 per cent of gay men and lesbians experienced harassment
or violence; and
􀂃 one in four gay men and lesbians has been physically attacked sometime in their life.

In Sydney, the regions of highest homphobia were the southern, north west and west.

You seem to be in the lucky 15% who have not experienced homophobia, for some reason. But add persecution due to HIV phobia or ageism and the liklihood of those on welfare not having a very easy time in these areas where you want to ship them is looking pretty likely.

I don't expect to win my argument here with the gay community. However I think someone should speak up for the disadvantaged. So, once again, I say, equal rights in taxation, visitation, superannuation, inheritance, Medicare etc. And leave welfare for the gay and lesbian aged, HIV sick etc. alone.

Civil union. Not hetero marriage.

Besides, the G&L divorces are already starting overseas. More than 7,300 gay and lesbian couples have married in Massachusetts and somewhere between 35 and 45 of those couples have since filed for divorce In addition to the standard questions about dividing assets and paying alimony, same-sex couples also find themselves confronting a host of sticky legal issues not faced by heterosexual couples, complicating a process that even under the best of circumstances can be emotionally exhausting and expensive. Funny what a piece of paper can do for a long term relationship.

Attention GLBT readers, our family and friends,

Mr Scott Masters, Mr Nigel Johnston, Mr Eoghan O'Byrne and radio station 104.7 Canberra are alleged to have recently discriminated against and vilified a gay man, and the homosexual community in general:

One of the Breakfast Show announcers on radio station on 104.7 Canberra at approx. 7.35am Tuesday 27/6/06, allegedly used the term "poof" on-air in the context of referring to someone they apparently disliked, referring to a particular person as a "thumb sucking poof".

The General Manager apparently agreed to an on-air apology to the gay community, but in the same breath it's alleged he refused to apologise directly to the gay man who lodged the complaint allegedly stating, "you have taken this very personally", "we plan our breakfast show carefully, hours before we go on air" and "using the word poof is no different to using the word idiot". The matter has now formally been referred to the ACT Human Rights Office for a determination as to whether the actions of the employees and the station amounted to discrimination and or vilification, due to a person's sexuality.

Let's think about it for one minute:

How does a gay man who alleges he has been discriminated against and vilified, not take it personally? Do you think it's ok for any influential voices to perpetuate homophobia in your community? Do you think it is ok for someone to liken the word "poof" to "idiot"? Do you think you're an 'idiot' because of the fact you are gay? Do you believe the actions of the radio station constitute demeaning treatment or references to homosexuals? Do you continue to allow ongoing demeaning treatment or references to gays? Do you take a stand now on what you believe? Do WE boycott the station, it's affiliates and the products and services of the business which use those stations as a way to protest against any injustices we believe we may suffer as a result? Finally, do we let them know how WE feel, and just how much WE really do matter?

Let's hit the ground running with a Boycott and Protest Campaign:

We as consumers can make decisions about who we listen too and the products we purchase. Provide feedback to the station with your views on the matter, and denounce any discrimination or vilification of homosexuals as unlawful. Let them know we won't be listening to their station or affiliates, nor purchasing the products or services of any company who use their station to advertise. Let it hurt where it counts, their cheque book. It is understood a number of people have already begun a campaign to boycott and further lodge objections to the radio station or others in the community, explaining they are not satisfied with the on-air apology.

Register your objection/boycott to their General Manager at bigwigs@fm1047.com.au OR, directly to the businesses which use their station and affiliates to advertise and explain why you will not to buy their products or services.

Tell your friends, tell everyone what you think...and get them to tell 5 people each...lets start a chain e-mail and get some real results here!

This is not just an ACT issue, the gay community in chat rooms around the country have begun talking about this and are considering what action they may take...there are no borders when it comes to issues such as this!

Please contact us at: act_glbt_advocacy@hotmail.com spelt as 'act_glbt_advocacy' (Register your support, and send a copy of your objection and boycott e-mails to us too) (Request a copy of the radio transcript from us to read it for yourself)

Add us to MSN and join the voluntary ACT GLBT Advocacy & Support Group, or discuss your thoughts and concerns about equality in our community. We will be meeting on-line at 7.00pm-9.00pm every Tuesday evening. The group seeks to provide advice, support and advocacy services to the GLBT people, through education and the promotion of equality in the community.

P.S. Sponsors are always welcome.

Regards,

ACT GLBT Advocacy & Support Group

"Civil union. Not hetero marriage."
I don't want an Aparteid Civil Union, I want Equal Marriage. I want to take ownership of marriage & have it evolve so that it is gay AND hetero.
It evolved from being non-interracial, it can evolve to be non-homophobic, so we too can have access to full equal choice.

everyone seems to overlook the advantages of marraige and the plus's for our community.
The main one being commitment,trust and responsibility...
yes i can understand all you "peter pans"who screech at the idea,just imagine fidelity loving relationships and security.
Its time for some to grow up and mature as at the moment you dont paint a pretty picture for the gay youth.No wonder the suicide rate is so high.Many men have said it on here they dont want to become lonely old fags...well the choice is up to us.Just because were gay doesnt mean we have to shag every guy we can this is just being promiscuous being gay is being attracted to the same sex,there is no real reason for us not to have fulfilling relationships.Gay marraige is a step in the right direction.

PIXGUY: Your argument is why I don't support marriage as a concept, but I do support the RIGHTS of those who seek it.

Divorce should be simple: Pre-relationship assetts stay put (inlcuding houses), joint purchases within the relationship 50/50 end of story.

As I said above, I made complaint to the station and also hit the international chats with the story so they'll be getting complanits from all over the world. Their initial reply to me was, 'Thank you for your feedback. So that I can better assist in forwarding your enquiry to our programming manager, I require some more information so that we can locate the segment you are referring to. Are you able to provide me with a date/day and an approximate time that you heard the below mentioned segment on air..'
I replied, 'How often does your station broadcsat homophobic comment that you cannot even identify this occassion?' That's the last I've heard of it, but not the l;ast they will hear from me.

Well that's just about as silly as a boxful of hats. This post should be interpreted as an opinion.

"to me, there is more difference between hetero and homo relationships than the genders of the people involved. Queer is a politic, a lifestyle, a mindset, an avant garde experiment in human relations. Its not a concept encompassed by "married". "
pixguy - http://shaynechesterstudio.com - Fri 23 Jun 2006 17:00:33

- Good for you pixguy, but I don't agree. I don't feel like my life is an "avant garde experiement". I have a full & integrated life. I am fully out to all my family, at work in a very "straight" enviroment, to workmen that come to the house, to complete strangers... I don't care... I'm just out. I have a photo of my husband on my desk. I don't hide from anyone, and live in western Sydney and I find neighbours & straight friends in Western Sydney very supportive & a real joy to have in my life. All I want is equal choice to be able to choose all of the rights & privelages already available in society as a fully participating taxpayer.
You can be "avant garde" if you want, but don't try & pigeon hole all gays into your view of the "gay world".
You have a commercial photographic service website to sell that flashes up with your Pinkboard signature with your volumous postings with your ideas your are pushing on the "queer politic", but please open your mind to the idea that we are a diverse community of idividual human beings that can't be pigeon holed, and deserve the right to equal choice & equal rights for equal taxes paid to be able to have the freedom of full equality to make our own choices good or bad.
Marriage is a civil function & as such has to evolve with the times. People can now divorce, people can now marry different races, people can now marry members of the same gender in much of the western world. In addition to this, many gays in our diverse community are also religious... there are a number of Christian & Jewish religions that embrace same sex marriage... thereby having religious freedom also. Pure freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of choice & freedom of equality, and freedom to make your own choices, is the only "queer politic" I want.

I have been listening to some Hack (from Triple J) podcasts and there have been a couple lately on gay marriage and welfare recipients. They were on 21 & 22 June. I think these are the programs: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s1669431.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s1670437.htm

They did not mention some of the concerns aired here. Maybe someone should contact Hack and see if you can get your views aired.

It seems that Centerlink can only declare that heterosexual couples are in a marriage like relationships. Because of Howard's Marriage Act ammendments all same sex couples are exempt from these laws.

Can you explain what you mean by "Queer is a politic"?

You also say "And to me, there is more difference between hetero and homo relationships than the genders of the people involved." Surely by saying this you accept that both hetero and homo relationships should be able to be part either the traditional relationship structure or the idea you subscribe to. They we should not be limited by the gender of our partner.

"Besides, the G&L divorces are already starting overseas." What is wrong with divorce?

I believe that the unvoiced view of most people is that divorce is an integral part of marriage. That when a marriage comes to an end you divorce so that you can move on. Marriages end because relationships end.

