Queensland gets to keep civilunions, but...

www.samesame.com.au
  • 25
  • 0
  • 1405

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman has announced that the government will not be repealing civil unions, but will also amend the law to exclude state-sanctioned ceremonies.

The Premier has said the act will be amended to bring the legislation into line with other states, and to remove official ceremonies which “mimic marriage.”

“We have considered a paper from the Attorney-General and there was a lengthy discussion about the way to go,” Newman said in a press conference on the issue today.

“Same-sex couples have legal rights under common law. We looked interstate and looked at what people have been saying after the election.

“Cabinet will bring amendments to parliament that will keep the legal rights of civil partnership, but not allow for a state-sanctioned ceremony.”

‘’They lose nothing from this change,’’ Newman added, referring to the members of the LGBT community who had fought hard for the right to register their relationships.

Newman noted that the state-sanctioned ceremonies that were what offending Christian groups opposed to civil unions, explaining that today’s decision was showing “good faith” to the Christian groups who lobbied on the issue.

When asked what his personal views were on same-sex marriage, Newman was reluctant to answer, simply saying: ‘’You know my views… Yes, I’ve said them before.’’

Last year Liberal National Party MPs voted against the the civil union legislation when it was introduced, and noted that the party was opposed to changing the definition of marriage.

During the formal election campaign, Newman said the party would look at repealing the law, but added that he did not want to leave couples in legal limbo.

The legislation came into effect back in February and saw both same-sex and heterosexual couples registering their relationships with the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and also holding a ceremony if they chose to.

Social

Nobody has hearted this, be the first Be the first!

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
28056
555Sean

555Sean said on the 12th Jun, 2012

Tell me if I'm missing something here... Honestly.

If Equal Love can't be happy with this News in any way, it proves one thing to me. Their cause is more politically motivated than about the gay community.

Are activists more interested in having the fight for political reasons. Rather than actually achieving what they say you want? That is, the ability to have your relationship legally recognised. I don't want to believe this but it seems true.

Are activists now saying; unless they can get married in Church, they're not interested? There seems to be an active public distaste for the church, the ACL in particular. Do you really care what the ACL thinks, I don't. Don't get me wrong. I don't have a religious bone in my body. If I did I'd probably have some hang-ups about going to Hell. :lol:

There is only one political party that is actively demanding the Marriage Act be amended and that is the Greens. Changing the Marriage Act is the bit that upsets the church. Both the ALP and the LNP are not interested in making the changes the Greens advocate.

Does this therefore mean the Equal Love Organisation is actually a Greens Activist Group who are using Gay Issues to further their own political cause? If so, how is "Equal Love" any different to the ACL?

I may be wrong in saying so, but it certainly looks this way.

It would be great if Equal Love now went to the Premiers of each State and said can you please do what QLD have done. I don't see how they could say No. I would happily and morally support you in that action. It is what I have been personally advocating for in any case.

Sep77

Sep77 said on the 12th Jun, 2012

Yes, you can sign a symbolic agreement to show that you are symbolically an equal member of Australian society. How convenient.

Wonder if they'll let me only pay tax symbolically.


I am in no way happy with today's outcome. After calming down, I have tried to gather my thoughts to see how this affects us. We are still signing the same piece of paper. The compromise is that we are not allowed to do it at a wedding, which is the state-sanctioned ceremony. It has to be in a registry office at a civil ceremony. When I had my wedding in NZ, we signed our government papers, but we also signed a ceremonial form, as created by our celebrant, which we then placed in our wedding photo album. We were lucky enough to be able to conduct our ceremony wherever and however we wanted in NZ; that the ACL is even allowed to influence policy on this matter is astounding. Even so, Wendy Francis has shot herself in the foot here.
Through her actions, same-sex couples are now relegated to a civil ceremony. BUT, nobody is allowed to prevent anyone from celebrating however they wish. If a couple wishes to hold a wedding, they may do so. Aside from having Madam Francis shrieking outside, pointing her witch's finger, what is going to happen? It's not illegal. She has simply removed any aspect of religious element from taking place. This is the first step towards Australia's removing religion from the practice, as in Europe. Well done, Mrs Francis! Well done :) Your victory will soon turn bitter sweet.

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 12th Jun, 2012

Tell me if I'm missing something here... Honestly.

If Equal Love can't be happy with this News in any way, it proves one thing to me. Their cause is more politically motivated than about the gay community.

Are activists more interested in having the fight for political reasons. Rather than actually achieving what they say you want? That is, the ability to have your relationship legally recognised. I don't want to believe this but it seems true.

Are activists now saying; unless they can get married in Church, they're not interested? There seems to be an active public distaste for the church, the ACL in particular. Do you really care what the ACL thinks, I don't. Don't get me wrong. I don't have a religious bone in my body. If I did I'd probably have some hang-ups about going to Hell. :lol:

There is only one political party that is actively demanding the Marriage Act be amended and that is the Greens. Changing the Marriage Act is the bit that upsets the church. Both the ALP and the LNP are not interested in making the changes the Greens advocate.

