?

Log in

The Past | The Previous

Gay Marriage, Australian Style

There's a bit of blogging about George Bush's plan to make gay marriage illegal, which I believe just got overturned, but I thought you'd all like to know that here in Australia, we too are run by conservative fucks who want to defend that sanctity of marriage. Whatever that is. See, down in the ACT (Australian Capital Territory), they are planning to fast track some civil laws that will allow gay couples the same rights as straight couples "such as rights to property in the event of a relationship break-up and power of attorney," and I guess whatever else you can get.

Now Philip Ruddock, that great man who once defended our shores from the yellow wave, reckons this is wrong, because, and boys and girls I want you to take notes, you have to defend the institution of marriage. You have to do this by making sure that not everyone is allowed access to an attorney after a break up. Only men who marry fourteen year old girls in a drunken and drugged haze and women who marry aging old billionaires for their cash are allowed that privilege. (You ever noticed that for guys it's sex and women it's money in these cliches? I'd marry for money before sex, I tell you.)

Anyhow, hopefully nothing will come of this, since the other parties have a variety of reasons to oppose it. For one reason, the Australian Government is not legally allowed to interfere with the laws of States; but the last time they did that, apparently, was to stopped the world's first euthanasia legislation in the Northern Territory in 1997. Weren't we a proud nation that day. I almost cried.

Do you know, George Bush calls John Howard up at night?

I saw this on the news a couple of nights back. I'm not actually sure what the point of the call was, except maybe to swap conservative ideologies, and plan on how to strip human beings of their basic rights. But maybe they talked beer recipes, too.

Comments

( 11 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
tigersmeleth_86
Jun. 8th, 2006 01:18 am (UTC)
Bush...I honestly don't know what's going on in his head. I'm still amazed that he's my president, especially after four very crappy, very frustrating years. Then again, I'm from Massachusetts, a complete and total New England girl so maybe perhaps my view of politics is a bit skewed...

As happy as I am about Congress' decision, it's still a bit scary that it was just barely overturned.
benpeek
Jun. 8th, 2006 01:27 am (UTC)
barely overturned?

man. i can only hope you guys get a change in government next term, though it won't make a huge difference, i don't think.
bodhichitta0
Jun. 8th, 2006 02:14 am (UTC)
It was quite soundly overturned. You need 2/3 for a constitutional amendment. The vote was 49-48. But they needed 67.
(Deleted comment)
benpeek
Jun. 8th, 2006 01:40 am (UTC)
yeah, i agree. it's tough being a member of the human race lately.
girliejones
Jun. 8th, 2006 01:47 am (UTC)
The trouble here of course, unlike the issue of abortion, is that the ACT is a territory and not a state and so the Federal Govt can overturn it.

There's lots of other reasons why we should recognise same-sex couple rights - for example the non-married-long term partner is not considered next of kin in an emergency situation in a hospital and cannot override or participate in decisions. Similarly, they are not entitled to life insurance or welfare payments akin to say war widows as we do not recognise longterm relationships to be the same as marriage, since you know, two many of one genitalia, not enough of the other.
benpeek
Jun. 8th, 2006 05:14 am (UTC)
yeah, i wasn't sure about that territory, state rule. anyhow: marriage is a joke. this defending of it is just ridiculous.
girliejones
Jun. 8th, 2006 05:58 am (UTC)
pretty much
ataxi
Jun. 8th, 2006 01:47 am (UTC)
It's depressing that the Federal government has the political will to attempt to overturn this legislation. After all, it's not unpopular in the ACT.

The reverse (Howard overturning highly conservative state legislation, e.g. mandatory detention laws in WA) would never happen.

Federalism/centralism/whatever (and personally I'd prefer it if the States were abolished), what gets me is that the principles are only applied when it's a convenient way of pushing an unprincipled agenda.

Finally, the argument that creating more opportunities for commitment to monogamy weakens the "institution of marriage" (funny, I always imagine an unpleasant grey building with a statue of Queen Victoria out the front when that phrase pops up) is beyond bizarre.
benpeek
Jun. 8th, 2006 05:16 am (UTC)
It's depressing that the Federal government has the political will to attempt to overturn this legislation. After all, it's not unpopular in the ACT.

i don't actually think the idea is unpopular anywhere. even that poll on the age page had 76% in favour.but what do you expect from the howard led government? it's made a nice deal out of listening to the conservative minority.
(Anonymous)
Jun. 8th, 2006 08:49 am (UTC)
Yep, because with money, you can buy sex.
Einar and I got married so as to make all the legal aspects easier. So I guess you can say our marrieage is a joke. Probably happier than a fair few serious ones though.
Over here, we're trying to decide whether to make adoption by same-sex couples legal. With so many orphans dying every day, and so many people who really want babies, I can't see how they dare make such an issue of it.
Agnes
benpeek
Jun. 8th, 2006 12:00 pm (UTC)
Over here, we're trying to decide whether to make adoption by same-sex couples legal. With so many orphans dying every day, and so many people who really want babies, I can't see how they dare make such an issue of it.

because those soon to be dead children might grow up to be healthy fags, of course. that'd just be wrong.

sigh.

i want my mars colony. i can go there and nuke people on earth.
( 11 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )