Civil unions urgently wipedaway in Queensland

www.samesame.com.au

About the Author

Matt Akersten

view my other 2269 articles

Thu 21st Jun, 2012 in Local News

43
0
1136

UPDATE: An emergency protest rally has been called for tonight at Queensland Parliament House. See details on Facebook here.

Queensland’s new government hates the idea of same-sex unions so much, it’s spitefully rushing through legislation to ensure they can never even be called ‘civil unions’ anymore.

Acting under urgency, the state’s Liberal lawmakers will vote today to remove official ceremonies from the Act and rename “civil unions” “registered relationships” – despite assurances last week that the government will not be repealing civil unions, but will simply amend the law to exclude state-sanctioned ceremonies which could “mimic marriage.”

So now rather than having a ‘civil union’, same-sex couples can only gain a ‘civil partnership’ under the newly-proposed ‘Registered Relationships Act’. The registrations will be entered into and dissolved through the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, rather than the District Court.

The Liberal sweep into power in Queensland had brought with it an assault in our communities, it seems. The state’s only LGBT health organisation was hastily de-funded, and the civil union legislation brought in by previous Premier Anna Bligh is now in tatters.

“There is a brutality with the way Campbell Newman and the LNP is treating our communities,” says Brisbane-based marriage equality advocate Paul Martin.

“Changing the name from Civil Union to Relationship Registration is demeaning and sends out very powerful messages that our relationships are invalid and not valuable. This has a very real potential to cause psychological harm and worse,” he adds.

“Our communities must not be treated with contempt no matter how strongly the LNP are influenced by Conservative Christian political players.”

Australian Marriage Equality national convener Alex Greenwich agrees. “Polls show most Australian Christians support equality for same-sex couples, so, in reality, Mr Newman is responding to a powerful, vocal minority of Christians determined to impose their strident views on everyone else including other people of faith.”

EMERGENCY RALLY: Defend Civil Unions, SAVE Healthy Communities! Part Two

May 30th, 2012

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

Comments

www.samesame.com.au

arrow left

Add Another | View all the comments in forum »

28158

coast_boy_21 said on the 21st Jun, 2012

GLBT people were warned not to vote for the LNP..............

coast_boy_21 said on the 21st Jun, 2012

Queensland's surrogacy laws are the next target of Christian lobby groups and the LNP after the state government tweaked same-sex civil unions. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8482869/qld-civil-union-changes-branded-an-insult

Doolander

Doolander said on the 21st Jun, 2012

Sorry guys n gals, but I'll still vote for them, our country's economy is more important to me...

coast_boy_21 said on the 21st Jun, 2012

So what if you were in a lesbian relationship and expecting a child via surrogacy in a few months? And yes I do agree the economy is important but how does removing GLBT rights improve the economy?

Sep77

Sep77 said on the 21st Jun, 2012

Equality is more important to me. Especially, our ENVIRONMENT is more important to me. Let the economy shrink. I'd sooner have biodiversity over fast cars and crap made in China. Economy? To hell with it.

MattyS said on the 21st Jun, 2012

Our economy is doing quite well.

People who believe LABOR = DEFICITS and LIBERAL = SURPLUSES need to look further back than the Howard years and the mining boom.

In fact you could look at New South Wales which was run by a Labor Government for 16 years and only ever had a deficit for 3 of those.

Now we're being run by Barry O'Farrell and his Liberal Government and he is handing down a deficit for the second year in a row.

The Rudd / Gillard government are not responsible for the Global Financial Crisis, but they had to react to it because if they didn't we would all be worse off.

ammonite

ammonite said on the 22nd Jun, 2012

but what's the difference between ‘civil union’ and ‘civil partnership’?
or having it done at the registry instead of the court?

but civil unions are demeaning!!!!!!

I just don't understand why people are getting so upset and calling emergency protests, fighting to keep something that isn't equal, or really even very useful.

Brightside05 said on the 22nd Jun, 2012

You'll probably find all the people protesting have government jobs or are on government payments.

coast_boy_21 said on the 22nd Jun, 2012

I just don't understand why people are getting so upset and calling emergency protests, fighting to keep something that isn't equal, or really even very useful.

