Civil Unions in the ACT
Here are a bunch of stories about it all:
An ABC story from April:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1622929.htm
Two www.news.com.au stories from the last couple of days:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19110005-421,00.html?from=rss
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19109966-2,00.html?from=rss
A story from The Age from yesterday:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/gay-groups-applaud-act-civil-union-bill/2006/05/12/1146940707536.html
A story from a South African news corp:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1931644,00.html
I think it's great... kinda... sorta... but not.
It's also kinda early to be celebrating... Ruddock hasn't given it the ok yet. Yes, it's passed... but if he thinks it goes against that STUPID federal law they passed two years back saying marriage was only between one man and one woman, then he can overrule it. I wouldn't put it past him. I mean... they obviously worded it as well as they could so it was as close to marriage as possible without actually being marriage. As it was, the amendments (which included not having federal marriage celebrants perform the civil unions) were made to try to make it more separate, because Ruddock would have overruled it instantly otherwise. As it is, I'm sure he's sitting there with his buddy Howard looking over his shoulder, trying their hardest to pinpoint a place where it's just a little too much like marriage, so they can squelch it.
Arseholes.
Why won't they let people just be? I mean... it's not like anyone wants anything other than equality, right? Personally I disagree with having the age for civil unions be 16.. if it's 18 for marriage, then it should be 18 for the civil unions... it sounds a bit like what all the fundamentalists are saying... that we're trying to have more than everyone else. (Because we are alllllll so heavily involved in developing all the minutae of the bill). Then, maybe they made it different to make it less marriage-like.
I hate the parts in the ABC story where Humphries says that civil unions are below/less than marriage. I would love to say he's wrong... but he's not. THEY ARE LESS THAN! We don't get the same rights... some, yes. It's a good step forward... but they're not the same. So of course, civil unions are tolerable, because they're less than. But oh, no, gay people aren't less than. MY ARSE. If you can't treat gay people the same way as straight people, give them the same rights and access to the same institutions, then you're treating them as less than. Hello, civil rights movement??? Sound familiar. I know... that should give me hope, cos if history repeats itself, we'll have equality one day. But damn, it's frustrating right now waiting for it! And we're so not organised and unified... that would help a lot.
I'm happy with John Stanhope's response though:
It's different from marriage. It's not a marriage, but to suggest that a civil union is below marriage is to suggest that homosexual people are below heterosexual people, and they're quite clearly not.
He has to say it's different to fit in with federal laws... but I think he'd rather not.
Rambling. Whatever.
In the South African story, they say at the end that gay couples from all over Australia will be able to have civil unions now... I was under the impression that only ACT residents would be able to have civil union ceremonies and be legal. Am I wrong?
I have to agree with something else in the ABC story though. There's one part where they talk about forms that you fill out, with the options;
- single
- married
- de facto
Now, I'm not single, but nor am I married. Right now, I'm de facto. Ok, but after I do have a ceremony, even if it's not legal, I would be married, in my mind and heart. However, I can't legally tick that, and I am not going to tick de facto, because that indicates that I have a choice. You know... straight people who are de facto are people who are either against marriage, don't want to get married yet, haven't been together long enough to feel that kind of commitment yet, or just don't feel like marriage is right for them. So it's people who are either not at that level of relationship yet, or who CHOOSE not to marry. De facto gay people aren't necessarily like that... yes, now I am, because I'm not at the point where I am wanting to be married yet. I wouldn't want that til I was back in Australia and all settled. But after that, I would want to be married... so I wouldn't consider myself de facto. That indicates that I had chosen not to marry, which isn't the case. So what do I tick? Do I draw my own little box that says 'married in my own mind'? 'Partnered'? What?? I guess it's better than it is here in the USA. They don't even have de facto here. I've been ticking single if I have to, being in small town Texas... but once I'm in a city, I think I will draw my own little box. Fuck them all.
I have the responsibilities of a first class citizen. Why do I have the rights of a second class one?
giantessmess said:
Why do all these articles just make my blood boil? I mean, this is good news. I'm happy to hear it.
It's not so much the issue of being unable to marry that angers me - I'm single and even if I could marry, I can't imagine wanting to. It's their obsession with the wording of it. (It's not 'marriage', because 'marriage' by definition is between a man and a woman...). It's the need to create it as this very seperate thing, just to make sure it doesn't infect the man/woman norm Howard and Ruddock want to dry-hump.
I should be thrilled. Victoria might be next. My friends could 'marry', (what do you call it, if it's illegal to call it 'marriage'? An AArdvark? Fuck you). The territory's chief minister, Jon Stanhope, said the laws did not change the meaning of marriage. "Civil unions will deliver recognition, without conflicting with or changing the meaning of marriage," Mr Stanhope said.
Maybe it's because I don't trust this offering. It feels like they're saying - here, you can have this. As long as you remember it doesn't mean anything. And as long as you're aware we can reverse it any time we want.
