Australia: No Marriage or Kids For You, Fags

[Jervoise]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3752697.stm

John Howard, the Prime Minister of my homeland, has today announced Federal legislation that will ban gay couples from marrying or adopting children from overseas. Spurred into action by same-sex couples who have legally married in Canada, returned to Australia and asked the Family Court to recognise their unions, the Commonwealth will preempt a judicial decision by amending the Marriage Act to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman:Less than an hour after Prime Minister John Howard announced the changes to the Marriage Act, the government rushed legislation enabling the changes into parliament.

Mr Howard said the Marriage Act would be changed to include a definition of marriage as the ‘voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others’.

Australian same-sex couples who marry overseas will not have their unions recognised under the law in Australia To compound the insult to Australia’s gay and lesbian population, the government also seeks to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children from overseas. Of course, the Commonwealth would like to stop us dirty fags not adopting children altogether, but lack such a power under the Constitution (adoption is chiefly a matter for the states; the Commonwealth is using its power to deal with treaties to control foreign adoptions):“We are also going to amend the legislation to ensure that same sex couples ... will not be eligible as prospective adoptive parents under any multilateral or bilateral agreement concerning the adoption of children to which Australia is a party,” he said.
The Federal Opposition is historically divided on the issue of gay marriage. However, after much faffing about, Labour has announced that it will not oppose (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461884719.html) the changes that will explicitly restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. It is yet to announce its position on gay adoption.

First, a big FUCK YOU to the Labor party for claiming to support the gay and lesbian community but failing where it really counts. At this point in our election cycle, FUCK YOU again for being afraid to do what is right rather than what is expedient. Second, an enormous FUCK YOU to the Australian “Family” Association, that despicable pressure group which constantly nips at the heels of gay rights in Australia. Third, a spanking FUCK YOU to the Liberal Party for toying with our rights, for again trying to play wedge politics and divide the electorate on a social issue.

And fourth, a hearty slap-me-on-the-arse-and-call-me-Menzies FUCK YOU to John Winston Howard, that despicable little man, short of stature and short of humanity, that ugly wilfully-blind gnome soon for the dustbin of history, that evil blinking toad, that ignorant fool who honestly believes that gay marriage is a threat to the survival of the species (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/05/1059849376651.html). One day, sooner rather than later, you'll be forgotten, the law will changed for good rather than bad, we'll have the same rights as heterosexual Australians, and the community will be left wondering what the fuss and fear was about. But not today.

[Bryan Ekers]

It sounds like they need... a booting.

[nocturnal_tick]

:eek: That is really all I want to say. I can't believe that someone would be so openly fucking prejudiced. From the quotes, every decision has been because Gays are "supposedly bad". What a bunch of fucking arseholes! :mad:

One day, sooner rather than later, you'll be forgotten, the law will changed for good rather than bad, we'll have the same rights as heterosexual Australians, and the community will be left wondering what the fuss and fear was about. But not today.

I only hope it's sooner rather than later.

[Ponder Stibbons]

Thought of moving to another country? ;)

Seriously, though, it sounds like it's time for you to get involved in (shudder) politics. Nothing will change unless you make it change. I'm not well acquainted with Australian politics, so please correct me if I am wrong; I'm assuming it is a multi-party European-style democracy (as opposed to the US 2-party model). Since Labor seems to have abandoned you, it sounds like it is time to find the Australian equivalent of the Libertarians -- a political party that consistently supports individual rights, so that gays and lesbians don't have to worry about being "dropped" when inconvenient.

That's my two cents worth anyway.

[P_T_]

Just wait, the US will be passing something like this early next year if Bush gets re-elected. I wonder what has become of the world when people are against something as irrelevant to the masses as this.

[Jervoise]

I might add that the law will also be changed to allow same-sex financially interdependent couples to access each other’s superannuation benefits, should either of them die. (Superannuation is a compulsory retirement savings scheme, perhaps analagous to the US’s 401(k) and the UK’s pension plans.)

