Marriage equality

There would still be separations under the family law act. No difference in work load.

 

Maybe even more,going by what I have seen it works both way,they also have the bust up stage..

 

BUT HOW WILL I EXPLAIN TWO MEN KISSING TO MY CHILDREN???? BAN BAN BAN

 

What is there to explain?

 

Probably a lot more work for us because defining de facto (or whatever its called) will be necessary every time.

 

It's all very silly really. One party that already voted it down, claims to be against disrimination, and yet they voted to continue to discriminate. The other party claims to be 'small government' and is opposed to overly regulating people's lives. And yet they don't support marriage equality. Neither side makes any sense to me. My view is the state needs to step out of legislating a religious institution. I would like to see the marriage act amended to be the 'civil union' act and stop the discrimination against same gender couples. If religions want to continue to 'marry' people on top of that, it will be up to them. As pointed out, most marriages are civil ceremonies anyway, so we would just be bringing the law into alignment with what society is already doing.

On the plus side, it would be a significant boost to the economy through the wedding industry. There is a whole market segement of cashed up and usually no kids couples, some of which would splash out big on weddings. Bring it on I say.

 

And then comes in the whole line of issues with whether religious bodies/businesses have the right to refuse facilitating gay weddings, whether they can be litigated against etc.

Can of worms, has to be done properly so you don't see ongoing issues.

 

Religious organisations won't have to facilitate gay weddings, as religious ceremonies are exempt from anti-discrimination legislation.

Businesses that are for-profit will have to continue to abide by the same anti-discrimination provisions that currently apply. As we have no "religious freedom" legislation in Australia, I don't believe any baker or photographer etc. would have the right to decline business.

 

The language quoted in Perps post above attachment is something that many people (and their kids) might take offence to hey. Just saying, that he who is innocent may cast the first stone. Away you go.

 

I'd respond if I had any idea what your point is.

 

Whether this is reviewed over the medium term would be of interest - considering the contention its causing in other parts of the world. In it's current frame, the same anti discrimination legislation also makes it illegal to refuse service to others for differing political opinions - anyone want the baker being sued for refusing to make a neo nazi cake?

As always, whether justified or not, there's reasons why some legislation/societal practices are so slow to change, as it requires it to be so obviously necessary before anyone will agree to it.

 

BUT HOW WILL I EXPLAIN TO MY KIDS WHAT THE LOUIS CK IMAGE MEANS???? DELETE DELETE DELETE

 

One comedian recently said... ban gay divorce instead, then we'll see if they really do want to get married.

 

What is a Louis CK image and what does it mean?

 

Louis CK is a comedian. I inserted a quote of his here: https://propertychat.com.au/community/threads/marriage-equality.864/page-2#post-10931

 

Retrospective?

 

I had no desire to enter the conversation until I read this. Ridiculous observation.

My best mate was the only one who didn't 'know' he was gay.

He spent 35 years of his life trying to be 'normal'.

What a waste. I feel so sorry for him, just for that. Not for being gay, but feeling that he had to pretend.

Who he is attracted to, and what he does in a bedroom makes not a **** of difference to me, or any of his other friends or family.

I hardly believe in marriage (but am married, to the opposite sex), and certainly don't believe in religion. But to tell a gay child (gay adults were gay children) that they can and will never marry, and never be 'normal', sets them up for a life of heartache and benefits no-one.

 

This issue was raised in SS and even included a poll. It was discussed vigorously and reached 5 pages until the moderator closed it. My comment was and is:

http://somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90863&highlight=francesco&page=4

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Crabnet
From the point of view of some of the homosexuals in society I would imagine their aim would be that homosexual couples ideally would be socially accepted on the same basis as heterosexual couples. So that there would be no distinction at all in the way they are treated compared to hetero couples. They want to change the way they are viewed by society in general.
Quote:
Australia currently allows same-sex couples to enter civil unions in the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales.