I have to say, I agree with her. Especially that last italicised section. It's true... it does seem a bit like they're giving a crappy toy to a little kid, to distract them from the big expensive toy that their older sibling just got. I don't want to be the baby who just isn't old enough / mature enough / important enough to be given the same respect as my big brother. Fuck that shit. I want equal rights! I just... want to be treated like a person. Not like someone who has an agenda. Cos you know... yeah, that's it. I'm really out to destroy everyone's marriages. Because Kari and I marrying would fuck everyone else up... so much more than 2/3 of marriages ending in divorce, and so much more than Shit-me Spears' 72hr Las Vegas marriage that ended in annullment. Mmhmm. Cos marriage has so much further down to go. Surely gay marriages could only help the 'great institution'? If not that, then at least they won't do any harm. Morons!!!!!!!!!
I do think that the ACT govt is trying though. I just think they had to start small, work within the confines of federal law... and that's why they've had to make the amendments they have... to publicly come out (no pun intended) and say that a civil union is not a marriage... when it's pretty obvious that's what they're aiming for. But to say so... well, Ruddock would wet his pants in excitement then, wouldn't he?
I wish I could be more enthusiastic about this. I mean... I am... it's a first step along the way. I mean.. the USA had Vermont before it had Massachusetts, right? (Well, actually, no, Mass. is the first state of the union, but you know... with regards to gay marriage I mean). But I'm also concerned about a backlash... the USA also had a big swing of states outlawing gay marriage after Mass. too.... eh. I'm hoping that Australia isn't quite so fundamentalist. And hey, Bush is out this term... so maybe Howard will have to get off his high horse a little?
I heard Victoria's next. I wonder if it'll be any better, or if it'll make me feel any better. Honestly, I think ACT has done the best that can be done as long as Howard is in power. After he gets out, maybe the next lot will be more inclined to relax the federal laws so that state laws can be more comprehensive.
One can only hope.
I wonder where you can get a list of the rights that will be accorded to couples under civil union law, and whether people from other states can take advantage of it. I can't see Qld having civil union laws anytime soon. The Beattie Govt was talking about it ages back... but then everyone got ready to kill Beattie over the health system and he's not found it wise to mention the gay factor again. I can't blame him really. It pisses me off, but it wouldn't be a great move, politically. I mean, I live in the urban areas, so I think sometimes I have a skewed perception of Qld. After all, this is the state that elected 12 One Nation reps in one election only what... ten years back?
Oy. Hope indeed.
P.S. Look at my music... LOOK WHAT KARI HAS ME LISTENING TO!!! ARGH!! ;P
An ABC story from April:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1622929.htm
Two www.news.com.au stories from the last couple of days:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19110005-421,00.html?from=rss
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19109966-2,00.html?from=rss
A story from The Age from yesterday:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/gay-groups-applaud-act-civil-union-bill/2006/05/12/1146940707536.html
A story from a South African news corp:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1931644,00.html
I think it's great... kinda... sorta... but not.
It's also kinda early to be celebrating... Ruddock hasn't given it the ok yet. Yes, it's passed... but if he thinks it goes against that STUPID federal law they passed two years back saying marriage was only between one man and one woman, then he can overrule it. I wouldn't put it past him. I mean... they obviously worded it as well as they could so it was as close to marriage as possible without actually being marriage. As it was, the amendments (which included not having federal marriage celebrants perform the civil unions) were made to try to make it more separate, because Ruddock would have overruled it instantly otherwise. As it is, I'm sure he's sitting there with his buddy Howard looking over his shoulder, trying their hardest to pinpoint a place where it's just a little too much like marriage, so they can squelch it.
Arseholes.
Why won't they let people just be? I mean... it's not like anyone wants anything other than equality, right? Personally I disagree with having the age for civil unions be 16.. if it's 18 for marriage, then it should be 18 for the civil unions... it sounds a bit like what all the fundamentalists are saying... that we're trying to have more than everyone else. (Because we are alllllll so heavily involved in developing all the minutae of the bill). Then, maybe they made it different to make it less marriage-like.
I hate the parts in the ABC story where Humphries says that civil unions are below/less than marriage. I would love to say he's wrong... but he's not. THEY ARE LESS THAN! We don't get the same rights... some, yes. It's a good step forward... but they're not the same. So of course, civil unions are tolerable, because they're less than. But oh, no, gay people aren't less than. MY ARSE. If you can't treat gay people the same way as straight people, give them the same rights and access to the same institutions, then you're treating them as less than. Hello, civil rights movement??? Sound familiar. I know... that should give me hope, cos if history repeats itself, we'll have equality one day. But damn, it's frustrating right now waiting for it! And we're so not organised and unified... that would help a lot.
I'm happy with John Stanhope's response though:
It's different from marriage. It's not a marriage, but to suggest that a civil union is below marriage is to suggest that homosexual people are below heterosexual people, and they're quite clearly not.
He has to say it's different to fit in with federal laws... but I think he'd rather not.
Rambling. Whatever.