Lest we perceive this is a victory for gay rights, however, our Evil Blinking Toad made it clear the changes would also help elderly heterosexual sisters living together in retirement. :rolleyes:

[mhendo]

This is pretty fucking depressing. I was hoping that my home country might have the courage and the humanity to do the right thing on the gay marriage issue. but it appears that the politicians are just a bunch of spineless, self-serving morons.

The bi-partisan support for this measure suggests that the idiocy is so widespread in the Australian population that neither political party is willing to take a risk with gay marriage. And that's really sad. I hoped that my fellow Australians were more accepting and "live and let live" than that, but apparently they aren't.

Has anyone seen any poll numbers on the gay marriage issue in Australia? I'd be interested to know what the level of popular support is.

Fuck John Howard. Fuck the Liberal Party. Fuck the Labor Party. Fuck any Australian who supports this measure.

[Jervoise]

Thought of moving to another country? ;)

Seriously, though, it sounds like it's time for you to get involved in (shudder) politics. Nothing will change unless you make it change. I'm not well acquainted with Australian politics, so please correct me if I am wrong; I'm assuming it is a multi-party European-style democracy (as opposed to the US 2-party model). Since Labor seems to have abandoned you, it sounds like it is time to find the Australian equivalent of the Libertarians -- a political party that consistently supports individual rights, so that gays and lesbians don't have to worry about being "dropped" when inconvenient.

That's my two cents worth anyway.Funnily enough, I have moved to another country--see the location--but definitely not for politics (plus Australia is forever home, so I will return in time.)

This episode aside, however, I’m fairly optimistic about the situation. Delving into the real of personal opinion, I consider it important to understand that gay marriage is not much of a political hot potato in Australia. Compared to the United States, we’re a very secular society, so the traditional opposition to gay rights just doesn’t exist across wide swathes of the community, IMO. At the same time, most of the community doesn’t give a damn about fringe issues such as gay rights, so special interest groups (such as churches and the Australian “Family” Association referred to above), can sway the political process--particularly in the socially-conservative Liberal/National Coalition. As a result of community apathy, legislation like this can pass without making much of a ripple: gays and lesbian will scream in protest; younger people will say what a disgrace; tolerant mums and dads remark such a shame; religious nuts and social conservatives will smile smugly--but life will go on for most Australians.

OTOH--and this is why I’m hopeful--change can be effected in the opposite direction, due to the same community apathy. Most of our society doesn’t care enough to oppose legislation which benefits gay people; it’s more of a matter of getting it on the political agenda. I expressed antipathy to the Labor party in my OP, but at the same time recognise that our best chances lie with them. In fact, should Labor win the next Federal election, I’m mildly hopeful that some form of civil union for same-sex couples will be raised. And once that passes, gays and lesbians will cheer; younger people will be pleased; tolerant mums and dads will smile; religious nuts and social conservatives will bitch and moan--and life will go on for mainstream Australia.

[Jervoise]

The bi-partisan support for this measure suggests that the idiocy is so widespread in the Australian population that neither political party is willing to take a risk with gay marriage. And that's really sad. I hoped that my fellow Australians were more accepting and "live and let live" than that, but apparently they aren't.

Has anyone seen any poll numbers on the gay marriage issue in Australia? I'd be interested to know what the level of popular support is.As above, I don't think there is as much opposition to gay marriage in Australia as there is apathy. All strictly IMO, of course, but I feel most of us are extremely tolerant, just (i) not caring enough to make a fuss about an issue which doesn't affect our lives; and (ii) susceptible to politics marketed as "pro-family", however erroneously that label may be applied.

Re poll numbers: I saw a survey some months ago, but can't find it online. From memory (possibly tainted by wishful thinking), it showed strong opposition to gay marriage in Australia's older demographic, decreasing opposition amongst the baby boomers, and actual majority support for gay marriage or civil unions--I can't remember how the questions were phrased--in the under-30s crowd.