The problem is that the institution of marriage does not recognise that relationships can and do end.

While I doubt your lifestyle would work for me, David, I fully celebrate the fact that it seems so functional for you. I have previously described my personal view of the queer politic, sorry you find it unacceptable because it differs from yours. I have no idea what point you are making about my website, it is attached to my signature as I feel uncomfortable posting anonymously. And I rather think you miss my point. Obviously I am not opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians. I am simply pointing out that you have a choice in what model that equality will take and that choice will impact on those less fortunate in that they may lose benefits crucial to their wellbeing. But that's up to you, as you say, you have '... freedom of expression ... freedom of choice ... freedom to make your own choices...' etc etc.

"It seems that Centerlink can only declare that heterosexual couples are in a marriage like relationships. Because of Howard's Marriage Act ammendments all same sex couples are exempt from these laws."

It also seems you've missed half of this wall.

'divorce is an integral part of marriage' like death is an integral part of death. but why would you want to kill off your relationship? anecdotal evidence is that entering into a 'marriage' is the death knell for many long term relationships, as 'married' gays overseas are discovering.
Why? The long-term contract implicit in marriage—which is not implicit in cohabitation—facilitates an emotional demand on the relationship and generates a stress on a partnership as areas like 'open relationships', sharing income in large joint financial investments, feelings of entrapment or emotional investment in a long term contract are considered anew.

The last few decades have witnessed a decline in the popularity of marriage. Hetero partners are less likely to be married today than they were several decades ago, but if we count both marriage and cohabitation, they are about as likely to be "coupled." There have been many interesting studies into the shift away from formalising a long term relationship.

'Marriages end because relationships end.' Yes, relationships end, but if your situation is understood in terms of 'we will be together so long as it works, then, if and when it stops working, we walk away from it', then why do you want to get married?

Civil unions. Equal rights. Welfare rights.

"The problem is that the institution of marriage does not recognise that relationships can and do end."

And the institution of marriage is rooted in religious mumbo jumbo. It's a license to have straight sex and breed. I don't wanna do that, anyone who does is obviously in the wrong sexuality calling themselves gay. Civil unions are fine but even that's only about money anyway. Once therre's gay marriage it'll become expected of us to become "respectable". No thankyou.

'Can you explain what you mean by "Queer is a politic"?'

Thank you for asking

QP is an evolution of the early fights for gay freedom. The freedoms that are taken for granted today. I am concerned that the push for 'marriage equality' is a step backward. And, as I keep saying, one taken at the expense of the welfare rights of those who need them.

First, our existence as human beings justifies our entitlement to human rights, without any need for validation or pleading. The argument for same sex marriage that 'homosexuals are just the same as heterosexuals', or 'just as good as them' only demeans us. As if heterosexual marriage is somehow more natural and eternal than gay relationships, and therefore something devoutly to be sought. I also reject this lobby to be accepted by straight society because that assumes our freedom is about queers adapting and assimilating, giving up those unique pecularities and traits in queer culture which enrich the whole of society. Its a surrender to heterosexual norms.

It goes beyond marriage equality, its about the transformation of Australian society into one that allows sexual liberation for everyone. Our freedom involves more than mere equality. It is about our right to be ourselves. The 'marriage bandwagon' is a simplistic and invalidating agenda. Queer politics is about the importance of sexual (not gender) difference, it opposes assimilationism and that is the way to social transformation and law reform.

Personally those that seek to mindlessly ape heterosexual values make me cringe. But each to his own.

Arti: How dare you insult us by suggesting something so intelligent! Unfortunately DSS don't have to recognise it as a "marriage" they only have to recognise it as a sleeping-together-de-facto-arrangement. How much bureaucratic funding is wasted on this penny-pinching and sheet-sniffing I don't know, but it's bound to be ludicrous. I've noticed that brochures coming out of "Centrelink" now carry a disclaimer to the effect that the information in this brochure should not be relied upon...

"Mr Olexander refused to comment, but his lawyer, Phillip Dinning, said the MP had done nothing wrong or unusual.
He said Mr Olexander and Mr Forbes were victims of a smear campaign.
Mr Dinning said it was not uncommon for MPs to employ family members.
"The fact that Mr Forbes is employed by Mr Olexander is unremarkable," he said.
"The only difference is the fact of his same-sex partnership.
"Mr Forbes has 12 years' local government experience . . . and is entirely suitable for this position."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19656802-1243,00.html

- Politicians often hire partners or spouses to work for their offices. The only difference here is that Andrew's partner has no Federal legal standing as either a de-facto partner or spouse- he simply doesn't exist, apart from being called a "lover" like some escort-for-hire. If it's ok for straights, then we should have access to the same equal choice too- in every single area of legal (AND societal recognition), including all the following legislation where we are discriminated against:
A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Goods & Services Tax) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005
Aged Care Act 1997
Bankruptcy Act 1966
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
Crimes Act 1914
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Evidence Act 1995
Family Law Act 1975
Health Insurance Act 1973
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act 1984
Life Insurance Act 1995
Marriage Act 1961
Medicare Levy Act 1986
Medicare Surcharge Act 1986
Migration Act 1958
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004
Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991
National Health Act 1953
Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1976
Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990
Privacy Act 1988
Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1998
Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Sex Discrimination Act 1984
Social Security Act 1991
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Student Assistance Act 1973
Superannuation Act 1976
Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997
Superannuation (Government Co-Contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003
Tax Law Improvement Act 1997
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986
Witness Protection Act 1994
Workplace Relations Act 1996
Youth Allowance Consolidation Act 2000

Wow, there are a lot of acts in that play

org guy - Don't stoop to personal attacks.

I have read this wall. I have also accessed other resources about this topic.

The Professor is the only one who has stated here that currently there are people being assessed at the couples rate because they are in a same sex relationship.

My understanding is that a couple must be assessed as being in a "marriage like relationship". Federal law specifically excludes same sex couples from having marriage like relationships that are recognised by the Federal government.

Under the current laws I believe that such assessments could be fought in court and won. However I believe this would bring it (more?) to the anti-gay churches' attention. Shortly afterwards Howard would remove this area of positive discrimination.

typo, ooops 'divorce is an integral part of marriage' like death is an integral part of death. should be 'divorce is an integral part of marriage' like death is an integral part of life. of course.

"the information in this brochure should not be relied upon..."? RAOTFL

Ooops, nice Freudian slip there Arti; 'org guy' is actually 'ord guy'. I gather he is the exact opposite of an 'org. guy'.

Anyway, thanks for ur point but it has been covered quite a lot, for example: .Wed 28 Jun 2006 22:14:10 "Centrelink does not currently recognise same sex relationships. "

u say: 'Federal law specifically excludes same sex couples from having marriage like relationships that are recognised by the Federal government.' Its not Federal law, its an abritraion by Centrelink, see their website (I think its posted above too). I guess its a bit like Queen Victoria not making lesbianism illegal because she scouldn't get her head around the idea of how two women could do it together. Centrelink can't conceive of a same sex couple being 'married'. However the push is on to change all that....

U also state: "My understanding is that a couple must be assessed as being in a "marriage like relationship"."..
there's a long list at Wed 28 Jun 2006 22:14:10 which they use to determine a 'marriage-like relationship'

LAST 2 WEEKS to go to download & lodge your forms by the July 13th deadline if you want to be part of the August 13th Mass Gay Wedding, to have your existing de-facto relationship formally recognised by the City of Sydney Council. (You have to allow min 30 days from day of lodgement to when you can have your ceremony.)
Application forms, and information pack can be downloaded from the following site:- http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Community/ServicesAndPrograms/RelationshipsDeclarationProgram.asp
Of course if you don't make the deadline, you can still take part in the mass gay wedding anyway- the more the merrier. In Melbourne they had 600 participants in thier mass gay wedding in 2004, and this years National Day of Action is going to be bigger than ever, with those in NSW being able to receive an official certificate recording their Relationship Declaration Ceremony. People from the A.C.T. / Canberra who had thier civil unions banned are welcome to come along too, and have a Relationship Declaration Ceremony instead, and receive thier special certificate that also records how long their de-facto relationship has already been going for. e.g. a male couple already been together for 4 years, will both sign a form saying MR___ & MR____ today registered thier partnership of 4 years in a Relationship Declaration Ceremony.

i havent visited this graffiti wall for about 12 months, but its like it was only yresterday, still winging about gettin married.

marriage is the joining of a man and a woman in the eyes of god. who of you wants to marry any one of the opersite sex? who of you believe in god ? well why the hell do you want to get "married"

im in a relationship, the relationship has been registered. we are both happy with that.

lifes to short, enjoy it and stop bitchin.

