*puts political hat on*
Jun. 5th, 2004 03:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
changelingThere has been quite a bit of discussion on my flist about the whole gay marriages debate vis-Ă -vis the Howard Government, and the position Labor has taken on the issue. Inspired by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
vassilissa's post here, I wrote to both Senator Marise Payne (Lib party, against the act) and Nicola Roxon (MP, Labor, for the act). This is the message I got back from the office of MP Roxon:
Media Release
Marriage will remain a union between a man and a woman, but same sex couples are entitled to recognition as de factos
Labor position on Government Bill
The Labor Party will not oppose the PM's measures to confirm in the Marriage Act the common law understanding that marriage is "a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others". Consistent with this, Labor will also not oppose a prohibition on recognising foreign same sex marriages.
While Labor questions the PM's motives and reasons for bringing on this issue for debate now, and questions whether it is necessary -- Labor does not oppose these parts of the Bill which merely confirm existing law and our previous commitments to keeping marriage as a heterosexual institution.
However Labor does not support the Government’s attempts to interfere in adoption issues. Adoption has always been an issue for the States and Territories to determine, as the PM himself acknowledges. It is inconsistent and inappropriate for the PM to try and interfere in this issue simply because some children are being adopted from overseas. Rigorous eligibility standards apply at the State and Territory level and we have confidence that those processes ensure the best interests of the child are paramount.
Labor will move amendments to this Bill and refer the Bill to a Senate Committee for a full exploration of the technical issues that arise and to ensure the broader community has an opportunity to express their views on this Bill.
Labor position on acknowledgement and recognition of same sex couples
More importantly, Labor restates its commitment to remove discriminatory provisions from Commonwealth legislation on the basis of sexuality, following a full audit of existing laws.
This audit will commence immediately once Labor is elected to Government. It will allow issues of substance, such as superannuation, taxation, social security and much more, to be addressed comprehensively.
When complete, this will give same sex couples the rights and recognition of heterosexual de facto couples.
(Emphasis mine)
Basically, although Labor is being a bit conservative by supporting the act, it is at least attempting to reduce its discriminatory effects by proposing more rights &c for gay and lesbian couples and saying that G&L couples can be recognised as de factos. I'm also pleased that they aren't supporting Howard's move to try and block G&L couples from adopting.
vassilissa's post here, I wrote to both Senator Marise Payne (Lib party, against the act) and Nicola Roxon (MP, Labor, for the act). This is the message I got back from the office of MP Roxon:Media Release
Marriage will remain a union between a man and a woman, but same sex couples are entitled to recognition as de factos
Labor position on Government Bill
The Labor Party will not oppose the PM's measures to confirm in the Marriage Act the common law understanding that marriage is "a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others". Consistent with this, Labor will also not oppose a prohibition on recognising foreign same sex marriages.
While Labor questions the PM's motives and reasons for bringing on this issue for debate now, and questions whether it is necessary -- Labor does not oppose these parts of the Bill which merely confirm existing law and our previous commitments to keeping marriage as a heterosexual institution.
However Labor does not support the Government’s attempts to interfere in adoption issues. Adoption has always been an issue for the States and Territories to determine, as the PM himself acknowledges. It is inconsistent and inappropriate for the PM to try and interfere in this issue simply because some children are being adopted from overseas. Rigorous eligibility standards apply at the State and Territory level and we have confidence that those processes ensure the best interests of the child are paramount.
Labor will move amendments to this Bill and refer the Bill to a Senate Committee for a full exploration of the technical issues that arise and to ensure the broader community has an opportunity to express their views on this Bill.
Labor position on acknowledgement and recognition of same sex couples
More importantly, Labor restates its commitment to remove discriminatory provisions from Commonwealth legislation on the basis of sexuality, following a full audit of existing laws.
This audit will commence immediately once Labor is elected to Government. It will allow issues of substance, such as superannuation, taxation, social security and much more, to be addressed comprehensively.
When complete, this will give same sex couples the rights and recognition of heterosexual de facto couples.
(Emphasis mine)
Basically, although Labor is being a bit conservative by supporting the act, it is at least attempting to reduce its discriminatory effects by proposing more rights &c for gay and lesbian couples and saying that G&L couples can be recognised as de factos. I'm also pleased that they aren't supporting Howard's move to try and block G&L couples from adopting.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-04 10:53 am (UTC)Which means I am kind of in the position of the lesser of two evils. However, at least Lavor isn't trying to push through something which would actually reduce our rights. Isn't this just the most appalling thing, though? I mean, Dani, you and I could get married and have kids, and even though it would be a sham marriage it would be exactly fine - but if we were to actually attempt it with the person of our gender that we love...
Bah. I hate Howard more and more every day. He's gone past all my usual invective for him and is requiring more and more inventive forms of abuse to properly categorise him. I have decided this is one of the tragic points of both Howard and Bush: they require us to support the lesser of two evils, simply because the greater of the evils is too great to even contemplate allowing back into power.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-04 11:01 am (UTC)Well, not unless you're planning on bearing the children. I don't want to lose my girlish figure. ;)
Seriously, though. They don't seem to understand that they're undermining the sacred act of marriage precisely by doing the above, which encourages G&L couples to try a sham marriage if they want any of the rights of straight couples. Bah. Bah, I say.
I'll probably be voting Greens again this election. I'll just preference Labor above Liberal, as I would do anyway. Our seat's a safe Labor seat though, methinks (and small surprise, considering it's called Bruce), and so I won't do much difference...