So it's a matter of waiting for the old people to die. ;)

[Captain Amazing]

Just wait, the US will be passing something like this early next year if Bush gets re-elected.


We already have, back in 1996.

[P_T_]

True, but that left it up to the states to decide. I'm thinking he's going to go harder at it if he stays in, pushing the states to get in line. I know here in Missouri they're already working on it again. Didn't hear if it made it in the recent session or not.

[hawthorne]

I hadn't heard that the ALP had made a call. Sigh. An important thing to notice is that this is NOT a change, it's the government trying to troll and the opposition declining the bait:Roxon
We are not going to get hot under the collar about a piece of legislation which is just confirming the existing law.It is disappointing, though. Not taking the bait is ceding important moral ground, even if it is to avoid risking important political ground. Jervoise
FUCK YOU again for being afraid to do what is right rather than what is expedient. The difference between this time and last time is that this time it might actually be expedient.

The ALP is going to pass on a lot of things. I expect they'll let the Australia US "Free" Trade Agreement through, even though they know it's bullshit. The ALP understands they must run their race and that their opponents will stoop to anything to distract them. As long as they win and move to repair the damage I can just about take it. I'm pretty fucking desperate.

[Otto]

Shouldn't the thread title be "No marriage or kids for you, poofters"? It is Australia, after all.

[Jervoise]

The difference between this time and last time is that this time it might actually be expedient.

The ALP is going to pass on a lot of things. I expect they'll let the Australia US "Free" Trade Agreement through, even though they know it's bullshit. The ALP understands they must run their race and that their opponents will stoop to anything to distract them. As long as they win and move to repair the damage I can just about take it. I'm pretty fucking desperate.Yeah, you're right. In fact, when I get my dander down I'll probably even concede that it was positive thing that Labor didn't oppose--in the longer run and if they make the distance.

[gobear]

Shouldn't the thread title be "No marriage or kids for you, poofters"? It is Australia, after all.
Well, that's the giveaway, isn't it? After all, Rule One says "No poofters!"

Bruce.

[Bippy the Beardless]

Sometimes Australia seems a nice place not populated by occidental troglodytes, then John Howard goes and proves that the troglodytes are still in power.

[Billdo]

Does Australia have a constitutional charter of rights prohibiting sex discriminiation under which the proposed legislation could be invalidated under reasoning similar to that used by the Canadian and Massachusetts courts?

[Atticus Finch]

Billdo, Australia has no such constitutional guarantee of rights. There are anti-discrimination laws of various types, though.

My fellow Aussies, I'm incredibly pissed off at Labor. You expect this kind of 1950s shit from John Howard, but isn't there anyone to stand up to him? I don't buy the argument that you let these things go by as the equivalent of political trolling, and just try to win the election. That's what Labor did with Tampa at the last election, and all it did was make them look weak and reinforce the Government's stance. That's what they're doing now with the Free Reaming Agreemetn.

When the Government's terrible, that you can stand. It's when there's noone with the backbone to stand up to them that it's intolerable.

[Cisco]

Goddamnit. Australia was one of the places I wanted to move when I finally get fed up with the US government :mad: .

Let's just hope they come around faster than we do.

[legion]

...the Commonwealth will preempt a judicial decision by amending the Marriage Act to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.....the Commonwealth would like to stop us dirty fags not adopting children altogether.... the Commonwealth is using its power to deal with treaties to control foreign adoptions...

Isn't "the Commonwealth" a voluntary association of independent states which encompass many religions, races, languages and cultures?