It's not just "whinging" about marriage. In this term alone "billie mcmahon in short pants" has wound back rights for gay people with the ANTI-marriage legislation, and wound back a hundred years of general human rights with his workplace relations legislation--I'm starting a chimney cleaning business: anyone got any children to spare?

You say you have a registered relationship of sorts and that's good enough for you.

Place yourself in the position of a "vintage" car enthusiast who has spent thousands (even hundreds of thousands) restoring and maintaining an old Rolls Royce that still has wooden coach work, nice shiny paint work, all new wiring to keep things up to date, and it's in such good condition it could have come off the factory floor yesterday. You've kept it road-registered (not just club registered) for its entire life, and litte johnnie comes along and suddenly says no car over 12 years old is allowed on an Australian road any more. You'ld feel cheated, wouldn't you? That's how those people who wanted to get married and had that right almost within their grasp completely stripped away are feeling right now--cheated.

Marriage isn't for you and it isn't for me, but there are some people to whom it means a great deal.

I guess it depends which road you want your shiny car on, Prof., one where all the traffic have the same rights, or a path where the poorer cars lose their rights. Honk honk.

Yes we should be subsidizing the poor cars on the road even if they are unroad worthy. god knows how many cars can cause traffic accidents purely because they are unroad worthy. Maybe a trip to the mechanic is appropriate (tax payer funded of course) so that those cars that need fixing can get fixed and thus become road worthy. we've all seen the bloody mess those cars that are unroadworthy can make. much better to have them fixed so they don't cause such graphic scenes of blood and guts spilt all over the road for everyone to see.

Between July and October the Inquiry will be holding Hearings and Public Forums across Australia to obtain further testimonies and information on access to financial and work related benefits and entitlements for same sex couples.
The consultation process will be launched in Sydney on the 26 July and conclude in Canberra on 20 October 2006.
Following are the dates and approximate times for the Hearings and Public Forums :

26 July, 9am - 4.30pm: Hearing in Sydney
26 July, 6pm - 9pm: Public Forum in Sydney

9 August, 9am - 4.30pm: Hearing in Perth
10 August, 6pm - 9pm: Public Forum in Perth

28 August, 9am - 4.30pm: Hearing in Adelaide
28 August, 6pm - 9pm: Public Forum in Adelaide

25 September, 9am - 4.30pm: Hearing in Hobart
25 September, 6pm - 9pm: Public Forum in Launceston

26 September, 6pm - 9pm: Public Forum in Melbourne
27 September, 9am - 4.30pm: Hearing in Melbourne

10 October, 6pm - 9pm: Public Forum in Brisbane
11 October, 9am - 4.30pm: Hearing in Brisbane

16 October - Public Forum: Alice Springs
17 October - Public Forum: Darwin

20 October, 9am - 4.30pm: Hearing Canberra
20 October, 6pm - 9pm: Public Forum Canberra

Rural and regional meetings are still being planned and details will be available shortly. There is also the possibility of additional capital city meetings should demand require it.
Members of the public are invited to attend any of these events.
For further information please contact Samantha Edmonds at samesex@humanrights.gov.au or on 9284 9600
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/samesex/index.html

Excuse me? You've turned my analogy into a sickly brown liquid that tastes not quite entirely unlike tea.

My comparison had nothing to do with potential unroadworthiness of the vehicle, it talked about a vehicle that was 100% roadworthy and suddenly the victim of discrimination based on age.

Where in my comparison did I even suggest that those loathesome rust-buckets imported from SA into NSW should be brought back up to standard by the taxpayer? Where does such an argument fit into the equal rights debate?

I was highlighting an ARBITRARY decision made with no regard to the injury inflicted on the populace.

jwh's ANTI-GAY marriage changes were exactly that: arbitrary, callous, and they totally stripped away all the work that people had done to date in an effort to achieve equal recognition.

PIXGUY: As you suggest, I would like to "drive my roadworthy car" on the same road as everyone else, with the same RIGHTS as everyone else. I've just never figured out why, when I'm ringing up $1.10, there's always a car behind me that wants to rim my exhaust pipe.

hear, hear, whatever you said.

Meanwhile, if we forego the hetrosexist model of marriage and develop a simple drafting that enshrines civil unions in federal law, as it is in Tasmania, veterans' affairs, superannuation, Medicare, PBS, aged care, workplace relations, insurance, bankruptcy AND welfare rights would all be protected. As a community, we pride ourselves on being non-discriminatory and inclusive and we must be true to that.

"if we forego the hetrosexist model of marriage."
http://www.pinkboard.com.au/graffiti/equality/G54698

- No need to forego when you can Reform. Marriage has now been reformed in Canada, Spain, Belgium & The Netherlands into fully inclusive Civil Marriage.
By marriage being re-affirmed as an equal & civil function in these countries, it takes out the religion & those religions that don't want to perform the weddings don't have to..... BUT many religions, such as the 4-million congregation strong Uniting Church of Canada DO happilly perform same sex weddings, such as in this photo- http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/people.htm

Go the whole hog.... if banned interracial couples could reform marriage, if women could reform marriage into allowing divorce, and if gays in many countries overseas can reform marriage, then so can we. We can reform it, and take ownership of it, and change it to be a fully inclusive & equal civil function- Civil Marriage.

No need to reform what is intrinsically a failed heterosexual, religiously-rooted institution. Gays don't need to immitate heteros in our defintitions of relationships, we can have civil unions and not attempt to pass it off as marriage. That's preferable IMO.

"No need to reform what is intrinsically a failed heterosexual, religiously-rooted institution"


There is alot of dispute as to whether it is "religiously-rooted" or whether it is a civil function. plenty of heteros get married in civil non-religious services and they still consider themselves married.

Let's just acknowledge that the religious side of the wedding ceremony is for most people more about tradition than about what they actually believe. i know my brother and cousins only get married in church (to nice greek girls) because they are so used to just doing what their parents expect of them. it never occurs to most of them that they can do it another way. One cousin got married in a park (best hetero wedding i've been to) and the family was distraught because it wasn't a church service. none the less then now consider her married even if they never got the church's "blessing". it was the ceremony that was the important part - once done they were considered married. it'll become the same thing once homos get the chance to be legally married - one done everyone will have no choice but to consider the couple married and in a bona fide r'ship which deserves the the rights of all other married couples.

"if banned interracial couples could reform marriage, if women could reform marriage into allowing divorce, and if gays in many countries overseas can reform marriage, then so can we. We can reform it, and take ownership of it, and change it to be a fully inclusive & equal civil function- Civil Marriage."

- Yes, why should Australia be the odd one out. What makes us so elist above the rest of the world.
First & foremost, current reformed marriage is a civil function now. But.... many gays are religious & many religions now embrace performing same sex weddings such as the Unting Church of Canada, and the Worldwide Metropolitan Community Church, and parts of the Jewish faith.

Doesn't make any difference that it is NOW a civil function - so same sex would civil unions be - but marriage is undeniably rooted in religion. Even pre-Christian marriages, pagan, Celtic, etc all were religious. I'm just as opposed to hetero marriage as I am to gay marriage on those same grounds and am not the only one by far.

Civil unions out of religious context can still be ceremonious and blessed. You always could choose any person to act as celebrant for a gay commitment ceremony and still can. If it became legalised you would be forced to only use licensed celebrants, and in any case gay marriage is extremely unlikely to be the outcome, it will almost certainly be non-marriage civil unions, so I can't see why people keep talking as if gay marriage is, or ever has been or will be, an option - it isn't. I'm now thinking all those arguing for it are uninformed about the difference.

"(Vatican City) Pope Benedict XVI travels to Spain this weekend as part of his campaign to defend the traditional family, visiting a predominantly Roman Catholic country that allows gay marriage, divorce and abortion.
But the location of the meeting in Spain has particular significance because of the Church's battle with the Socialist government, which took office two years ago with an agenda that included legalizing gay marriage, streamlining procedures for abortion and divorce and scrapping plans by the previous conservative government to make religion classes obligatory in schools.
In recent years the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada as well as Spain have legalized same-sex marriage, while Britain and several other European countries now give such couples the right to form partnerships that entitle them to most of the same tax and pension rights as married couples.
Surveys have shown that Spain has rapidly joined the secular path of other Western European countries following the fall of Gen. Francisco Franco's 1939-1975 dictatorship, under which the Church enjoyed special privileges.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/07/070606pope.htm

- While Spain is heading down the Secular path, Australia is still holding onto outdated notions that Civil Marriage is still gripped by the church.