Does this therefore mean the Equal Love Organisation is actually a Greens Activist Group who are using Gay Issues to further their own political cause? If so, how is "Equal Love" any different to the ACL?

I may be wrong in saying so, but it certainly looks this way.

It would be great if Equal Love now went to the Premiers of each State and said can you please do what QLD have done. I don't see how they could say No. I would happily and morally support you in that action. It is what I have been personally advocating for in any case.

555Sean, let me explain. I'm not in anyway associated with Equal Love. One of the reasons I'm not 100% happy is that one of the main reasons why GLBT people wanted the civil partnership leglislation left the way it is because in it's current form we had the option of a ceremony, yes only 21 couples had a ceremoney - but that's not the point. Telling us gay people that we cannot have a ceremony is in a way just as damaging as repealing the entire civil partnership act. I note that your profile says your in Victoria, well just imagine if the previous ALP party legalized civil unions but then the Liberals gained power and a few months latter you lost the option to have a ceremony, that is why I'm not 100% happy. And now while the LNP is in power the civil partnerships law is going to seem stained and tainted. Equal love is not a political organisation.

555Sean

555Sean said on the 14th Jun, 2012



See. As I said, this is more about politics than actual, so called, equality. People who vote, Green, seem too embarrassed to even admit it. I have asked the question; but nobody so far has been game enough to answer it. Why is that?

I don't vote for the Green's at election time on State or Federal issues because ideology isn't based in economic reality. I did vote for Colleen Hartland (Green MP), once, when I lived in Yarraville at a Council election. Later, when Colleen (a nice lady) asked for my help and assistance, I gave it to her happily even though I hadn't voted for her at the State election. It is called, being reasonable and having respect for people, even when you don't agree with them politically.

The "Marriage" issue has become divisive; dividing people in the gay community based on political ideology. It doesn't appear to be loving, considerate or healthy amongst the community at all. The gay community has a long history of coming together to support one another. I hope the community doesn't loose sight of this. I am worried the "marriage" issue is one that is indeed causing a rift.

For me, it feels like a group of activists are pushing for change and telling anyone who will listen all Gay people want the same thing. Nobody has ever asked me and so I resent the implication. I understand the logic behind the "equality" argument being put by the pro-marriage lobby. Equally, I also understand the social argument against it, too. Therefore, at this stage of the road to acceptance, I personally think it would be wise to seek compromise, so that legally those who want to have their relationship recognised by law can do so; without upsetting those (the church) that find it a problem. There is a middle ground here.

Another fact this argument has ignored entirely to date is the reality Straight Couples who are non religious also have to have Civil Unions in the eye's of the law. I don't know of straight people making the same demands as the Equal Love activists. When I got married (briefly in 1989), I was married in the registry office in Melbourne for this very reason. Neither of us were religious and would not have gained approval to marry in a church. When your marriage is a Civil Union, it involves a certificate being signed and witnessed by the authorised agent of the registry office; a marriage celebrant. You are then legally, "married".

The easiest way to do this is at the registry office. Indeed, when my own Mum and Dad got married in 1966, the church would not marry them (because Mum was pregnant with me). Civil Unions have thus been the way around the religious recognition problem for decades. Anyway...

Marriage celebrants are official officers of the registry and there is no reason the celebrant cannot come to you at a garden wedding, reception centre or whatever. Sept77 alluded to this in his comment and even though he was apparently already married in NZ, he seemed a bit confused of the process as it stands in Australia for everyone; gay or straight in the State of Queensland.

I think the LNP in Queensland has done a good thing in changing its mind to not repeal the law regarding Civil Unions. It allows for the union of two same sex individuals to be legally wed and recognised, in law. The gay community should be happy with this reality. It is a milestone moment of great significance. Instead, some seem more interested on focusing on the negatives than celebrating the positives. The next step is to get other State's to adopt this decision. Personally, I could not name one couple who want a same sex church wedding. Can anyone? Just ignore the ACL, everyone else does. Even most Christian's.

When I read Tariq's response "Liberal Scum", I thought, wow, that is hateful. I understand he is young and it is easy to get cross about things without the hindsight of life experience. My daughter gets cross about stuff too. So did I at that age. My daughter is a year older than Tariq and is talking "marriage" to her partner, being together since High School. A hot young man I will be happy to call my son-in-law (love you, Ambreesh. What a great name, eh! He's hot and 6'2", my girl did well :lol:). The "wedding" will not be held in a church, as we are not religious. It will be a civil ceremony, the same as what is now legally on offer to same sex couples in Queensland. There will be a ceremony, a reception and all the bells and whistles (and expense!) than comes with it. Legally, the outcome will be the same. I fail to see the difference if I were to decide I wanted to "marry" another bloke.

The Gay Community should not be used as pawns for political advocacy. Rights are won over time by bringing your case to those in the position to do something about it, of course I agree. But screaming abuse, making demands, behaving like you are better than people with different opinions and attacking others is not the way to do it. The church discriminates against all couples, even straights, if you are not a church goer. So what. Society as a whole, straight or gay, has worked around this fact since the 1960's. Gay couples are not being treated any differently to straight couples in this regard. The activist's are actually demanding more than a straight couple are entitled to today under the current law; especially when you look to the Queensland example.

