Marriage Equality

[GladstoneTim]

I am just surprised that Australia, a first world country, still allows discrimination against two loving and consenting adults from marrying - this includes denying the prime ministers sister from marrying the love of her life.

i find it encouraging that the PM has such strong belief on this topic that he does not allow the closeness of his sister and her lifestyle to sway him. It must be very important for him to stand steadfast.

 

[Pushka]

i find it encouraging that the PM has such strong belief on this topic that he does not allow the closeness of his sister and her lifestyle to sway him. It must be very important for him to stand steadfast.

Except, he is allowing his personal views sway his position. Just that they are at odds with his sister.

 

[footy99]

It's a lot of hoopla about a word.

If the effect of a marriage and civil union is different, then it needs to be rectified. If the effect is the same, I can't see any issue. The whole debate to change the description civil union to the Christian word seems arbitrary.

 

[burmans]

If the effect of a marriage and civil union is different, then it needs to be rectified. If the effect is the same, I can't see any issue. The whole debate to change the description civil union to the Christian word seems arbitrary.

I think you'll find that Christians do not have a legal patent on the word marriage, though some clearly do believe they do.

 

[footy99]

I think you'll find that Christians do not have a legal patent on the word marriage, though some clearly do believe they do.

Let's say for simplicity the whole debate to change the description civil union to marriage seems arbitrary if the effect is already the same.

 

[james4321]

Let's say for simplicity the whole debate to change the description civil union to marriage seems arbitrary if the effect is already the same.

If so then why not just substitute 'civil union' for 'marriage' in the Act and all other areas of law where the word marriage appears. That's a radical suggestion, wonder how the conservatives would feel about that?

 

[footy99]

If so then why not just substitute 'civil union' for 'marriage' in the Act and all other areas of law where the word marriage appears. That's a radical suggestion, wonder how the conservatives would feel about that?

Well yeah they would be and presumably already are used together. The key is to give all the same rights to gay couples who enter their lifetime commitment as we do to straight couples. If that has already happened, there is no equal rights issue at all in the debate. It's just about wanting to use the same descriptor word.

The way I see it - it is important to make sure the rights are equal. I don't know the extent to which that is already the case. What we call it is trivial. But that seems to be the entire debate.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Personally I would rather unpick the bundle or privileges accorded to marrried couples.
For example, everyone should be able to nominate an alternative recipient for their superannuation, and a person who can be beside their hospital bed and make decisions if they are seriously ill.
Whether that person is their spouse, lover, friend, sister or hairdresser really shouldn't be anyone else's business.

 

[basso]

I would have to think this type of commentary is quite pathetic. Most legislation can have this sort of issue where it "could" lead to inintended outcomes (and sometimes does), however writing such legislation is one of the fundamental roles of a government. If Abetz is really saying he thinks this government is incapable of writing legislation in a manner that closes down these loopholes he is in essence saying they are incapbale of performing one of the fundamental roles of government. In my opinion, you should be careful of making such statements, say it enough and the public will agree with you and take it to its inevitable conclusion.

But surely asking the questions is a fundamental responsibility of politicians. Ask the questions, so that they can frame the legislation to account for the changes. The important this is that significant social change needs to be done properly and unintended consequences are minimised.I don't see that there is anything wrong with attempting to understand the full social, legal and relationship implications before we take the step of redefining marriage.

• What changes will there be to divorce rate
• What effect will it have on Family Court Workload
• How should assets be divided by courts when a smae sex marriage breaks down
• How will the courts approach which parent becomes the custodial parent
• How will courts approach custody and child support disputes
• How will it affect other legislation, sometomes state based
• How will it affect access to Medicare for IVF procedures, given some states disallow IVF access on various grounds

 

[james4321]

But surely asking the questions is a fundamental responsibility of politicians. Ask the questions, so that they can frame the legislation to account for the changes. The important this is that significant social change needs to be done properly and unintended consequences are minimised.I don't see that there is anything wrong with attempting to understand the full social, legal and relationship implications before we take the step of redefining marriage.

• What changes will there be to divorce rate
• What effect will it have on Family Court Workload
• How should assets be divided by courts when a smae sex marriage breaks down
• How will the courts approach which parent becomes the custodial parent
• How will courts approach custody and child support disputes
• How will it affect other legislation, sometomes state based
• How will it affect access to Medicare for IVF procedures, given some states disallow IVF access on various grounds

Simple really - the same as is done currently for those who are "married" ??? And Abetz was not asking for clarification, simply using scare tactics.