The reason why we started protesting is because we were originally lead to believe that the LNP was totally going to remove the civil unions, now we are protesting because we believe that the LNP is going to ban same-sex surrogacy so that a child of a same-sex couple will not be recognized as that couples child. Plus we are upset that the LNP has stopped funding Queenslands only GLBT health organization. You need to remember that we gays in Qld don't have as many rights as gays in NSW or ACT and Victoria to start off with.

ammonite

ammonite said on the 22nd Jun, 2012

Led to believe by who?
Sensationalist media?
Activists with political biases and personal agendas?

Campbell Newman promised in his election campaign that an LNP government would look at the Labor civil union laws under the strict proviso that they wouldn't repeal them unless it was possible to do so without hurting anyone, including all those who had already received one.

and that's what he did.

and it was never going to be possible. that always seemed fairly obvious to me.

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 22nd Jun, 2012

Marriage equality is the benchmark.
Anything short of that is tokenistic.

pointzer said on the 22nd Jun, 2012

Marriage equality is the benchmark.
Anything short of that is tokenistic.

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. You would have to change the meaning of the word. Kind of self defeating isn't it?

pointzer said on the 22nd Jun, 2012

Is there anything as despicable as a right wing nancy boy? Its like a Jew voting for the Nazi Party. :eek:

BrisAndy

BrisAndy said on the 22nd Jun, 2012

I don't want to get into labour versus LNP but it seems like the Newman government is intent on attacking the GLBT community at every opportunity. Yes maybe they are doing some good things with the economy ( maybe not) but why they feel the need to impose their views upon us really upsets me. To say that just because someone is in a same sex relationship they can't be loving parents (what other possible reason do they have for stopping our community from having the same rights to surrogacy) makes me angry.
I finally came out last year at the age of 38 finally accepting who I was, was ok, and now at every step this government seems to say its not.
I'm not a political person and I've never demonstrated against anything in my life, but I'm pretty sure that's about to change.

ammonite

ammonite said on the 22nd Jun, 2012

That's a good point but I'm not convinced it's true. It seems to me quite hard to find the true etymology of the word because there are so many people trying to rewrite it's history for political reasons.

The word 'matrimony' for example gets less attention and is I would assert therefore less abused. It comes from the Latin mātrimōnium which is a combination of the suffix '[URL="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Apart%3D1%3Asection%3D30%3Asubsection%3D3%3Asmythp%3D239"]-mōnium' which is used to form act and state nouns, and according to everything I've seen 'māter' which means mother. So that word appears to be entirely feminine.

coast_boy_21 said on the 22nd Jun, 2012

Led to believe by who?
Sensationalist media?
Activists with political biases and personal agendas?

Campbell Newman promised in his election campaign that an LNP government would look at the Labor civil union laws under the strict proviso that they wouldn't repeal them unless it was possible to do so without hurting anyone, including all those who had already received one.

and that's what he did.

and it was never going to be possible. that always seemed fairly obvious to me.

Actually, LNP mp's before the election had been telling the public that they are against civil unions and that when elected they would repeal them. I don't think you actually understand how homophobic the LNP party is........read hansard where they insinuate that gays are a danager to children.

mikeyv said on the 22nd Jun, 2012

Ammonite seems to be consistently sensible in this and other posts.
LNP have been upfront about their approach to civil unions from day one, and the election results must show that the electorate at large, (who one supposes to be aware of the LNP policy position), consider this acceptable. We live in a democracy where majority rules. In civic value, there is no difference between civil unions or relationship registrations and the "rights" accorded.
Sepp: The economy to hell with it??? Tell that to the greeks who cant afford to buy food anymore.
Pointzer: Your Nazi/right wing analogy is beneath you.

Laduks said on the 22nd Jun, 2012

People will tend to vote for their perception of the economy over other concerns. So it's not as if people necessarily supported the LNP's policy on it. But yeah, it sucks because they'll probably continue to try and repeal gay rights for as long as they're in power (surrogacy and the stopping of funding to QAHC so far).

ammonite

ammonite said on the 23rd Jun, 2012

Yes I agree there are some really homophobic members of the LNP.
and because it is the LNP and not for example Labor those individual members are allowed to publicly voice their disagreement with party policy.
but importantly that doesn't change the party policy.
which as I said earlier had been announced and committed to before and during the election campaign.

Campbell Newman himself is not at all homophobic. He publicly supports gay marriage.

