There comes a time after each election when you finally accept (after hoping and hoping for months that it really isn't the case) that the party you voted for, which you held up throughout the campaign as some bastion of all that was good in politics, was really just the lesser of two evils, and that effectively all political parties are the same. That moment came for me last week, when, after not one week earlier announcing that for all intents and purposes gay couples would be treated in the same way as heterosexual couples, the Rudd Government refused to allow the ACT to pass its Civil Unions bill as it "mimics marriage". Right. So... you're fine with gay couples having all the entitlements of a married couple... with the exception of a ceremony.
This article sums up this ridiculous situation. Here are the first two paragraphs:
Marriage is for one man and one woman. It is not for two men or two women, unless one is no longer a man or woman. A woman born a man may marry a man, as long as he remains a man, and she keeps taking her hormones.
The only way gays may marry in Australia is by sex-change, a rather extreme declaration of love, and anything that even "mimics" marriage is likewise banned.
3 comments:
This is slightly tangential, but why does the federal government have so much say over the laws in the ACT? In the unlikely case that Queensland were to try to pass a similar law, I don't really see how the federal government could stop them.
I agree it's a crappy move from the federal government.
While I am similarly dismayed by the ALP over this issue I can't go so far as to say that they are the same as the JWH party. I would still consider the past few weeks as a victory for those of us who want equality under Australian law. Unless the year is 1972 the pace of change in Australia is painfully slow. Baby steps.
The apology, Kyoto, the Pacific Solution, WorkChoices, just think of those.
Kevin, the ACT is not a state and so the "state level" government is allotted far fewer powers by the constitution. If Queensland (unlikely) or Victoria (more likely) tried a similar thing then the federal government might be able to do a "defense of marriage act" kind of thing but couldn't stop the state in question from recognising the same-sex union.
Also it is unlikely that a Labor government would try a defense of marriage act type thing. Having said that it was Bill Clinton and a Democrat controlled Congress who passed on the real defense of marriage act, so who knows?
I really want Bob Brown or someone to introduce a gay marriage bill and call it the "attack on marriage act".
P.S. Don't forget to check out the latest season of The Sarah Connor Chronicles this fall on Fox!
That's the second time you've mentioned the Sarah Conner Chronicles in your postscript. The first I just thought it was a joke, albeit a strange one. Now it looks like somebody's hacked into your account and is pretending to be you. That or you've upgraded to a paid account and so they put advertising on everything you do, but why you, of all people, would pay to blog I Don't Know.
Of course it may be that it's still a joke but nobody laughed the first time so you thought you'd give it a second shot.
Post a Comment