 

[Pushka]

Personally I would rather unpick the bundle or privileges accorded to marrried couples.
For example, everyone should be able to nominate an alternative recipient for their superannuation, and a person who can be beside their hospital bed and make decisions if they are seriously ill.
Whether that person is their spouse, lover, friend, sister or hairdresser really shouldn't be anyone else's business.

They can do this. As long as those people have been appointed.

 

[burmans]

But surely asking the questions is a fundamental responsibility of politicians. Ask the questions, so that they can frame the legislation to account for the changes. The important this is that significant social change needs to be done properly and unintended consequences are minimised.I don't see that there is anything wrong with attempting to understand the full social, legal and relationship implications before we take the step of redefining marriage.

• What changes will there be to divorce rate
• What effect will it have on Family Court Workload
• How should assets be divided by courts when a smae sex marriage breaks down
• How will the courts approach which parent becomes the custodial parent
• How will courts approach custody and child support disputes
• How will it affect other legislation, sometomes state based
• How will it affect access to Medicare for IVF procedures, given some states disallow IVF access on various grounds

While the public only really get to see "question time" the answer to this is yes, asking questions is indeed what parliament should do and is in fact what parliaments main job is. However what Abetz is trying to do is stoping it from even getting to that process. All good questions which can and should be answered but there is already a parliamentary process to handle this and it isn't just pretending there is nothing to be discussed and trying to prevent a bill from even being tabled.

 

[Alanslegal]

• What changes will there be to divorce rate
• What effect will it have on Family Court Workload
• How should assets be divided by courts when a smae sex marriage breaks down
• How will the courts approach which parent becomes the custodial parent
• How will courts approach custody and child support disputes
• How will it affect other legislation, sometomes state based
• How will it affect access to Medicare for IVF procedures, given some states disallow IVF access on various grounds

To answer your questions based on my opinions/guesses,

1. You cannot estimate that. The best / or any of traditional marriages fail.
2. You can't estimate that, and no year will the be the same as the next.
3. Same as any other property settlement.
4. Same as any other child access situations.
5. Same as any other dispute with child maintenance.
6. Commonwealth have powers to legislate with marriage, the states do not have those powers
7. Same as any other normal couple

 

[Alanslegal]

Since we are talking about marriage, I thought I'd point out that the Marriage Act allows one to marry their niece or nephew if they so desired and it is perfectly lawful :shock:

 

[Hvr]

Since we are talking about marriage, I thought I'd point out that the Marriage Act allows one to marry their niece or nephew if they so desired and it is perfectly lawful :shock:

Was that because Tasmania had it as a condition to join Australia at Federation?

 

[Steady]

Was that because Tasmania had it as a condition to join Australia at Federation?

That must be why......

 

[dajop]

the Marriage Act allows one to marry their niece or nephew if they so desired and it is perfectly lawful :shock:

That is not an accurate statement. The Marriage Act only allows a nephew and an aunt to marry or a niece and uncle.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'll stay out of the debate.

What gets me is judges involved in making law. I can see how they clearly favour criminals in their decision making in Australia. I wouldn't want them involved in lawmaking in Australia in any way shape or form.

Yes judges make laws. To say they clearly favour criminals is almost certainly incorrect, and is not supported by evidence. Unless you consider 'Today Tonight' 'evidence'. There is an interesting website from the Sentencing Advisor Council, which gives the public the opportunity to impose the sentence they feel appropriate across a range of cases drawn from real life. IIRC, the public often select lesser sentences than those actually imposed by the courts.

Some argue judges making law is undemocratic because judges aren't elected. But that's not entirely true either... judges are appointed by the government of the day, and often reflect the values of that government (and hence of the people electing that government). As judges are appointed for life, judicial change on major social issues can be very slow (especially if you've had years of a particular party in power).

 

[vetrade]

I stand corrected and will climb back under my rock where I have been hiding since the last person on this forum snapped at me like that... Au Revoir dear sir..

Just catching up with this thread and had a chuckle at this comment. Claire Lee, you couldn't be more wrong about Serfty - he does not "snap" at anyone on this forum. Reading his comments, I think you are being far too sensitive - a situation which won't improve if you "get back under your rock" so lighten up. Join in and don't take things too personally.

 

[get me outta here]

I am surprised that this divisive thread has been allowed to continue. It does not add much useful information to AFF.