I don't know who has how much power, or how much these homophobic backbenchers and backroom-ers (and perhaps a couple of ministers?) have. Most owe their seats to Newman and I would have thought that would give him a fair amount of power. This new surrogacy agenda is concerning to me as it's obviously not Newman's decision or personal view.

Sept77

Sept77 said on the 23rd Jun, 2012

Sepp: The economy to hell with it??? Tell that to the greeks who cant afford to buy food anymore.

gladly. The economy must shrink. An ever expanding economy is not sustainable, unless of course we manage to exploit other planets or find a way of expansion without taking anything else from the Earth. We live on a finite world with dwindling resources and are doing more and more irreparable damage to the planet in order to extract those resources. The government in Queensland, who only got 50% of the vote mind you, care as little for the environment - willing to forsake the Great Barrier Reef being a prime example - as they do for LGBT rights. Several of them now have latched onto a new call: there is a large number of LGBT folk who don't support equality for their community. These seemingly mythical detractors are now shaping our social policy. I wonder if perhaps there are indeed Queer people who are against marriage equality, civil unions, IVF treatment for lesbians, and surrogacy for gay couples, probably also those who whinged about those making waves during Stonewall, the first Mardi Gras, homosexual law reform, and so on, and if there are a few of them on these forums.

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 23rd Jun, 2012

Marriage equality fundamentally boils down to empathy, understanding and the absence of fear. All politics aside for a moment, here is the basic core of it. What is the practical threat that marriage equality brings to closed minded people? There is no real threat to society or any individual should marriage equality become ratified in law throughout the various states and territories of Australia. Marriage equality hurts nobody. I want Australia to be a nation where a 5 year old girl starting kindergarten walking to school on her first day with her two Mums or Dads not to feel shame, worry or sadness because the two primary givers in her life who love her very much feel exhausted, frustrated and depressed at not having the validation of being married. That's what it boils down to. The gay community being a family. Raising kids or not is irrelevant, really. Together. United. Either as a single couple or with biological kids or adopted kids. It doesn't matter. Fairness.

It is fair and just and right that all states and territories in Australia have marriage equality law reforms enacted.

Why?

Because it is a basic human right that we have love validated in our lives for us to celebrate.
Because Australia is a free and democratic nation.
Because no Australian should be treated like a second-class citizen.

Doolander

Doolander said on the 23rd Jun, 2012

But I am not. Besides, if you are in a loving relationship where is the problem going to come in? Do you not expect to stay together through thick n thin?
Why is it so important to have our rights documented on paper?

Oh dear, I'm not even replying to this right now, read the comment at the end.

Our economy is doing quite well.

People who believe LABOR = DEFICITS and LIBERAL = SURPLUSES need to look further back than the Howard years and the mining boom.

In fact you could look at New South Wales which was run by a Labor Government for 16 years and only ever had a deficit for 3 of those.

Now we're being run by Barry O'Farrell and his Liberal Government and he is handing down a deficit for the second year in a row.

The Rudd / Gillard government are not responsible for the Global Financial Crisis, but they had to react to it because if they didn't we would all be worse off.

You must have rocks in your head.... I certainly don't believe in that Labor defecit Liberal surplus rubbish. However, a Liberal government steers the economy in the direction that values my business. Labor does not do this. So shoot me for wanting my business to continue growing...

Godwin's Law... You lose... :rolleyes:

If our economy goes down the toilet and you're all living on the streets, believe you, me. Equality will be the last thing on your minds...

Marc

Marc said on the 23rd Jun, 2012

"You must have rocks in your head.... I certainly don't believe in that Labor defecit Liberal surplus rubbish. However, a Liberal government steers the economy in the direction that values my business. Labor does not do this. So shoot me for wanting my business to continue growing..."

There is more to government than just foisting policy on the rest of the community that "favours" your business!

Considering the "great divide" between Labor and Liberal no longer exists as in days gone by...for example the 70's; most western governments subscribe to a common economic theory and practice ostensibly thrashed out by members of the World Bank and the IMF. While I was living in NZ a labor government sold off every Sate Owned enterprise, corporatized and privatized everything! Labor doesn't traditionally do stuff like that unless forced to by "concerns" outside government-the IMF at that time. Margaret Thatcher was one who has been given credit for this economic practice. For you to suggest you only support a government that alone is good for you business suggest you have rocks in your head!
I've also been self employed for many years too, mostly during the extreme far right economic times and it proved a monumental challenge for me and my hundreds of employees. Regardless of economic policy, your value as a proprietor is always and only measured by your ability to adapt. I personally don't give a shit about which government "runs " the economy, the differences in one from the other is truely on a micro level.