"Declare valid in Ukraine same-sex marriages among citizens of Ukraine or between citizens of Ukraine and foreigners, marriages that took place legally in another country, and civil partnerships that were legally registered abroad," the Ukrainian News Agency reports the letter says."
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/07/070506ukraine.htm

"(Santiago) Legislation will be introduced in the Chile Congress to allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions.
Chile already offers some limited rights for gay and lesbian couples.
The announcement that a bill would be prepared to extend that law was made at the country's national LGBT pride celebrations in the capital.
Chile's national LGBT rights group, the Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation, says it is cautiously optimistic the measure will pass.
About 6,000 people celebrated pride at a festival in front of the Congress building. The show featured drag queens, go-go dancers, musical acts and folkloric groups. It ended with a dance.
This year marked the 15th anniversary of the Movement. Over the past decade, the organization has been instrumental in several landmark laws. In 1998 sodomy laws were repealed, and in 2003 restrictions on gays donating blood were removed.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/07/070306chile.htm

- If it's ok for the Ukraine & Chile to treat it's citizens as equals & to lift discrimitory bans on gays donating blood, then why not Australia?

"Gay, in all its meanings—personal, communal, cultural, political—seems to be going through its own identity crisis.
“Gay as an identity, as we used to know it, may be pretty much at an end,” argues Arnold Zwicky, a respected Stanford University linguist who came out on the campus of Ohio State University in 1970, just a year after the Stonewall riots. “People are thinking of their sexuality in a much more diffuse way. The word gay has split and splintered and been used for all kinds of related but distinct things to the degree now where it’s actually hard to talk about this stuff [and all mean the same thing].”
“There’s no longer a dichotomy [like] ‘either you’re gay or you’re straight; these are the two options,’ ” echoes David Levithan, who coedited the newly published The Full Spectrum: A New Generation of Writing About Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, and Other Identities, compiled from submissions by writers in their teens and early 20s from red and blue states alike. By far, Levithan says, LGBT youth “see themselves more as individuals than being defined necessarily by their sexuality.”
http://www.advocate.com/currentstory1_w_ektid31699.asp

- I think when talking about marriage, it's important to either refer to is as Equal Marriage or Same-Sex Marriage. Gay Marriage though is still used to refer to aparteid civil unions, and in some cases Equal civil unions.
Just as the American Negros started to legally & socially integrate, you can see the younger same-sex attracted generation embracing Integration & Full Equal Empowerment.

"I'm now thinking all those arguing for it are uninformed about the difference."


Actually it's the other way around. those people who are arguing for civil unions don't realise that reformed hetero marriage is actually a civil union.

so getting only homos to have "civil unions" is actually kind of redundant. the difference is purely in the wording - used to placate the extremists on both ends - conservatives who think homos don't deserve "marriage" and queers who think that all that is "hetero" should be avoided.

they've both got it wrong because "marriage" these days is a legal structure.

And we aren't ever going to get the mainstream to accept the idea that marriage is actually a civil union - so why should be we treated as second class citizens and accept that second class term?

watching tv tonite there was a quote from robert louis stevenson....'fear brings repression'
i thought it kinda summed up our circumstance,do the straights really think we can turn the whole world gay?

please take no offence to this it is not directed at you but cant we accept the reasons for not giving blood?
Do we really want to be responsible for infecting someones child,sibling partner with hiv.We all know the window period exists and yes were the highest risk group of the community.This one is not personal its just common sense.Lets focus on the real issues

Did I miss something... did we separate ourselves from our heritage and flag & become a Republic after all?
By the looks of it we now share more in common with the U.S. state of Texas than with Britain anymore.

STAND UP FOR YOUR LOVE RIGHTS IN MELBOURNE as part of National Day of Queer Action for Equality Aug13th Marriage Ban Anniversary!

Same-sex relationships are equal in commitmentment, quality and love to mixed-sex relationships.

But they are not treated equally by the law - yet.

Formal relationship recognition is essential step to achieve social equality and legal security for loving same-sex couples and their families. It's time for legal discrimination to end, and for same-sex couples to be treated with full equality.

If you want to see a Civil Union scheme in Victoria, and national recognition for same-sex couples, come to the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby's National Day of Action for relationship recognition!

DATE: Sunday August 13
TIME: 12:30pm
VENUE: MidWinta vows at Parliament House front steps, Spring Street, Melbourne followed by reception at CBD venue
WEAR: Something red, festive and wet-weather ready!

Sign-up for updates: replies@vglrl.org.au

The window period can be taken into account when calculating storage time, and all blood should be tested anyway, if it wasn't then all kinds of diseases would be being spread via banks. There's just no excuse for it.

"Actually it's the other way around. those people who are arguing for civil unions don't realise that reformed hetero marriage is actually a civil union. so getting only homos to have "civil unions" is actually kind of redundant. the difference is purely in the wording - used to placate the extremists on both ends - conservatives who think homos don't deserve 'marriage' and queers who think that all that is "hetero" should be avoided."

No, reformed hetero marriage is not civil union, otherwise, according to your own reasonong on wording, it would be called Reformed Civil Union. And yes, many queers do think all thinks hetero should be avoided, it's our prerogative. That doesn't meake us either second class citizens either by acknowledgement or definition. I f you want to skip about aping heteros you should just go the whole hog and be one, meanwhile queers are queers and marriage is religion-rooted, hence the name.

" many queers do think all things hetero should be avoided, it's our prerogative."
Wed 12 Jul 2006 14:25:44

- Yes, how about we avoid other hetero things like paying taxes, going to work, dating, wearing clothes, using computers or any other "hetero" technology.

In actual fact, gays are a DIVERSE community, just like straights are DIVERSE. There are MANY gays who want to Participate & Integrate into the workforce & society, and as they get charged equal or higher taxes than straight people, then they deserve the same equal rights as those citizens enjoy in Canada, Spain, Belgium and The Netherlands do where access to full equal personal choice is available. In those countries Marriage is now Gay, as much as it is Straight.
It's all about access to Equal Choice. Not Special or Aparteid choice, but Equal Choice for equal taxes paid.

Donated blood is screened as much as possible, but as far as I am aware, the HIV testing time still exceeds the use-by date for donations. Because of iron-overload, I am compelled to sacrifice a litre of blood every four weeks and it's "disheartening" for everyone involved to watch that bag of blood go straight into the Contaminated Waste bin.

"many queers do think all thinks hetero should be avoided, it's our prerogative"


ah yes, the good old "i'm gonna do the opposite of what everyone tells me to do regardless of the outcome" teenager mentality.

shouldn't you be basing what you do and not do on whether it's the best thing for you and not because it's "hetero"?

time to grow up and acknowledge that there are plenty of "hetero" things that are perfectly fine. We have the advantage of being able eto mould our own lives, but that doesn't mean we reinvent the wheel. It's better to chop and change an already existing model to suit ourselves. And that's what alot of people are doing. It's no longer "till death us do part" but doesn't mean we don't make commitments either.

and it's "disheartening" for everyone involved to watch that bag of blood go straight into the Contaminated Waste bin.
The Professor - Wed 12 Jul 2006 23:26:01


Bleaughhhhh. Remind me not to read the Professor's posts when I'm eating pasta marinara.

actually, the etymology of the word 'marriage' is from the French, 'By (the Virgin) Mary!' Now there's covenant I'd be quick to jump into. Not.

"We believe that the Marriage Act should be between a man and a woman," she said in Canberra.
"Obviously we made this decision as a parliament several years ago."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19467767-29277,00.html
.... "SEVERAL years ago" honey??? You must be kidding Nicola... it was in 2004! That fateful day on August 13th when Federal Labor stabbed us in the back by writing EXTRA discrimination & pure homophobia into law against us- something even George Bush couldn't do as the U.S. Democrats who DO have a spine blocked him.
Can't trust Labor EVER again. This year's SECOND anniversary of the Howard/Nicola Roxon Marriage Ban will be bigger than ever honey- watch out Nicola & start to learn how to say Equal Rights for Equal Taxes Paid."

- Isn't that a song "Too little, Too late". Now the latest is they want to "research for two years" on which acts might discriminate, then they MIGHT change some of them "where possible". Not good enough Nicola.
Hey, Nicola, how about I save you two years & give you the list at acts where discrimination exists....

