Hey, Ann Maree..

I'll add my 2 cents worth… as I understand it the move towards gay marriage got a win and a loss at the Labour National Conference… a win because it has become part of their platform.. but a loss because it will be a conscience vote. This means it is very unlikely to pass..unless the Liberals agree to a conscience vote as well… which it seems they are unlikely to do.

So as I understand it… it gave labour the opportunity to look like they were for equality in marriage… without actually doing anything about it…

Anyone can correct this interpretation of the events of the past few weeks…

ammi

Hi ammi

Yes that's what my friend was getting at too. Thanks for your explanation.

Mother Hen, can you say what has changed for QL?

Blessings,

Ann Maree

Hi Ann Marie,

Queensland had a vote and passed that they would recognized and allow civil unions between same sex couples. Just before the big Labour party vote. The vote was something like 47 to 40 after a 3 /12 hr discussion on it. My son Mr Summit was there in parliament watching it all. He text us about 11.30pm on the night saying it had just passed. So good move for QLD.

I do believe in time we will see same sex marriage in Australia. Might take a while but it will happen, it's out there been talked about discussed so that has to be a good thing.

Hi Ann Marie,

This would make a good post under discussion “Same Sex Marriage V Civil Unions.” Then you would get people more informed than I to answer it.

I don’t fully understand it myself but have been looking into it. In answer to your question that “aren’t civil unions already recognised between gay couples”, my understanding is no. Some states in Australia allow and recognise same sex civil unions and others don’t. Before last month QLD didn’t, I think NSW and Tassie do and maybe Vic and now QLD.

Even though Civil Unions are supposed to give people the same rights as marriage it doesn’t really seem to. From my understanding and others can add to this, civil unions is a state thing, the legal rights given to same-sex couples vary from state to state and civil unions are also restrictive in that they are not necessarily portable. You may be viewed official ‘life partners’ in Tasmania, but cross over to the mainland and you’re back to square one. (Info from http://www.actnow.com.au/Issues/Samesex_marriage.aspx)

Being married is a unique legal status which is recognised by all governments around the world. I think marriage has more legal rights than civil unions.

As you say it’s about same sex and LGBT community having equality and the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I think it is a step in the right direction, some say it’s not enough and might say it’s being used in the hope to placate the LGBT community. But it’s not equal rights.

I know my son was pleased that the civil union debate was passed in QLD but said he didn’t want that at a federal level because they want marriage at a federal level.

See I’m learning too.

Over the last decade all states and territories have given gay couples the same rights as defacto straight couples. In theory this gives them almost the same rights as married couples. But in practice there is less ability to access these rights.

Without a marriage certificate, a defacto couple has to prove their status every time they want to access their rights. This varies from state to state. In QLD I believe it means proving that you have been living together, in a sexual relationship, with a shared bank account for at least 2 years. So my brother, who married two years ago, would only just be getting access to partnership rights now.

A number of times during the civil unions debate in parliament, the MPs told stories that went like this. Bob and Fred had been partners for 20 years but Fred's parents didn't approve and hadn't spoken to Fred for decades. Suddenly Fred got terminally ill, and his family magically appeared out of nowhere. The family deny Bob permission to see his dying partner of 20 years. And Bob can't do anything about it because he can't get all the necessary documentation to a judge in time before Fred dies without getting to see Bob again. There a similar stories to this in regards to immigration status problems.

This happens in real life much more than it should. If Bob and Fred had been married, Bob would have had implicit power of attorney that was easy to prove and could have told Fred's family where to stick it. Unfortunately, marriage is handled at a federal level and it is unlikely to act for some time yet. For this reason, the states have begun to enact legislation that'll at least make it easier for defacto couples to get access to services that are provided at the state level.

As far as I am aware, Vic and NSW have a registration for defacto couples. So that you just have to prove you are in a defacto relationship once and then you are done with it. The ACT and now QLD have enacted full civil unions which are much more like marriage in that you don't need to be in a defacto relationship first. Unlike the ACT laws, the QLD civil unions bill also allows for a civil celebrant to oversee a ceremony where the civil union takes affect.

The problem of course is that QLD civil unions only help people who live in QLD. They're not recognized anywhere else, including in regard to services rendered by the federal government. But it is all that QLD can do.