More importantly, marriage is a civil law issue. Doolander, you will be well advised to remember this, and is legislated by a parliament. Every relationship that is publicly celebrated, regardless of religion or non religion, ultimately registers this at Birth Deaths, and Marriages. This issue matters for those what want what society imputes to the term Marriage, including Sate Laws. Regardless of who is currently governing my state, or the country, I have voted for someone to be MY VOICE in parliament. Parliament does not, and should not dictate to me, but rather democratically represent what most Australians want, and I'll agree to abide by that.
While the incumbent QLD government is actively repealing and preventing legislation, I sincerely hope their cumupance Will happen quickly and severely.

Fahed said on the 23rd Jun, 2012

But I am not. Besides, if you are in a loving relationship where is the problem going to come in? Do you not expect to stay together through thick n thin?
Why is it so important to have our rights documented on paper?...

The same reason straight people's rights are documented on paper, so that when someone steps over the line, we can point to that paper and say "you crossed the line".

I guess the point is that we can sacrifice a little bit of growth in the name of some balance. LNP's economy growing policy seemed to be sell all our resources overseas, transfer all the nation's debt onto the people, cut back on investments into important public services like health and education... Oh look, we're in surplus!

Meanwhile, we lost a lot of talented and skilled medical professionals to other countries, there's a generation of children who will enter the workforce in the not-too-distant future who were short-changed in their education, many parts of Australia are so expensive they are basically unlivable, and with the level of debt in the private sector, people are under considerable financial strain, and when we run out of resources the economy is likely to take a serious hit (this of course depends on how future governments handle the transition, but at the very least we've lost this as a back-up option). If the LNP had improved the economy while simultaneously improving people's standard of living in at least a reasonably ethical manner, I would be the last person to complain.

ammonite

ammonite said on the 23rd Jun, 2012

Are you interested in economics Fahed? - What schools/theories do you subscribe to?

[...]many parts of Australia are so expensive they are basically unlivable[...]

[...]and with the level of debt in the private sector[...]What do you feel a government should have done/be doing about that?

People are making this argument currently about the UK government because they are cutting benefits, and other people use the same argument against the last federal LNP government who cut taxes and gave mass benefit payouts?

coast_boy_21 said on the 23rd Jun, 2012

What's ironic is that Greence was governed by a socially consertive government and look what happened there, that is evidence that a socially consertive government is not always good for the economy.

Doolander

Doolander said on the 23rd Jun, 2012

Omg I started to read responses, but realized I'm not that interested in them...

I've made my peace, the rest of you can continue with your hang-ups.

Doolander

Doolander said on the 23rd Jun, 2012

The same reason straight people's rights are documented on paper, so that when someone steps over the line, we can point to that paper and say "you crossed the line".

I guess the point is that we can sacrifice a little bit of growth in the name of some balance. LNP's economy growing policy seemed to be sell all our resources overseas, transfer all the nation's debt onto the people, cut back on investments into important public services like health and education... Oh look, we're in surplus!

Meanwhile, we lost a lot of talented and skilled medical professionals to other countries, there's a generation of children who will enter the workforce in the not-too-distant future who were short-changed in their education, many parts of Australia are so expensive they are basically unlivable, and with the level of debt in the private sector, people are under considerable financial strain, and when we run out of resources the economy is likely to take a serious hit (this of course depends on how future governments handle the transition, but at the very least we've lost this as a back-up option). If the LNP had improved the economy while simultaneously improving people's standard of living in at least a reasonably ethical manner, I would be the last person to complain.

I've read your posts, cos you always seem to have an interesting viewpoint backed up by something more than rubbish.

Firstly, we are not straight people... Again, why are we continuing to fight to be recognized in the same way as something we are not?

Secondly, please give me just two examples of locales in Australia that are so expensive they have become unlivable?

Doolander

Doolander said on the 23rd Jun, 2012

The ironic part is when keyboard warriors try to change the world policies one post at a time....

Fahed said on the 24th Jun, 2012

I am, but mine is a sort of casual interest. I suppose I'm interested because it's a mish-mash of maths and psychology. I only know about what I read and my reading has not been comprehensive or evenly sampled. So to answer your question I don't even know the names of theories - my understanding is not that advanced.