A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Goods & Services Tax) Act 1999
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005
Aged Care Act 1997
Bankruptcy Act 1966
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
Crimes Act 1914
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Evidence Act 1995
Family Law Act 1975
Health Insurance Act 1973
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act 1984
Life Insurance Act 1995
Marriage Act 1961
Medicare Levy Act 1986
Medicare Surcharge Act 1986
Migration Act 1958
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004
Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991
National Health Act 1953
Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1976
Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990
Privacy Act 1988
Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1998
Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Sex Discrimination Act 1984
Social Security Act 1991
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Student Assistance Act 1973
Superannuation Act 1976
Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997
Superannuation (Government Co-Contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003
Tax Law Improvement Act 1997
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986
Witness Protection Act 1994
Workplace Relations Act 1996
Youth Allowance Consolidation Act 2000

There, I just saved you two years Nicola!!.. but I think your "policy" is more about buying time (& votes away from the Greens) than actually doing anything, to in your words- identify areas of where discrimination could be removed "where possible".
No sane or unbias gay rights group is going to applaud your weak move... they would all rather support the Bill by Liberal senator Warren Enstch instead, as he stated on 60Minutes story on gay rights he wants to remove discrimination IMMEDIATELY, not "research" it for two years!

OK- so we've established that pixguy doesn't want to get married such as those gay couples in Canada & Spain are enjoying.
So, pixguy, if you ever move to Canada or Spain, (or Australia gets Equal Marriage Choice), then be sure to choose not to get married. Now let the rest of us get on with getting access to equal choice for Australians.

"enter the name of your local electorate, as this QLD Liberal Senator will represent you no matter where in Australia you come from and hammer that home to your local federal member."
http://www.warrenentsch.com.au/interdependency.htm

- That's what we need- ALL members of parliament being educated on the discrimination we face, rather that pinning our representation one or two overcommitted "go-to" people.

Not all same sex attracted people people identify as queer (as you seem to), or even as gay (as I do). And at least some do choose to live much more in the hetero world than it seems you do. That is their right!

It is your choice to live in whatever way you choose. To deny others the choice to live as they want, because you dislike it, is just plain selfish. Especially when their lifestyle causes you no harm. To fight against those wishing to get such rights for themselves is even worse.

How does a gay couple getting married challenge you? Why do you hate this so much?

The marriage debate is about equality. Whether or not anyone personally agrees with marriage for themselves, denying it to others makes them an opponent of equality, just like Howard.

You do have other reasons for not wanting same sex couples recognised, but your dislike of marriage should not enter into the debate.

Breaking news:

http://entertainment.news.com.au/story/0,10221,19829581-7484,00.html

"I very rarely make comments about my private life," the singer said.
"On June 19th, 2006, I married my boyfriend of two years, Richard, in a civil partnership ceremony in London. I can honestly say it was the happiest day of my life. I feel lucky to live in an era where my relationship can be considered legally legitimate and I commend the UK Government for embracing this very basic Civil Liberty. I still maintain the belief that families and relationships are not commodities to be sold off for public consumption. In this regard, I am and will continue to be a public person with a private life. To my Mum, Dad, Sister and Brother - thanks for always being so cool and loving me unconditionally."
Hayes has been based in the UK for a number of years and earlier this month returned to Australia for a one-off concert at the Sydney Opera House, where he was spotted wearing a wedding ring. "
http://www.darrenhayes.com/dh/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=174
http://entertainment.news.com.au/story/0,10221,19829581-7484,00.html

- The great thing about a fully legal Equal Marriage, or legal Aparteid Gay Marriage, is that it can be as public or private as you want, whilst still getting immediate access to all the extra rights, and you can choose to reveal it when you want. Glad though that Darren only waited a month after to finally reveal that he'd got hitched.
As the Australian Government continues to drive our brightest gay couples out of the country to the U.K., New Zealand & Canada where their relationships are recognised, and stop people coming in, such as the gay doctors who filled the urgent shortage at Campbelltown Hospital, but then could not stay as their same sex spouses were not allowed to follow them here... this is all contributing to a brain drain... Aussies couple being driven out & overseas couples blocked from entering, John Howard & Labor have alot to answer for thier ill-concieved Marriage Ban.
Hope Darren comes out here for the rally on the second anniversary of the ban August 13th with protests all around the country again.

Marriage is a legal entity to give naming rights (surname) to children between a man and a woman?
Howard supporter Mon 12 Jun 2006 12:23:58

That is actually a rather sexist way of viewing it, Howard Supporter, as any woman is legally entitled to register her child's birth in her own surname or to change that surname with no need to marry at all. Do you have some reason to believe it obligatory for every child born should have its father's surname?

I wish that were entirely true. The child I view as my own son (non-biologically) is afflicted with his bio-father's surname, and until he turns 18 neither he nor his mother can change it, without the father giving permission.

It's only a Patriarchal social structure that inflicts male surnames on children and wives (of course, the growing trend in hyphenation is going to leave us with surnames that make grecophiles look like they've run out of alphabet).

What's wrong with women retaining their own surnames? Why not name boys after the father, and girls after the mother?

"Why not name boys after the father, and girls after the mother?"

Because that defeats the purpose of a "family name".

this is probably a discussion for the boys wall as it's not really about equality, but as far as i know, the only gene that for certain is passed down from generation to generation consistently is the Y chromosome in men - from father to son to son to son etc. All other genes are a 50% chance of being passed down. The Y chromosome is attached to the family name so you know that all people with a particular Y chromosome belong to a certain family.

Actually there as a story in the papers recently of how a a 16 year old boy managed to track down his sperm donor through following the trail of his Y gene. He had himself DNA tested, and compared his Y chromosomes to other Y chromosome in a database and so found a family name to start from. He knew the date of birth of his donor and was thus able to track him down from there.

Police were so impressed with his techique they are considering adapting it in tracking down criminals in the future.

I don't have a link at the moment but i'll try and dig one up.

As I said this post was WAAAAY off topic.

Actually here are the links to the articles:


"Anonymous sperm donor traced on internet"

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825244.200

and

"How a donor sperm boy traced his father using the internet"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1855309,00.html

I like your reasoning except that when Napoleon Bonaparte started this whole surname/family name thing, it wasn't because of an insight into Genetics. In your story above, if it had been a 16-year-old-girl, would she have been able to find the donor because his X chromosome was also databased?

If we are seeking equality for gay people, then we must recognise and grant equality to women/men, race, religion etc..

Throughout history, in many cultures, women have been second class citizens, and marriage a form of ownership. Women have been property, and representative of wealth or real estate transferred from one family to another through that marriage.

If two Islamic people break with that part of their faith, and enter a same-xex civil union or marriage, which of the two will walk twenty paces behind the other?

marriage is the joining of a man and a woman in the eyes of god. who of you wants to marry any one of the opersite sex? who of you believe in god ? well why the hell do you want to get "married"

im in a relationship, the relationship has been registered. we are both happy with that.

lifes to short, enjoy it and stop bitchin.

I havent looked at postings for a few weeks , and then i saw this very sensible quote , pity there was not more like it.

marriage is the joining of a man and a woman in the eyes of god.

So why can atheists get married?

This insistence that marriage is something solely arbitrated by "the eyes of" the Christian God is a lie promoted by conservative Christians that I do not accept.

Great to see the Uniting Church now performing same sex weddings. Modern Reformed Marriage is obviously a civil function, but it's great to see that access to equal choice in civil liberty has also given way to religious freedom for organisations such as the Uniting Church now having the freedom to perform same sex weddings that obviously they wanted to do but were previously preventing from doing.

"Alluding to Australia’s lack of relationship recognition for same-sex couples, Hayes said, “I feel lucky to live in an era where my relationship can be considered legally legitimate and I commend the UK Government for embracing this very basic civil liberty.”"
http://www.evolutionpublishing.com.au/sxnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=614&Itemid=41

Good on him. I remember him taking a swipe at our Govt when the Libs & Nicola Roxon banned it here in 2004 two years ago..... or "several years ago" in Nicola's press releases in the last few weeks- as she tries to distance herself from her 2004 Marriage Ban where she was cheered on by 1,000 Christian Extremists, and now with an election looming, too woo us back she's released a GLTBT policy that does little more than propose to "study" GLBT discrimination- not remove it. Presumably another bill would be then required to action the "study" findings, in a second term of Labour Govt commencing the year 2015. Well Helly Nicola, gays can count... 2004 wasn't "several" years ago, and we're not waiting around for some "study" on what is obvious to those who have now left Austalia for Gay Marriage overseas such as Darren Hayes.

DATE: Sunday August 13
TIME: 12:30pm
VENUE: MidWinta Vows (mass committment ceremony) at Parliament House front steps, Spring Street, Melbourne followed by reception at CBD venue
Sign-up for updates: replies@vglrl.org.au
http://www.vglrl.org.au/

With britain accepting the right for gay people to marry
why as a part of the commonwealth and as queen elizabeth as our head of state did we not follow the same path or atleast have a democratic debate in parliment?
The blame i have to say lays equally at john howards and kim beasleys feet.John howard is there to govern and beasley is there to oppose the whole scenes pretty quiet thus we must ask where has our democratic rights gone?
Also am I the only one disgusted at the usa and isreal in there terrorists attack on the lebanese people?