The Federal Government recognises these state and territory civil unions for the purposes of federal entitlements.These civil union schemes are only open to residents of the particular state or territory which provides them. They are only beginning to be recognised by other Australian states or territories. Some other countries, however, do recognise Australian civil unions, for example, the United Kingdom.

Additionally, the City of Melbourne and Yarra City Council in Victoria and the City of Sydney in New South Wales provide relationship declaration programs. More information is provided below under respective state headings..............continues
The crux of the issue now is that homosexuals can inherit from each other, adopt children and receive government benefits by consideration as a family unit in most states and territories of Australia. The majority of people support instinctly the right of homosexuals to social and economic benefits in Australia.

"... since 1 July 2009, same-sex couples receive the same level of recognition as de facto opposite-sex couples in federal legislation including tax, health, superannuation, and aged care. ....Liberal leader Brendan Nelson said he supported equal economic and social rights for gay couples, but not marriage, adoption or IVF."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Australia

So, what are remaining concerns preventing all Australians from supporting gay marriage? The minority against is still considerable - to take the poll of this SS thread as an example (>30%). (I did not include myself as against.)

There is a place in Australia for all peace loving, civil and cooperative people to coexist and achieve something worthwhile.

IMO, there are concerns arising from further activism engage by the gay communities and its agenda may include:

- first to win right of gay marriage by law, not discernible from traditional marriage
- then gay unions win status of active promotion on par with traditional marriage in all facets of government services, such as education and health
- its agenda will be carried forward by the economic and legal power of the levels of government
- already the gay lobby has won significant economic concessions and services from government for its sector. Brendan Nelson's mention of adoption and IVF services are examples of potential tax funded government services.
- the gay union concept will then be proselytised through government arms to those against the concept, as well as to their households, notably children
- with legality on its side, along with discriminative laws, the gay union concept can be pushed to the non government sectors, the private sector, as well as the charitable and religious organisations
- religious institutions and their non profitable charitable organisations will then be confronted - to conform and accept gay unions in their midst, not merely tolerate the practice outside their organisations on pain of forfeit of government concessions and grants
- religious institutions and non profit organisations do have a quandary if the above scenario eventuates. They may have difficulty maintaining the same charitable culture as discrimination laws may require them to engage employees who do not share and practise the same teachings. Members who attend those institutions may not be able to get the standard of service or observance of doctrine they expect. For examples, having confidence in getting carers who share the same religious beliefs to look after their children or retire in a uniform religious community.

It seems to accommodate the concerns of the significant minority against gay marriage, any recognition of gay marriage may need to proceed with adroitness to spell out exemptions from discrimination laws and considerations of government concessions and grants in respect of the religious and non profit organisations. Perhaps, it is easier to create a civil union rather than gay marriage as it would accommodate the spectra of unions under LGBT."


-------------------------------
To update, people have mentioned to me that the SS movement does not have the agenda as I painted above. However, on QA to options raised by Phillip Ruddock, Christine Forster (PM's sister) was impliedly pushing an Australian SS agenda that will go further than the French model of exempting religions from the SS law.

 

I have no issue with religious organisations chosing not to marry people with their walls as there are other options.

I have major issues with religious organisations attempting to stop consenting adults being married outside of their walls.

Separate but equal legislation is what resulted in Apartheid and segregation in the US. It is harmful and serves no one. Might as well say gays can use public transport but have to sit at the back of the bus.

 

Ultimately no religion has any place deciding behaviour outside of their own walls/religion.

The very idea that marriage was created by the church is of course a delicious mix of incorrect and downright ludicrous.

One day everyone will be looking back at the anti crowd with the same kind of "who were those *****s " look we now give to the people who denied women voting rights, pretended aboriginal people weren't actually people or those who had slaves back in the day.

No one's life is directly negatively affected by gay marriage. If your marriage actually is then chances are it was a **** marriage to start with.

On the other hand it will bring plenty of joy to some sections of the community. Seems a no brainer to me.

All this slippery slope nonsense is exactly that, nonsense.