Well... not allow the problem to accrue unchecked in the first place. Of course they can't control everything, but their policies were frequently aimed at providing tax cuts (which got better and better the higher up the socioeconomic ladder you were), and cutting necessary services to those who were left behind in the boom time. I'm not suggesting that the government has to control everything but there was a lot of real potential to make real improvements which was lost. If anything we took about 10 steps back for each step forward.

I'm not sure what the question is here. Are you saying that no matter what the government does, the people end up in debt while the country digs its way out of debt? This may be the case - I suppose the argument is more descriptive than causally explanatory regarding the government's actions. My understanding is fairly rudimentary, but I believe (and this may be only part of one theory or something) that debt is a necessary part of a modern economy, and that the trick is in how that debt is managed. I understand that in a way it is beneficial for everyone if all the interest paid on debt remains within the country rather than being paid out overseas, but I can't help but point out (again) that this benefit (which I believe they priced at 8.5 billion dollars annually) was not put to any good use.

I try, I'm not sure that my posts are any less rubbish than any other people's posts.

This answer is long and complex because (a) I wasn't entirely clear what your argument was exactly, so I just argued against every possible argument I could think of that you could be making, and (b) just to make the implicit perfectly explicit, I'm a gigantic nerd and I think that this is fun :).

To avoid wasting your time (and to avoid setting up a straw-man argument), I start each response with a letter (e.g. A, B, C etc.). Just read the first sentence of each response, and if it's unrelated to your point, skip down to the next letter.

-----------------------A----------------------------------
Perhaps this (now cliche) argument will answer your question:

Let's replace 'straight' and 'gay' with 'white' and 'black' respectively, two other subgroups in society who are not the same but for reasons that are entirely outside of their control.

'Why are black people continuing to fight to be recognised in the same way as white people?'

Ultimately, although we are different, we still all deserve to be treated equally. We all deserve to choose whether we want or need to take advantage of a right which is afforded us. E.g. everyone should have the right to an education, even if, for some people, carpentry would be a better fit for their skills and abilities. Taking this difference in individuals into account, we do not exclude people from the right to an education, we simply cater to as many people's needs as possible. Everyone has the right to an education, with the option to leave early if school is not for you, and the option to take subjects which lead into trades etc. while still at school. This way, at least they get to decide what they want, they aren't excluded from getting what they might need for a poor reason.

-----------------------B----------------------------------
Perhaps you're arguing something else. Something along the lines of 'we are different, we therefore have different needs and should not force ourselves to fit the mold straight people have created for themselves'
Would I be wrong in suggesting that this is a similar argument to the one made in favour of women only and men only services (such as women only gyms)? I.e. that equality doesn't necessarily mean that everybody gets the same thing, but rather that everybody's needs are met equally?

This argument, however, relies on three hidden auxilliary premises or conditions (as far as I can tell):
1. Evidence that there are a different set of needs to be met for the two groups
2. Evidence that one set of policies/resources/facilities cannot be enough to meet the needs of both groups
3. Justification for, not only a separate set of services for each group individually, but also the necessity of exclusion to ensure needs are adequately met.

Regarding 1, I can't say that this is true. LGBT*head+keyboard* relationships are different to straight relationships, this is true. It is trivially true, because no two straight relationships are the same. When you come right down to it, each individual person has a different set of needs, any two people's collective needs likely produces a fairly unique set, and then as a couple, the intertwining of needs produces further complexity, and then again a unique set of needs. This is a problem in any policy making decision, so policies tend to be carefully thought out to meet the needs of the largest possible number of people within the boundaries of what is practically and financially viable. In this case, the collective needs of the majority of heterosexual individuals in long term relationships would be perfectly adequate for a large majority of homosexual individuals in long term relationships. The nature of the relationships is not exactly the same, but the needs which arise from these kinds of relationships are not stratified by the sexuality of the individuals involved in them.

This leads me neatly into 2. As the needs of both groups are similar enough that they overlap to a great extent, within the bounds of natural variation within each group separately, then the already established policies would serve us in exactly the same way that it would serve heterosexual couples. Not because we are heterosexual, but rather because we are human. Having a different sexual orientation doesn't immediately make everything about us completely different, most things are still the same.