Stand up for your love rights!

This is a special request from the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby's "Equal Love" campaign for same-sex relationship recognition.

Equal Love is holding our National Day of Action for relationship equality and MidWinta Vows on Sunday August 13. We will stage a large, positive and celebratory event on the steps of Parliament House involving our entire community in this campaign for social justice and human rights for gay and lesbian people.

Can you help?

We need approximately 40 volunteers to help with marshalling, balloon-tying, chocolate selling and various other tasks. Our next volunteers meeting is Thursday 10 August, 6:45pm, British Crown Hotel 14-18 Smith St Collingwood. Please contact our Volunteer co-ordinator, Stephen Kress, at: stephenkress@optusnet.com.au

We also need 100 brave couples who want to make a public declaration of their love for each other on the steps of Parliament House. Please email yours & your partner's name and phone number to: replies@vglrl.org.au

Be part of history!

Above all else, turn up on the day to show your support for same-sex relationship recognition!

Date: Sunday August 13
Time: 12.30pm
Venue: MidWinta Vows at Parliament House Victoria front steps, Spring Street, Melbourne followed by reception at CBD venue
Wear: Something red, festive and wet-weather ready!

Let's all join together - tell your friends, families, neighbours and colleagues (gay and straight) - to make this an inspiring event for all!

Kind regards,

Equal Love team
0422 913 942
www.equallove.org.au

well u are not . i am a howard supporter and a supporter of the misguided war on iraq ( i think we were given bad intelligence and u have to have a dictatorship there to control the fighting between 3 islamic groups , great in hindsight ) But i beleive like u that this is a terorist attack on lebanon , hizzbalah are a terror group inside lebanon as is alqaeda in pakistan indnonesia , britain , malysia , usa , australia or the phiilipines wherever they work from. so why attck the govt and people of lebanon. there should be UN sanction s against israel immediately , the arab league of nations should agree to withold any oil or energy supply to any country that aids and abets the terrorist act which should include usa if they supply guided missiles to isarel which they have done this week, our pm should dispel israel embassy staff immediately from australia. every israeli emabssy in the world should be targeted with 24 hrs peaceful vigils outside protesting against the terror acts , and moves should be taken to freeze israels bank a/cs in switzerland as they have done with other rogue states like north korea.
So you are not alone , and this is the equality wall and wow what inequality in terms of fair play is happening right now.

On paper, Australia is still a British colony, and there is plenty of evidence that as "allied" troops in World Wars 1 and 2, Australians were expendable. At Gallipoli, the big brass all knew our men were headed for the wrong beach, but our mindless sacrifice was "collateral damage"; and then we show how stupid Australians really are by being the only country in the world that annually celebrates such a gigantic military blunder.
     In 1975 the u$ flexed its muscles on Australian politics which resulted in "The Dismissal", and since then it would seem appropriate that Australia replace the Union Jack in the corner of the flag with $tars and $tripes.
     As for the Middle East, ever since "partition" which created the Nation State of Israel, there has been nothing but trouble; and anyone who wants to check out Biblical records will quickly learn that "Israel" as God's "chosen" people, never had anything to do with race. The word Is-Ra-El translates to English as "I am of God", which is a spiritual state, not a sovereign one. Of course, who has noticed that when Israel hurls a bomb it's always a "retaliation"?
     Any one remember the first Gulf War over a little pretend country called "Kuwait", which is basically a bunch of oil fields that have been annexed by u$ interests? The u$ suggested to God-damn Insane that "a threat to Kuwait's borders would be good for oil prices." As if that's not a gold engraved invitation for a power-crazed despot to launch a full scale invasion! We could discuss the ecological damage on the Green Wall for months to come.
     Then georgie bush junior gets into the presidential sand pit, and announces a little too early in the schedule that because of a bad oil deal with daddy, he's going after Osama Bin Laden. It was after that that the orchestrated events of 9/11 took place and only three days later, a money trail leads back to the "master criminal" Osama Bin Laden. I'm no accountant, but I'm sure I could hide cash across multiple countries for longer than that.
     Now that he has the fabricated "excuse" he concocts this giant COW (Coalition of the Willing), the droppings of which both British and Australian governments happily slop around in, and say "We'll join in!" Perhaps Britain should also swap the Union Jack for $tars and $tripes.
     Having watched these events unfold, it is clear to me that the U.N. is nothing but the U.S. International "Police" Force by another name. Remember, it is mostly the Western COW countries who have supplied the materials and weapons for terrorism in the first place. War and terrorism are here to stay--they're too profitable to abolish. An upstanding Australian citizen isn't allowed near a firearm, but it's perfectly okay to shove an AK-47 into the waiting arms of a newborn infant in the Middle East.
     The so-called "War on Terror" (how do you declare war on an emotion?) has given us a different form of equality: We've all been equally duped!

if you take away the belief of anyone all you have left is the human being, the same as everyone else, regardless of colaw and look, is living once accepting living more than once too

It was over 2yrs ago, BEFORE the marriage ban that Melbourne held a mass committment ceremony of 600 gays & lesbians.... so this year's National Day of Action that falls on a Sunday is going to be bigger than ever!
With a gay cowboy still in the Big Brother house & Brokeback Mountain being publicised this month with the DVD release- how about all those in the mass committment ceremony all wear cowboy hats.... even better if there's other committment ceremonies in other states in addition to Melbourne.

EVENTS AROUND AUSTRALIA - Sunday 13th August 2006

NEW SOUTH WALES
- Sydney: 1pm Taylor Square with mass marriage ceremony Hyde Park Nth. Reception at Kinselas. Simon 0438 637 037
- Blue Mountains: Brin 0407 494 022
- Dubbo: Alex D 0439 730414
- Lismore: 12:30 Sphinx Park with mass wedding. Reception at Winsome. Ben 0438 211 520
- Wagga: Alex D 0439 730414


VICTORIA
Melbourne: 12:30pm with MidWinta vows at Parliament House Spring Street. Reception at CBD venue. John 0422 913 942

SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Adelaide: 1pm Parliament House. Mel 0437 528 650

WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Perth: details to be confirmed. John 0400 249 962

TASMANIA
Hobart: details to be confirmed. Rodney 0409 010 668

A.C.T.
Canberra: Parliament House 12-2pm. Morgan 0417 257285

http://www.caah.org/nda/2006/index.htm

- With Mass Gay Weddings being performed from Melbourne to Lismore, it's sure to be huge. Would be great if Darren Hayes could come out & renew his vows in one of the mass gay weddings. I hope Jason & Geoff from 2DAYFM renew thier vows too that were performed by the Parramatta MCC Church Minister, to also show the discrimination faced by religions in Australia who want to perform gay weddings & are denied religious freedom. The original response the thier wedding from straight listeners on 2DAYFM was fantastic, with over 70% of their young listeners supporting gays & lesbians having access to Equal Choice, as well as 4,500 listeners signing a public petition to Canberra to have Geoff & Jason's MCC Church Ceremony recognised.
http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=4891
(photo of the couple & the MCC Minister, & article)

Gay couples living together are being encouraged to record their relationship as a de facto relationship in this years Census on 8 August 2006 (see article in todays SSO at
http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=5588).

Between the 1996 Census and the 2001 Census the number of same-sex couples in Australia recorded in the Census doubled. Lets try and double the number again! The more same-sex couples there are in Australia the harder it will be for politicians to ignore relationship reform.

Some activists are encouraging same-sex couples to record themselves as a "married" couple in the Census as a protest. According to an employee of the Census if you do this it means you will be automatically counted as a hetero married couple and wont be counted in the statistics for same-sex couples. Whilst it is frustrating it seems the best way to have an impact is just to record ourselves as a de facto relationship until the government sees sense and changes the law.

Its time to stand up and be counted!

what happens if you tick both boxes? ie. de facto AND married?

The standard practice in surveying is that if someone answers twice on a question; they're excluded (otherwise the person analysing the survey is taking it upon himself to choose an answer).

The worldwide Metropolitan Community Church are great- my partner of 7years & I had a Gay Wedding with them last year, performed in their beautiful Petersham church. Overseas the MCC Church (& Uniting Church) perform legal same sex marriages, but here in Australia they are restricted to calling it a "Holy Union". But on our Wedding Invitations we just called it a Marriage anyway...
On our invitations we said:
"You are invited to the Marriage of two people, Simon & Daniel. Incorporating a Metropolitan Community Church Holy Union, and a City of Sydney Civil Union (Relationship Declaration Ceremony)."