I doubt that Mr Howard speaks for Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Kenya, Samoa, The Bahamas, Kiribati, Seychelles, Bangladesh, Lesotho, Sierra Leone, Barbados, Malawi, Singapore, Belize, Malaysia, Solomon Islands,Botswana, Maldives, South Africa, Brunei, Darussalam, Malta, Sri Lanka, Cameroon, Mauritius, Swaziland, Canada, Mozambique, Tonga, Cyprus, Namibia, Trinidad and Tobago, Dominica, Nauru, Tuvalu, Fiji Islands, New Zealand, Uganda, The Gambia, Nigeria, United Kingdom, Ghana, Pakistan, United Republic of Tanzania, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Guyana, St Kitts and Nevis, Zambia or India and St Lucia

[Snooooopy]

[url]And fourth, a hearty slap-me-on-the-arse-and-call-me-Menzies FUCK YOU to John Winston Howard, that despicable little man, short of stature and short of humanity, that ugly wilfully-blind gnome soon for the dustbin of history, that evil blinking toad, that ignorant fool who honestly believes that gay marriage is a threat to the survival of the species (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/05/1059849376651.html).

OK ... "Menzies!"

[Snooooopy]

Hmmph ... I must have trimmed the post that I was quoting from incorrectly. Oh, well.

[Jervoise]

Isn't "the Commonwealth" a voluntary association of independent states which encompass many religions, races, languages and cultures?Australia is known as the "Commonwealth of Australia". "Commonwealth" in this context refers to Australia's Federal Government, as opposed to the states and territories which comprise the Commonwealth of Australia. I hope that didn't render my OP confusing.

Does Australia have a constitutional charter of rights prohibiting sex discriminiation under which the proposed legislation could be invalidated under reasoning similar to that used by the Canadian and Massachusetts courts?Similar to the UK, Australia does not have a bill of rights, relying on the common law and ordinary statutes. (The Commonwealth Consitution (if I have legion's permission to use that word) is interpreted by courts as implying certain freedoms (freedom of communication on political matters being one), but these are better seen as restrictions on governmental power, rather than positive rights.)

[Liberal]

I'm not sure that a bill of rights would help that much. Some of America's founders (especially the Federalists) were concerned that an enumeration of rights could be construed to mean that the enumerated rights, and no others, were rights of the people. So they put in the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." As you can see, even a disclaimer makes littlle difference.

[blackhobyah]

I'm disappointed but not surprised. John Howard believes that society's glory days were back in the fifties, and he's been doing as much as possible to return Australia to the past ever since he's been in office.

Nor am I surprised at Labor rolling over. As Howard has shifted the Liberal party further rightwards, the Labor party has gone with them, so that the spot the Liberals might once have occupied is now Labor territory, and any territory leftwards is sort of owned by the Greens and the Democrats. The Democrats might have been a good option except that they seem to believe in shooting themselves in the foot and then imploding, every couple of years.

Mark Latham is really a Liberal at heart I think, and if I hear much more about "family values" I'm not even going to bother reaching for my revolver, I'm going to start building weapons of mass destruction in my shed.

That being said, I don't think that Jervaise's cautious optimism is justified. John Howard's Government has changed Australia I believe, and not for the better. Instead of encouraging the good things about Australian society, this Government has actively engaged in encouraging the worst things about Australian society, including intolerance, xenophobia and a pernicious and ersatz "patriotism".

I believe that this Government will be dealt with harshly by history, and for the damage they have done to this country they deserve every degree of opprobrium that that judgement can offer.

I am sorry for my gay friends that even the manner of this legislation being passed seems to be insulting, and I truly hope that justice and sense will prevail in the future. But really, what could you expect of this Government? You have only to look at the brutality with which they have dealt with refugees to know that human rights and a just society are of little interest to them.

I have, none-too-lately, come to the conclusion that John Howard is a most appalling examply of Lord Acton's maxim.

[Eliahna]

Just when I think I cannot become any more disgusted or repulsed by Howard's policies... he goes and pulls this shit.

I spent years whinging that Beasley was nothing more than a nay-sayer, and now that we finally have a ballsy opposition leader in who does more than merely yell "'Tisn't!", he rolls over and lets Howard have his evil way. If only we had a nay-sayer in opposition today.

[Already in Use]

Guess we Americans are just gonna have to launch a pre-emptive strike to bring freedom to the Australian people!

....Oh wait.