Finally, 3. The necessity of exclusion. Women only gyms are a great example to use here. Women and men are not so different physiologically that there would be such a great difference between the two different types of gym. Both gyms would probably have the same or similar equipment, similar training regiments (and any differences between the sexes could easily be taken into account when the regiment is being put together) etc. The point I'm trying to make is that there is no practical reason why the sexes should be separated for the sake of exercise, and indeed, many women and men successfully exercise every day in unisex gyms. But the needs that gyms which cater to only one sex are meeting are not really 'practical' needs. These places cater to the needs of people who need more tailored support, or who feel uncomfortable exercising among the opposite sex for whatever reason, or who have religious needs etc. In this way, exclusion is a necessary condition for meeting those needs. Provided the excluded individuals' needs are met elsewhere, most people accept that this is a reasonable, egalitarian solution. The exclusion of non-heterosexual relationships from state definitions of civil partnerships, and the creation of new and different types of partnerships with different rules does not fulfill anybody's needs.

There's still more, see the next post:

Fahed said on the 24th Jun, 2012

Continued from above:

-----------------------C----------------------------------
I haven't forgotten that this thread is ultimately about the renaming of civil unions to registered relationships for LGBT individuals. If your argument is that we are different, so that, while we can have the same rights, there's no reason why our relationships should be given the same name, this gets into a much more complicated issue. This issue has no bearing on practical, rational reality (and in that sense, you're right and I agree with you), but we live in anything but a practical, rational world, and as a species we are anything but practical, rational beings.

I think this relates to point -B-3. in the sense that giving a different name to our union is unnecessary as it does not reflect any appreciable difference in the nature of the union (I understand that the sexes of members are different, but the union itself is the same). More importantly I think it does some unnecessary damage, especially the way it is being introduced. They are not giving us 'registered relationships' after we had nothing. They are taking away what was there, something which was simpler and more equal, and replacing it with something else, which is not. The fact that all of this has no necessary purpose, I believe, sends a very clear and strong message. Now I might take this with a grain of salt, and you seem to be doing the same, but some other people won't, and it will only serve to make them feel more isolated, more dissatisfied with themselves, and maybe even slighted. This kind of behaviour is rather spiteful, especially coming from a government which is elected to represent its people - it's a bit like a bully dangling candy in front of a child and then pulling it away quickly saying 'not for you, fag!'.

There's a more important point here which I think is being forgotten. It is that exclusion can be used as a social tool to subtly attack individuals at an emotional level without leaving any trace of evidence behind. One can always argue that they never meant to exclude, they simply didn't bother to include. Unfortunately for LNP in this case, they can't even make that argument. Again, for you or I, it might be water off a duck's back, but independently of our personal reaction to this news, the message is clearly there.

-----------------------D----------------------------------
I seem to be getting this idea that a lot of people think that if we are treated the same as heterosexuals, then we're in danger of turning into them. I'm assuming this is not your argument? If it is, I guess I can discuss it further in another post, this one is already too long and I haven't even answered:

Although this information is fairly outdated now and probably no longer true, Sydney and Melbourne are supposed to be the most expensive places to live in the world. One of the social workers at Ankali House where I volunteer recently went to New York and trolled 5th Avenue for high fashion. When he came back he said he was shocked and appalled at the prices here in Australia. Not just clothes, but food and basic daily necessities as well. I have a cousin who lives in Dubai, and he's very wealthy (I mean multi-millionaire), he described prices in Sydney as 'extortion'. Take a quick look online and compare prices between here and overseas, the massive mark-up that we have to endure on even basic items is ridiculous. I think I've established that purchases are (possibly unnecessarily) expensive.
The price of housing in Sydney is ridiculous (I understand that this is based on demand, but it needs to be factored in when policies are being made). If you're on the rental market (which you are likely to be if you're struggling) rent can take up almost your entire income. Utilities are no better - I don't think I need to say more about that.
Before Labour came into power, individuals living on social security benefits were rated as being 30% below the poverty line in terms of their income. In the case of individuals who genuinely cannot support themselves, and combined with all the points I made above, it was a pretty dire situation.