Arti, again you have a problem with my post, again because you're missing my point completely. There is more than one issue I was discussing, but you seem unable to distinguish them. Same Sex Civil Unions are what the equality issue is about. Marriage is a failed religious institution licensing people to reproduce with God's sanction. I don't know any same-sex couple planning to do that. You still can't see a difference can you?

And I don't think you understand that marriage hasn't been about "god's sanction" for long long time. why do you think heterosexuals are allowed to get "married" in a registry office?

and if it's about "god" - then why the hell is the government making laws about it? shouldn't that be purely the domain of the church?

as you can see getting "married" is about law - not about religion.

I may have grown up in my mother's house, but eventually I moved out. so too with "marriage".

That may be your definition of marriage, but many others disagree. Many people are of the opinion that marriage is not a failed institution. Many others consider that marriage has nothing at all to do with religion.

Marriage also has nothing to do with reproduction. If it did then the churches would object to older and infertile couples getting married. The law would require married couples to reproduce, and couples who reproduce to get married.

Do Buddhists, atheists, Daoists need God's sanction?

Tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of gay couples have been married in Canada, Spain, Netherland, Belgium and Massachusetts. Some of these couples have had religious ceremonies, some civil. Just because you don't know any personally doesn't mean that no same sex couple wants marriage.

Again I will say that you are just being selfish to deny others the right to marriage if they want it.

(I deliberately address only one point in my posts.)

"On our invitations we said:
"You are invited to the Marriage of two people, Simon & Daniel. Incorporating a Metropolitan Community Church Holy Union, and a City of Sydney Civil Union (Relationship Declaration Ceremony)."

Good on you- the more people stop waiting & go ahead & do it the better. Just get married anyway & once the Government finally catches up with the rest of the world, you can just get your legal wedding certificate on an anniversary date of your ceremony.
The idea of religious freedom in important too- in Canada the MCC & Uniting Churches CAN perform legal same sex weddings, but here they are illegal. This then creates the confusion that no gays are religious which is not the case. Then the media refers to their gay weddings as a "civil service or civil union" with thier presumption being that it is a "civil wedding" such as a straight couple would have who were not religious. But this is not the case... it is the lack of religious freedom & apartied "civil union" system such as in UK that keeps them boxed in.
Only in Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Canada & Massechusets can you have both civil freedom AND religious freedom- and with full equality be free from public confusion on the issue that a civil union is a "chosen" civil service, when in actual fact it is a restriction on religious freedom from gay friendly churches such as the 4million strong Uniting Church of Canada who actally perform Equal (same sex) Marriages.

"Kyan Douglas from television’s Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is set to marry his lover, gay rights activist Greg Durham.
“We shouldn’t wait for Straight America to validate our relationships before we behave as if they’re validated,” Douglas said. "
http://www.evolutionpublishing.com.au/mcv/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=344&Itemid=40

Yes... why wait- just get on with it your life, whether the current excuse for a government, president/prime minister approves or not! In Australia the gutless Labor party are so untrustworthy, I'd rather give my time to people like Liberal backbencher Warren Ensch that so called Labor "gay champions" in inner city seats that are stabbing us in the back through thier silence.
The banning of anti-homophobia training this year by inner city Sydney Labor members was a disgrace, rewarded from above with expanded portfolios. Give me a real human being who actually is passionate about stamping out homophobia like Warren any day from these career driven Labor leeches riding on the backs of safe "gay Labor" seats.
I feel validated by Warren's comments & his on-line petition, and nothing but distrust of homophobia-training banning / marriage banning Labor. Where were all the Labor backbenchers coming out to speak for us... none! But at least we have a group of 5 Liberal backbenchers gunning for us.
Sign Warren's Gay Rights petition at- http://www.warrenentsch.com.au/interdependency.htm
He will then collate the data & notify your local member of the need for equal rights in their electorate.
We all need to start living like our lives are validated, and we now need to demand that the political party(s) we support also validate us- in words and actions, for the privelage of getting our vote.

Even if you fail to share it, if people wish to pursue marriage, isn't it better to support their wish instead of dividing the community over who wants what? Recognising that someone else aspires to obtain a right, doesn't mean you have to want it for yourself, but wouldn't it be better to support rather than tear down?

"THE Queensland National Party has welcomed Big Brother evictee David Graham's ambitions to become a politician for the party.
The 26-year-old farmer from Dalby, west of Brisbane, speculated about a future with the party shortly before he was evicted from the reality show compound on the Gold Coast last night.
Nationals state director Brad Henderson today said David was "more than welcome" to nominate for preselection to become a candidate.
When asked if the National Party was ready for a gay MP who championed the plight of gay farmers, Mr Henderson replied: "I think that's an issue he has identified and that he wants to pursue. That's his right and he has been doing that on the show.
"One of the great things about the Nationals is that we have a diverse membership and we are a real grassroots party ... It's the right of our members to have input into the party policy development."
David came out on the show (after letting people get to know him as a person) inside the compound and often spoke of his love for his boyfriend Sharif, whom he met at a dance party during Sydney's gay and lesbian annual Mardi Gras.
In addition to expressing an interest in taking up the plight of gay people in the bush, David also discussed feeling like a "second-class citizen" because gay marriage is not legal in Australia.
He also talked about teen suicides in Australia – many of which are gay-related.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,19972813-1702,00.html

- I think David's passion & energy will take him far. To think that only less than 12months ago he had his entire face bashed in from a gutless pack-homophobe bashing when leaving a Brisbane gay nightclub that left him in hospital with horrific injuries. He has an incredible strength to bounce back from that & continue moving forward in whatever he chooses to do. There are too many bright young gays & lesbians committing suicide in the bush (something David also attempted), and to have someone stand up & irreversable come out to the entire country- which will mean he is now OUT for the rest of his life 24/7, takes great courage. Bravo.
I try to be out- with my family, at work, with people I bump into in every day life... it comes up all the time.. "Are you married... do you have a girlfriend", and sometimes it's easier at times to choose to pretend to be straight in some situations. David doesn't have that choice now- he's now out 24/7, and is very liberating. I came out at work 3 years ago, and since then we've had a huge turnover of staff & I find myself having to come out over & over again, it does take effort, but I do now try to never compromise & always never pretend to be straight even for complete strangers such as workmen coming to the house etc anymore.
Would be great to see David reverse the trend in the bush of gay suicide & turn around the National Party from the inside to focus on gay-youth suicide.

Marriage is, by the very definition of the word, religiously rooted. Again, those arguing here fail to distinguish it from Civil Unions, again they are naively assuming the religious right may one day reform marriage to include same sex couples: it never will, so move on and instead redefine your own idea of same sex recognition. Not only are you pushing for the impossible, you are also selfishly pushing for a form of recognition that would disadvantage other same-sex couples. The church and state are not as separated as some would like to believe, our governement system increasingly being hijacked by religious right extremists. There is a whose political party whose raison d'etre is to separate church and state http://www.secular.org.au/

And to the poster who asked "Why do you hate all things heterosexual so much?" I ask "Why do you hate what you are so much that you have to mimic the majority?"

"I ask "Why do you hate what you are so much that you have to mimic the majority?""

since when was has wanting a good thing being "mimicking"?

And why do you believe bigots that being gay and being married are mutually exclusive?

There are plenty of positive reasons for wanting marriage that have nothing to do with being heterosexual nor part of the majority.

'since when was has wanting a good thing being "mimicking"?'

You surely aren't suggesting that getting married is an original concept? It's what nealy every religious book dictates we all do to escape 'living in sin', it's about members of opposite sexes and is loaded with theosophical iconography and fear of God, mingled with all the religious hallmarks of moral obligation, fear of being socially unaccepted and socially outcast and guilt if resisted. People have 'mimicked' like this throughout history. Now that we finally live in an era of civil liberation and freedom of choice, you guys want to turn back the clock?

Clearly, the issue raised aeons ago on this forum was that 'marriage' would deny welfare couples of precious income while civil unions could be legislated to afford all the rights to gay couples without the identifier of "married" so enabling those on welfare to retain their benefits.

I really wonder about the collective intelligence of queers in this town.

You keep saying that we are not distinguishing marriage from civil union, but you have consistently failed to give any real definition except that marriage is religious and civil union is not. If that is your definition then it differs significantly from other peoples definition. If that is your definition then you are just argueing semantics yet again.

If that is not your definition then please explain clearly how a marriage that does not take place in a church is religious.

I am deliberately not addressing other issues around this until I understand why you hate marriage.

He is definately very passionate about gay-youth suicide, access to equal marriage, and gays living in the bush. Great to see such a positive reaction from the Nationals.