I do not want to put anyone down or sound like I am being superior in any way. It is about being realistic and accepting the fact the church at this point in time will not accept gay marriage. As long as the gay community can get governments to recognise their relationships, for whatever reason, I see you have achieved equality. Isn't that what you have been asking for?

(At this point, I should admit I had a hissy-fit yesterday and threw a stiletto at, Wonderland. (Whom I enjoy reading). Perhaps I should go ask for it back, nicely and say sorry. :lol:)

katie0912

katie0912 said on the 16th Jun, 2012

"Another fact this argument has ignored entirely to date is the reality Straight Couples who are non religious also have to have Civil Unions in the eye's of the law. I don't know of straight people making the same demands as the Equal Love activists. When I got married (briefly in 1989), I was married in the registry office in Melbourne for this very reason. Neither of us were religious and would not have gained approval to marry in a church. When your marriage is a Civil Union, it involves a certificate being signed and witnessed by the authorised agent of the registry office; a marriage celebrant. You are then legally, "married".

The easiest way to do this is at the registry office. Indeed, when my own Mum and Dad got married in 1966, the church would not marry them (because Mum was pregnant with me). Civil Unions have thus been the way around the religious recognition problem for decades. Anyway..."


The reason why straight couples aren't protesting is because when they get married in a registry office they are married. That certificate that you signed was a marriage certificate, and same for your parents. A same-sex couple cannot get this, and this is why some of us are protesting.

Churches act as if they own marriage but they don't, because marriage is a civil institution. Some people choose to hold theirs in a church, with a ceremony that talks about god, but that does not change the fact that the same couple could go to the registry office, have a ceremony that does not mention god, and come out married in just the same way.


I have not heard one good reason why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry. People yarp about the children - but straights get married with no intention or possibility of having kids, and society never says a word. Both gay and straight people who are not married have kids, and that's fine too. It is not about children.

People argue that it's against their religion. The proposed changes to the law say that just as a church does not have to perform a wedding for any couple today, neither will they have to perform one for a same-sex couple. Australia is a society in which none of us are forced to believe any religion, so why is religion trying to have a say over what I do in my life?

I have yet to hear from anyone how the civil union of my wife and I has harmed their life/marriage/kids/religion. A civil union is not a marriage however. Once we step over the state border the thing is invisible. Once we go overseas it is invisible. Somebody said in a comment online that all we have to do is go get enduring powers of attorney and a will. Well fine then - why don't we do away with marriage for everyone, and send everyone to get those documents? If it's good enough for me, it should be good enough for them.

And so I will keep protesting.

bascia2

bascia2 said on the 16th Jun, 2012


Marriage celebrants are official officers of the registry and there is no reason the celebrant cannot come to you at a garden wedding, reception centre or whatever. Sept77 alluded to this in his comment and even though he was apparently already married in NZ, he seemed a bit confused of the process as it stands in Australia for everyone; gay or straight in the State of Queensland.

I think the LNP in Queensland has done a good thing in changing its mind to not repeal the law regarding Civil Unions. It allows for the union of two same sex individuals to be legally wed and recognised, in law. The gay community should be happy with this reality. It is a milestone moment of great significance. Instead, some seem more interested on focusing on the negatives than celebrating the positives. The next step is to get other State's to adopt this decision. Personally, I could not name one couple who want a same sex church wedding. Can anyone? Just ignore the ACL, everyone else does. Even most Christian's.

........... It will be a civil ceremony, the same as what is now legally on offer to same sex couples in Queensland. There will be a ceremony, a reception and all the bells and whistles (and expense!) than comes with it. Legally, the outcome will be the same. I fail to see the difference if I were to decide I wanted to "marry" another bloke.

........... Gay couples are not being treated any differently to straight couples in this regard. The activist's are actually demanding more than a straight couple are entitled to today under the current law; especially when you look to the Queensland example.


What Campbell Newman has done is to not issue civil celebrants with a licence to conduct a Civil Partnership ceremony. This means that we can register our civil partnership at the registry office (its not "Marriage" as that is a federal law) only. Our Civil Partnership is only recognised in Queensland under Queensland law. If you are an opposite sex couple and undergo a marriage ceremony in a church it is recognised worldwide as a legally binding agreement. What we are campaigning for is equal rights. Marriage should not belong to the churches automatically and not to others. Legally binding marriage ceremonies can be performed outside of churches by licensed civil celebrants, but they can't perform civil partnerships in Queensland. Under the original legislation they were to be given the ability to conduct legal civil partnership ceremonies.

Back before Easter we completed our paperwork and lodged it at the Registry Office and paid $37 for a certificate which I collected after the 10 day cooling off period. We could have paid $500 for a "ceremony" at the Registry Office but we would have had to wait until their venue became available and we didn't trust Campbell enough to wait that long.

I hope this clarifies the situation.