In the South African story, they say at the end that gay couples from all over Australia will be able to have civil unions now... I was under the impression that only ACT residents would be able to have civil union ceremonies and be legal. Am I wrong?
I have to agree with something else in the ABC story though. There's one part where they talk about forms that you fill out, with the options;
- single
- married
- de facto
Now, I'm not single, but nor am I married. Right now, I'm de facto. Ok, but after I do have a ceremony, even if it's not legal, I would be married, in my mind and heart. However, I can't legally tick that, and I am not going to tick de facto, because that indicates that I have a choice. You know... straight people who are de facto are people who are either against marriage, don't want to get married yet, haven't been together long enough to feel that kind of commitment yet, or just don't feel like marriage is right for them. So it's people who are either not at that level of relationship yet, or who CHOOSE not to marry. De facto gay people aren't necessarily like that... yes, now I am, because I'm not at the point where I am wanting to be married yet. I wouldn't want that til I was back in Australia and all settled. But after that, I would want to be married... so I wouldn't consider myself de facto. That indicates that I had chosen not to marry, which isn't the case. So what do I tick? Do I draw my own little box that says 'married in my own mind'? 'Partnered'? What?? I guess it's better than it is here in the USA. They don't even have de facto here. I've been ticking single if I have to, being in small town Texas... but once I'm in a city, I think I will draw my own little box. Fuck them all.
I have the responsibilities of a first class citizen. Why do I have the rights of a second class one?
giantessmess said:
Why do all these articles just make my blood boil? I mean, this is good news. I'm happy to hear it.
It's not so much the issue of being unable to marry that angers me - I'm single and even if I could marry, I can't imagine wanting to. It's their obsession with the wording of it. (It's not 'marriage', because 'marriage' by definition is between a man and a woman...). It's the need to create it as this very seperate thing, just to make sure it doesn't infect the man/woman norm Howard and Ruddock want to dry-hump.
I should be thrilled. Victoria might be next. My friends could 'marry', (what do you call it, if it's illegal to call it 'marriage'? An AArdvark? Fuck you). The territory's chief minister, Jon Stanhope, said the laws did not change the meaning of marriage. "Civil unions will deliver recognition, without conflicting with or changing the meaning of marriage," Mr Stanhope said.
Maybe it's because I don't trust this offering. It feels like they're saying - here, you can have this. As long as you remember it doesn't mean anything. And as long as you're aware we can reverse it any time we want.
I have to say, I agree with her. Especially that last italicised section. It's true... it does seem a bit like they're giving a crappy toy to a little kid, to distract them from the big expensive toy that their older sibling just got. I don't want to be the baby who just isn't old enough / mature enough / important enough to be given the same respect as my big brother. Fuck that shit. I want equal rights! I just... want to be treated like a person. Not like someone who has an agenda. Cos you know... yeah, that's it. I'm really out to destroy everyone's marriages. Because Kari and I marrying would fuck everyone else up... so much more than 2/3 of marriages ending in divorce, and so much more than Shit-me Spears' 72hr Las Vegas marriage that ended in annullment. Mmhmm. Cos marriage has so much further down to go. Surely gay marriages could only help the 'great institution'? If not that, then at least they won't do any harm. Morons!!!!!!!!!
I do think that the ACT govt is trying though. I just think they had to start small, work within the confines of federal law... and that's why they've had to make the amendments they have... to publicly come out (no pun intended) and say that a civil union is not a marriage... when it's pretty obvious that's what they're aiming for. But to say so... well, Ruddock would wet his pants in excitement then, wouldn't he?
I wish I could be more enthusiastic about this. I mean... I am... it's a first step along the way. I mean.. the USA had Vermont before it had Massachusetts, right? (Well, actually, no, Mass. is the first state of the union, but you know... with regards to gay marriage I mean). But I'm also concerned about a backlash... the USA also had a big swing of states outlawing gay marriage after Mass. too.... eh. I'm hoping that Australia isn't quite so fundamentalist. And hey, Bush is out this term... so maybe Howard will have to get off his high horse a little?
I heard Victoria's next. I wonder if it'll be any better, or if it'll make me feel any better. Honestly, I think ACT has done the best that can be done as long as Howard is in power. After he gets out, maybe the next lot will be more inclined to relax the federal laws so that state laws can be more comprehensive.
One can only hope.
I wonder where you can get a list of the rights that will be accorded to couples under civil union law, and whether people from other states can take advantage of it. I can't see Qld having civil union laws anytime soon. The Beattie Govt was talking about it ages back... but then everyone got ready to kill Beattie over the health system and he's not found it wise to mention the gay factor again. I can't blame him really. It pisses me off, but it wouldn't be a great move, politically. I mean, I live in the urban areas, so I think sometimes I have a skewed perception of Qld. After all, this is the state that elected 12 One Nation reps in one election only what... ten years back?
Oy. Hope indeed.
P.S. Look at my music... LOOK WHAT KARI HAS ME LISTENING TO!!! ARGH!! ;P