Unlivable is a pretty strong word. If this is the basis of your argument, then you don't need to keep reading, I was exaggerating slightly. But only slightly. Unlivable sort of implies 'nobody could live there' which is obviously not the case because we live here. For many people, however, it was, and still is, unlivable. I'm *really* lucky that I'm as well off as I am. Even with my fairly good financial situation, though, I still feel fairly considerable financial strain. I can't even begin to imagine what it's like for some other people who aren't as capable or as lucky as I've been. I know a woman whose husband left her and her 4 children for another woman. Her eldest has only just started uni this year. She married young so she never got any real qualifications. As a result, she works 3 jobs, takes care of her home, and her children. She has to get up at 3 am to cook before she goes to work at her first job (at the airport), but she also has positions as a cleaner and a home carer. I know for a fact that she is a drop in an ocean in this city, I've heard of and witnessed countless stories that are the same, and many much sadder. This kind of life is not sustainable, and in that sense, for these people, Sydney is unlivable

MrAsh said on the 24th Jun, 2012

This answer is long and complex because (a) I wasn't entirely clear what your argument was exactly, so I just argued against every possible argument I could think of that you could be making, and (b) just to make the implicit perfectly explicit, I'm a gigantic nerd and I think that this is fun :).

To avoid wasting your time (and to avoid setting up a straw-man argument), I start each response with a letter (e.g. A, B, C etc.). Just read the first sentence of each response, and if it's unrelated to your point, skip down to the next letter.

-----------------------A----------------------------------
Perhaps this (now cliche) argument will answer your question:

Let's replace 'straight' and 'gay' with 'white' and 'black' respectively, two other subgroups in society who are not the same but for reasons that are entirely outside of their control.

'Why are black people continuing to fight to be recognised in the same way as white people?'

Ultimately, although we are different, we still all deserve to be treated equally. We all deserve to choose whether we want or need to take advantage of a right which is afforded us. E.g. everyone should have the right to an education, even if, for some people, carpentry would be a better fit for their skills and abilities. Taking this difference in individuals into account, we do not exclude people from the right to an education, we simply cater to as many people's needs as possible. Everyone has the right to an education, with the option to leave early if school is not for you, and the option to take subjects which lead into trades etc. while still at school. This way, at least they get to decide what they want, they aren't excluded from getting what they might need for a poor reason.

-----------------------B----------------------------------
Perhaps you're arguing something else. Something along the lines of 'we are different, we therefore have different needs and should not force ourselves to fit the mold straight people have created for themselves'
Would I be wrong in suggesting that this is a similar argument to the one made in favour of women only and men only services (such as women only gyms)? I.e. that equality doesn't necessarily mean that everybody gets the same thing, but rather that everybody's needs are met equally?

This argument, however, relies on three hidden auxilliary premises or conditions (as far as I can tell):
1. Evidence that there are a different set of needs to be met for the two groups
2. Evidence that one set of policies/resources/facilities cannot be enough to meet the needs of both groups
3. Justification for, not only a separate set of services for each group individually, but also the necessity of exclusion to ensure needs are adequately met.

Regarding 1, I can't say that this is true. LGBT*head+keyboard* relationships are different to straight relationships, this is true. It is trivially true, because no two straight relationships are the same. When you come right down to it, each individual person has a different set of needs, any two people's collective needs likely produces a fairly unique set, and then as a couple, the intertwining of needs produces further complexity, and then again a unique set of needs. This is a problem in any policy making decision, so policies tend to be carefully thought out to meet the needs of the largest possible number of people within the boundaries of what is practically and financially viable. In this case, the collective needs of the majority of heterosexual individuals in long term relationships would be perfectly adequate for a large majority of homosexual individuals in long term relationships. The nature of the relationships is not exactly the same, but the needs which arise from these kinds of relationships are not stratified by the sexuality of the individuals involved in them.

This leads me neatly into 2. As the needs of both groups are similar enough that they overlap to a great extent, within the bounds of natural variation within each group separately, then the already established policies would serve us in exactly the same way that it would serve heterosexual couples. Not because we are heterosexual, but rather because we are human. Having a different sexual orientation doesn't immediately make everything about us completely different, most things are still the same.

Finally, 3. The necessity of exclusion. Women only gyms are a great example to use here. Women and men are not so different physiologically that there would be such a great difference between the two different types of gym. Both gyms would probably have the same or similar equipment, similar training regiments (and any differences between the sexes could easily be taken into account when the regiment is being put together) etc. The point I'm trying to make is that there is no practical reason why the sexes should be separated for the sake of exercise, and indeed, many women and men successfully exercise every day in unisex gyms. But the needs that gyms which cater to only one sex are meeting are not really 'practical' needs. These places cater to the needs of people who need more tailored support, or who feel uncomfortable exercising among the opposite sex for whatever reason, or who have religious needs etc. In this way, exclusion is a necessary condition for meeting those needs. Provided the excluded individuals' needs are met elsewhere, most people accept that this is a reasonable, egalitarian solution. The exclusion of non-heterosexual relationships from state definitions of civil partnerships, and the creation of new and different types of partnerships with different rules does not fulfill anybody's needs.

There's still more, see the next post:

Fahed wouldn't it be more equal for the marriage act to be abolished and for new relationship laws to be created which allow for a diverse range of relationships (between consenting people of legal adult age), including polyamorous etc... to be formally recognised? I mean the current marriage act and the same sex amendments will read the same 'the union of two people to the exclusion of everyone else'. It doesn't really reflect the unique nature and diverse variance of human relationships and family structures.

coast_boy_21 said on the 25th Jun, 2012

Omg I started to read responses, but realized I'm not that interested in them...

I've made my peace, the rest of you can continue with your hang-ups.

Well if your treated poorly by the LNP government simply because your gay, then you can rest easy knowing that they are fixing the economy. I on the other hand will never give them my vote, because morally as a gay man I cannot support the party no matter how good they are at fixing the economy.

Fahed said on the 25th Jun, 2012

Yes. Is this what Doolander was arguing? The only issue here is that it's completely unrealistic to expect all of this to be done now. This isn't an LGBT issue - we're talking now about a major overhaul of legal policy. There will need to be considerable change to current social attitudes before this kind of change becomes realistic. What happens in the meantime?

Doolander

Doolander said on the 25th Jun, 2012

Fahed.... Despite the cost of living.... Have you noticed how popular it remains?

Doolander

Doolander said on the 25th Jun, 2012

You're*

FWIW nobody treats me poorly because I am gay...
I may get treated poorly for a variety of other reasons... But never because I am gay. I do not relinquish that right to anybody.

Fahed said on the 25th Jun, 2012

That's true, but so is ice and we all know what a brilliant idea that is. People frequently want what they can't have and what isn't good for them. On the other hand, uprooting a family and moving to another city or state is not an easy or insignificant undertaking and many people who are struggling have lived in these places for their whole lives.

Look tiny details aside, we can all agree that some balance is necessary - it can't all be about one thing, because frequently any one thing relies on a whole bunch of other things (to put it as eloquently as possible). You can't keep pulling cards out of a card castle forever.

Doolander

Doolander said on the 26th Jun, 2012

Depending on how big the castle is, you can do it for quite sometime.... *grin*

Also, you missed my point on the cost of living remaining popular... I was being facetious...

Fahed said on the 26th Jun, 2012

Oh, sorry D. Communication over the internetz :)

Sep77

Sep77 said on the 27th Jun, 2012

Yes I agree there are some really homophobic members of the LNP.

Campbell Newman himself is not at all homophobic. He publicly supports gay marriage.

Oh, piss off. Nobody who has respect for LGBT people and our equality would allow to happen what he has. What are you? Are you a subversive implant? Is not at all homophobic? ANY PREMIER who was NOT homophobic would NOT be dictated to by GEN Y MPs that he was misinformed and mislead whilst proclaiming anything other than a roll back of LGBT rights. Campbell Newman is no friend to gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender Australians, and no matter how many gay friends he pulls out of the closet, he never will be. Don't defend the man. Bloody fucking hell.

Doolander

Doolander said on the 27th Jun, 2012

Gen Y MP's?
Do we have any except for the member for Longmore? I think?

Dsquare

Dsquare said on the 27th Jun, 2012

Gen Y MP's?
Do we have any except for the member for Longmore? I think?

Is he old enough to be gen Y?

MyBoyFreindIsGay

MyBoyFreindIsGay said on the 27th Jun, 2012

Campbell Newman never made any election promises or showed any sign of even giving an opinion on gay marriage (as a matter of fact he openly refused to when questioned about it in public).
Rather poor form to see he has actually been playing a lot of cards close to his chest, and not really letting on to the public what the new "can do" government... can do.

I would have thought he was as good as any and had good experience in the political field, to take the job of premier.

Though I didn't vote for him.