"The number may appear small compared to the 8,000 same-sex couples who registered under a similar law in the UK, but LGBT leaders say they are surprised at the number.
"I´m surprised by this number, which seems high to me, since one week before July 1 the registry offices had not yet had enough information on how to proceed," Gay and Lesbian League spokesman Martin Strachon told the daily newspaper Pravo.
The aparteid civil partnership law came into effect on July 1. It allows couples who register their partnership with authorities to have inheritance and health care rights similar to those granted now to heterosexual married couples.
Recent public opinion polls show most Czechs support same-sex couples having the option of registering their partnerships."
http://365gay.com/Newscon06/07/073106czech.htm

To think that Jana Wendt left war-torn Czech & now they are more socially advanced than us here in Australia in 2006! I hope she does a feature story on this on her SUNDAY program.

"(London) The most senior openly gay cleric in the Church of England has entered into a civil partnership with his longtime lover, also an Anglican priest.
Rev Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, exchanged vows with the Rev Grant Holmes, a hospital chaplain.
Although the partnership was registered in a low key event, it also was not conducted in secret. John informed his congregation it had taken place last Sunday, and the couple wore clerical collars.
http://365gay.com/Newscon06/08/080106anglican.htm

- This is another example of the religious freedom that is possible once gay marriage or equal marriage is legal.
In Australia, the Metrolitan Community Church perform a Holy Union Ceremony, but in Cananda they perform equal marriages for same sex couples. So the fight is not just about civil freedom & equality, but also religious freedom.

"Now that we finally live in an era of civil liberation and freedom of choice, you guys want to turn back the clock?"


now we have freedom of choice???????

I think that's exactly what people are arguing for. freedom of choice to marry (or not) the person of their choice.

You are attempting to deny people "freedom of choice" - isn't THAT turning back the clock?

(and "marriage" has been around longer than religion).

In a discussion about religious-extremist intollerance in the wake of the Mel Gibson incident, Kyle said today on 2DAYFM "John Howard won't allow homosexuals the choice to get married because of his own personal extremist religious views". So true... when in actual fact many Christain (and Jewish, AND some sects of Islam) actually support gays & in some cases actually perform same sex religious weddings in countries where it is now legal.
The problem with civil unions is that marriage IS a civil function... many observers just presume that when gays ask for civil unions, they are asking for civil marriage meaning they don't want religious marriage- when in actual fact, there are many gays out there who are religious, and religions who do perform same sex marriages.
So everyone is "on the same page" and to allieviate confusion on so many levels, gays should have access to equal choice of full marriage... then it is up to the gay couple to CHOOSE whether they would like a Civil Marriage Legal Ceremony, or a Religious Legal Marriage Ceremony.

You have clearly forgotten that we have already had this debate on this wall. If you look back to late June you'll see all my answers, maybe that'll jog your amnseia.

"now we have freedom of choice???????"

Oh get real. For the first time in history the whole of society is free to choose not to marry, all the pressure is off, it's no longer called "living in sin" to cohabit. Freedom of choice is not just about minority groups.

"I think that's exactly what people are arguing for. freedom of choice to marry (or not) the person of their choice."

Like I said, I really have to question the collective intelligence of this town. If it's just recognition of relationships you're after the civil unions is the best you can hope for. Marriage is an act between a man and a woman. If tha's what you want to do then you aren't homosexual obviously.

(and "marriage" has been around longer than religion).

No it hasn't, it is a product of religion.

"You keep saying that we are not distinguishing marriage from civil union, but you have consistently failed to give any real definition except that marriage is religious and civil union is not."

I have not failed to give you a definition of marriage - it is an act between a man and a woman. John Howard has had it written it into the constitution.

"If that is not your definition then please explain clearly how a marriage that does not take place in a church is religious."

Doesn't make any difference where it takes place, marriage is marriage is marriage. Its roots remain unaltered. A union between a man and a woman, allowing them to "lie together" (i.e. breed) is quite obviously inappropriate for same sex couples.

I would vote greens if I honestly thought they would acheive something. Britain spain and other countries now recognise gay unions but we still do not.Labour has not stated a commitment to pass the unions. Our friend bob should be demanding a law change in exchange for green support.I suggest they do not tie themselves exclusively to labour and in gough's own words its time for a change...in that labour and the greens must stop living in prehistoric times, at the moment they make the 50's era libs seem very modern.Funnily enough I have written to the greens but all you seem to get back is rude replys from people only interested in there own self promotion thus the status quo.

little johnnie has not had his definition of marriage written into the Constitution. He cannot change a single word of the Constitution without referendum approval of 50% + 1 from all States and Territories in Australia. He has legislated a new definition for the existing Marriage Act which can subsequently be repealled by a future government with more guts.

Now, do you people think you can actually start being nice to each other? "If you are feeling angry please wait until you are calmer before posting on Pinkboard." I still see a great deal of personal attack occurring.

Professor, I do hope you aren't referring to myself, my post was the subject (not a perpetration) of attack for airing my opinions, yet your comments are threaded to my post, not my attackers' posts.

Also, whether little Johnnie has amended the definition of marriage via reversible legislation or otherwise, he has still done it, and that was the point I was making - as a reply to someone's protest that I had not provided a definition of marriage.

Indeed "if you are feeling angry please wait until you are calmer before posting on Pinkboard." It's all too easy to take a feisty posting you disagree with and interpret it as "angry" to indirectly invalidate it. Being frank and forthright does not equate to anger and while it may ruffle feathers is no less valid or appropriate to open discussion.

"For the first time in history the whole of society is free to choose not to marry,"


that's quite incorrect - you haven't been paying any attention on this wall at all it seems.

PJ, my post was threaded from the anonymous post of Wed 2 Aug 2006 20:00:23, not yours.

However, I note that:

* Marriage as a topic has dominated this wall since jwh's legislation;
* This very topic has polarized and split the gay community.

I imagine if jwh were to read this wall he would cream his own pants with delight over the rift he has created--the same tactic he used to successfully destroy the Republican Movement.
     My observations of hetero relationships do not enamour me of the concept of marriage--a couple only need to "shack up" for a couple of months and when it sours, the home that has been in the family for three generations is suddenly cut in half. The whole thing turns into an argument over property.
     I feel that for many (not all) gay people, it's not about marriage, but about the Wedding which then goes on to kill the relationship, and yes, I have seen this happen. Whilst I am not a supporter of "Marriage" however one chooses to define it (and that will always be flavored by the people giving the definition), I do support the right to seek marriage on equal footing with the hetero "institution" for those who choose to walk down this rocky path.
     Instead of violent disagreement on this issue, there is the opportunity for the community to unite on this issue even if just to demonstrate to the hetero majority that we can act in unison.
     PJ, across these various walls, you have seen how certain nameless people have leapt at the opportunity to stab me in the back, although in real life they have no idea who I am. I certainly have no intention of returning that favor to anyone, especially when a person is standing up for a genuine belief.
     I seriously think it is time for people to agree to disagree, heal the rift and move forward to promote that portion of the community that seeks "marriage equality", and give a "the big finger" to jwh and his anti-gay cronies.

Mmmm... Britian is going ahead in leaps & bounds, and we're still stuck in a rut like snappy little convicts.

"(Cape Town, South Africa) The South African government will have a bill on gay marriage ready for Parliament before the end of the year the Deputy Justice Minister told reporters on Tuesday.
Last December the Constitutional Court, the highest court in South Africa, ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.
The court ordered Parliament to amend marriage laws within 12 months. If it fails to act within that timeframe, the court said the ruling would automatically change the law to include same-sex unions.
"The Bill will be ready in time," he said.
Once the legislation is passed it will make South Africa the fifth western country to legalize same-sex marriage.
South Africa's post apartheid constitution states that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals have the same rights as any other individual. Section 9 of the Constitution outlaws discrimination in South Africa based on sexual orientation. "
http://365gay.com/Newscon06/08/080106saf.htm

- Good to see that the original bastion of aparteid South Africa is opting for unambiguous Full Equality for gay relationships, rather than any sort of 2nd class aparteid system. This then puts them ahead of the U.K., and into the same realm as Canada & Spain.

"Commercial TV producers know that their audiences are not only more comfortable with same-sex relationships than the National Government, but a little anxious about that Government’s unrelentingly hard-line.
Sharing the joy of a loving, model, multi-cultural, half-Muslim Lebanese, gay couple is one way to relieve that anxiety.
By-passed, as it has been, by anti-gay ideologues, the National Party also has its ear to the Australian chest (by welcoming David into preselection for the party).
It can hear that our collective heart no longer skips a beat when the g-word is mentioned. Hopefully, it isn’t just responding to celebrity-hype and can see that at a time of crisis in rural Australia, farming communities need to hold on to all their young people, including the