Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Domestic life » “While we support a system of registration of same-sex relationships, we don’t support an arrangement that mimics marriage,”

“While we support a system of registration of same-sex relationships, we don’t support an arrangement that mimics marriage,”

The Federal Government yesterday agreed to expedite plans to remove discrimination against gay couples in about 100 federal laws, securing backing in principle from the Opposition.

But the announcement revived the long-running battle over civil unions. ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell said it was inadequate to leave some discriminatory laws in place.

“Removing discrimination cannot be done in a piecemeal manner — removing discrimination means removing discrimination full stop.”

But ahead of intense talks between the ACT and the Federal Government over the next two days, federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland was yesterday unmoved on the sticking point of allowing gay couples to hold official ceremonies.

“While we support a system of registration of same-sex relationships, we don’t support an arrangement that mimics marriage,” he said.

The Age

This is an occasion when I am in agreement with the position held by Brother Number One’s government  on an issue. I have always maintained that I support a relationship register (on the Tasmanian model)  but that I oppose  the notion of same sex marriage.

The effect of the government’s reforms will be to provide same sex couples relief from the 100 discriminations that they have previously had to suffer and frankly I think that they should be well pleased  that most members of the parliament, and by extension most people  support this. I notice that some of the usual suspects are whining that this reforms do not go far enough. The country as a whole quite rightly still considers that the  primary purpose of marriage is for the creation and nurture of children and as that is not what homosexual unions are about. I think that these serial whiners should lighten up and, like the rest of us, accept that this is a good outcome for everybody.

Cheers comrades

😉


5 Comments

  1. Keri says:

    Iain, it’s a good outcome for anyone who agrees with YOU, but what about those who don’t agree and those it actually effects?

    And if marriage is for the procreation of children, which is the argument usually used by opponents of same-sex marriage, are you going to ban people who can be proven to have “fornicated” from being able to marry?

    If you know the rest of the vows, it’s for mutual society and help, and to prevent fornication. Surely anyone who isn’t willing to abide by these terms either should also be prevented from marrying?

  2. Iain says:

    Iain, it’s a good outcome for anyone who agrees with YOU, but what about those who don’t agree and those it actually effects?

    Keri
    Those it actually effects will see that the reforms are what they have needed and are without reservation good for them and the practical issues in their lives. That they will not achieve the symbolic matter of having their relationships called “a marriage” will make no real difference to their lives.

    And if marriage is for the procreation of children, which is the argument usually used by opponents of same-sex marriage, are you going to ban people who can be proven to have “fornicated” from being able to marry?

    Sorry but I don’t get where you are going here, I have made my position on sex and sexuality quite clear in the past, namely all individuals are entitled to share their bodies with any consenting adult they please and I have never believed that candidates for marriage have to prove their chastity as a pre requisite to matrimony.

    If you know the rest of the vows, it’s for mutual society and help, and to prevent fornication. Surely anyone who isn’t willing to abide by these terms either should also be prevented from marrying?

    The nature of what constitutes a legal marriage has been defined in the marriage act but in human terms we all know that the vows are aspirational rather being something enforceable in law. (unless you live in Iran!)

  3. Aaron The Arab says:

    I wonder who owns the rights to “marriage”.

    Many of those opposed to same sex marriages do so on religious grounds, others do so because it is against tradition and so forth. Government interference is typical of a leftward government. But it’s the left pushing for such changes and for once the left get to feel what too much government intervention is like. The problem is a rightward government will do the same and that goes against one of the principle right wing foundations.

    This is not a government concern and like most social issues, they should keep out of it. Marriage is very different for many groups or cultures and no one group should be able to decide who can participate and who can’t. Religion seems to be the main opponent yet we don’t tell the faithful what they may do with their church practices ex. anyone can be “baptised” which has various interpretations. Marriage in religion varies greatly between the faiths but each is allowed to practice according to their own beliefs. Marriages that exclude religion have their own style as well highlighting the ceremony of commitment to each other. As you say Iain, marriage is for procreation and that is your right to determine what constitutes marriage for yourself and like minded people.

    My long winded point is that no one owns the rights to “marriage” and what it entails? Not you nor me and certainly not the government or the church. It is the participants who determine THEIR marriage. If that includes couples of the same sex, then that is their decision.

  4. Iain says:

    My point is Aaron that with the exceptions of being able to adopt children and have their unions called a marriage these reforms give homosexuals most of the changes that they desire and in terms of what is politically possible in our society at this point in time this is a very good result.
    I do get what you are saying about how we all invent what our marriages actually are because like so many of my friends I had a de facto marriage for many years before formally marrying my wife and I saw very little practical difference between a de facto and a formal marriage.
    I expect that, apart from some strident activists, this reform package will be more than adequate.

  5. Aaron The Arab says:

    Hi Iain.
    There seems to be a real problem with the title of actual marriage. You are correct that in reality they shall have every legal right as hetro couples which is a positive move and long overdue. I wonder why some like yourself are adamant that the actual ceremony and title of “marriage” is reserved for hetro couples only. I personally feel that it is still descrimination but attitudes are what they are and someday it will hopefully change as we become accustom to accepting everyone as equals.

    It’s still a move for the best and I suppose this is what a popular democracy is about.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: