Forums

Australia to remove almost 100 anti-gay laws

Page:   1 2 3
 
 

Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
May 1, 2008, 12:28

I got a copy now that I can copy and paste. What do you think?


MEDIA RELEASE

30 April 2008


GOVERNMENT’S ANNOUNCEMENT FAILS TO DELIVER EQUALITY FOR GAY AND LESBIAN AUSTRALIANS


“Important as it is, ending discrimination is not just about money. It is about how we, as gay and lesbian Australians, are valued as human beings in our own country, by our own country.”


Australian Marriage Equality (AME) has noted the Government’s announced intention to remove financial discrimination against same-sex couples but has criticised it for failing to remove all discrimination under Australian law.


“The Federal Government has got it wrong by asserting that discrimination is only about financial entitlements”, said AME national convener, Peter Furness.


“Important as it is, ending discrimination is not just about money. It is about how we, as gay and lesbian Australians, are valued as human beings in our own country, by our own country.”


“Most of us consider our right to marry a birthright but until we too are allowed to marry, and have our marriages legally recognised, then neither we nor the government can claim that we are truly equal under Australian law”, said Peter Furness.


AME also criticised the Government for the complexity of its plans.


“With around 100 Acts to be amended, this is an extraordinarily complex way to deliver financial equality when the Government could simply amend a few words in the Marriage Act.”


Around 800 Australian same-sex couples have already married or entered similar arrangements overseas. Given the growing number of countries which provide equal marriage, today’s announced changes can only be described as insufficient.


“The Rudd Government’s policy to recognise same-sex relationships through state-based registers may have the blessing of anti-gay hate groups like the Australian Christian Lobby, but it does not grant same-sex couples the dignity, respect and equality they deserve.”


“Australia remains well and truly behind the eight ball when compared to countries like Canada, Spain or South Africa. If the government or its supporters claim that today’s announcement delivers equality, they are being dishonest.”


“Perhaps Kevin Rudd will expect gratitude today. But does he really think we should have such low expectations from our own country?”, asked Peter Furness.

orfeo
 
Joined in 2007
May 1, 2008, 15:06


AME also criticised the Government for the complexity of its plans.


“With around 100 Acts to be amended, this is an extraordinarily complex way to deliver financial equality when the Government could simply amend a few words in the Marriage Act.”



This is the bit that is wrong. Amending the Marriage Act would not have a flow-on effect to the 100 Acts.


It would have a flow-on effect to some of those Acts if (and only if) courts took the view that terms in other, pre-existing legislation should be re-interpreted to take into account the changes. Remember, the man and woman bit in the Marriage Act wasn’t actually in there until 2004, but courts had interpreted other legislation in that fashion anyway. Plus leaving it to court interpretation provides no certainty either for the government or for the couples concerned.


And this would only work for Acts where terms like ‘spouse’ are left undefined. Changing the Marriage Act would do nothing to affect any of the other Acts that explicitly say that a couple consists of two people of opposite sexes. Lots of the Acts don’t have any reference to marriage, because they apply to heterosexual de facto couples as well.


Anthony, if you actually know any of the leaders at AME, I suggest you point this out to them. They are welcome to argue that the proposed reforms don’t go as far as they want, but it is misleading to suggest as they do that the proposed reforms could be simply avoided.


On a somewhat personal note, I might also add that it rather diminished the efforts of both HREOC and the Attorney-General’s Department to hunt through the statute books and find all these laws.

phil.evans777
 
Joined in 2007
May 1, 2008, 16:45

What does this mean for Civil unions though? Will this be on the cards?


If I marry a foreigner, will he be able to be recognized in Australia as my spouse for immigration purposes?


It is likely that I will marry my Canadian partner overseas where it is recognized. But devastating if we could never live here as a recognized couple.


P.

orfeo
 
Joined in 2007
May 1, 2008, 17:14

What does this mean for Civil unions though? Will this be on the cards?


If I marry a foreigner, will he be able to be recognized in Australia as my spouse for immigration purposes?


It is likely that I will marry my Canadian partner overseas where it is recognized. But devastating if we could never live here as a recognized couple.


P.


It depends what you mean by recognized. This won’t mean anything for official recognition as married. But, it would mean that government departments would take notice of your marriage as evidence that you and your partner are a legitimate ‘de facto’ couple – and entitled to be treated as a couple.


In fact I think this already happens for immigration, where there’s already an ‘interdependency’ visa that covers same-sex couples. I don’t know if these changes will make things any easier for immigration, specifically.


But in a lot of other areas, up until now, it wouldn’t matter HOW much evidence you have – these laws would say you simply can’t be a couple.


Does that help?

phil.evans777
 
Joined in 2007
May 1, 2008, 18:07

Yeah that helps. What it means though is visa status, but perhaps not a permanent residency. That makes me a little sad.

Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
May 1, 2008, 19:54

hey orfeo…..its great to have an expert in our midst……I mean that in the nicest possible way.


you’ve explained things well…..its fantastic to have your additional insights.


I get your point about the media release…….I think the point that they were making was…..we still have a major law in this country that blatantly discriminates against same sex couples. ….thanks to John Howard (what was he thinking)…….and that we will keep fighting to have that law removed.


i’m sure that you are aware that a media release is only about 350 words long, rarely tells the whole story and often focuses on a controversial point to arouse more interest.

orfeo
 
Joined in 2007
May 2, 2008, 00:32

Yes, I get that a media release has its limitations. But I read an awful lot of the reports yesterday, and AME was the only group that came across as suggesting the reforms the Government has announced are, in and of themselves, somehow not the right thing to do.


Plenty of people are arguing the reforms don’t go far ENOUGH (in fact, that seems to be the main angle the media is taking!) but that’s a completely different thing.


And I’ll reiterate – what AME said in those two sentences is not just ‘controversial’. It is wrong. Changing words in the Marriage Act will not affect social security, workers’ entitlements, veterans’ entitlements… and those are the ones I can remember off the top of the head without going back and reading the HREOC report. It’s a public document, it’s what started this thing off last year.


I really don’t think AME are doing themselves any favours in terms of their effectiveness as a lobby group by saying something that shows they haven’t done their homework. That’s purely my opinion, of course. But personally, when I was working on this stuff, nothing irritated me more than a lobby group which didn’t know what it was talking about. Argue for a position, sure, but it’s always so much more effective if it’s backed up by knowledge of the facts (or the law, in this case).


– Trevor

sojourner
 
Joined in 2008
May 2, 2008, 01:14

Does that also include all the laws relating to Gay adoption/surrogacy?


One of the few things I actually remember from high school (wow I’m surprising myself here!) was a project I had to do on Gay parenting rights- I remember there were all these laws preventing gay men from donating sperm, arranging for surrogacies both in Aus and overseas along with prohibitions on adoptions— I think it was at this point that I began to begin to loose alot of my ingrained fundamentalist Christian opposition towards Gay rights… I remember reading reports drafted on the welfare status of kids in Gay families… how could those kids not recieve the same rights and entitlements as other kids and if as these reports found, the kids recieved the proper nurturing any kid requires from their same sex parents, why should these parenting arrangements not have extended to them the same legal recognition as ‘normal’ families…


Chris

orfeo
 
Joined in 2007
May 2, 2008, 02:18

Does that also include all the laws relating to Gay adoption/surrogacy?



No. Those laws aren’t changing. And they’re mostly State/Territory laws, not national ones. Same-sex couples can adopt in some places, not in others.

Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
May 2, 2008, 14:44

thanks Trevor…..I get your point
Page:   1 2 3
 
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.085 seconds.