Australia Bans Gay Marriage

Stephanos

Australia's Federal Government has used its powers to disallow the Australian Capital Territory's same-sex unions laws.

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) became the first part of the country to legally recognise gay relationships when it voted on the issue last month.
But now the federal government has stepped in to invalidate the new law.

Attorney General Philip Ruddock said, "The ACT civil relationships ordinance has been disallowed."

The ACT Government brought forward the law's start to June 25 in a bid to allow the first civil union to take place before the Commonwealth could disallow the legislation. Mr Ruddock said today's action scuttled that plan.

The Attorney-General said the ACT Government had acted provocatively by trying to make the civil unions arrangements as close as possible to marriage.

"The marriage power is clearly vested in the commonwealth and to do so by not only reference to it having all the like characteristics of a marriage in terms of the ACT law, providing as it did for civil celebrants for a ceremony and adopting other characteristics of marriage, was quite provocative," Mr Ruddock said.

The Federal Government also rejected the ACT's appeal for Major General Jeffery not to sign off on the disallowance.

"We considered those matters and Executive Council resolved that the more appropriate course was to disallow the measure," Mr Ruddock said.

"If the ACT has in mind further amendments they can come back to the Commonwealth with those amendments."

Mr Ruddock revealed that the laws were disallowed at Government House about 11am while ACT Liberal Senator Gary Humphries was appealing to the party room to consider a compromise.

Senator Humphries, a former ACT chief minister, had criticised his government's move to override the legislation, saying the territory had the right to press ahead with the laws. Mr Ruddock denied that the timing of the disallowance was also provocative.

"We have no quarrel with the territory's legislating in those areas in which it has responsibility, and we accept the decisions they make supported by their electorate – except when they provocatively and deliberately seek to intrude into areas for which they have no responsibility," he said.

The Attorney-General said he had made it clear to the ACT which amendments would be necessary to make the Civil Unions Act acceptable to the Commonwealth, but "they want to pick and choose from it like a menu".

Source http://www.gcn.ie/content/templates/newsupdate.aspx?articleid=924&zoneid=9

When this idea was originally proposed it said that the effects would reach wider than the gay community.

Stark

Disgraceful stuff

rainbow kirby

That's just sad... and horrible...

Lunoma

An Australian friend of mine says that the Australian government are rather conservative in ways. I heard a similiar situation was occuring in Massachusetts but they actually brought in a law preventing civil unions from being banned.

Stephanos

Is it coincidental that as Bush attempts to ban gay marriage in the US and it is successfully banned in Australia. This all serves as a back drop to the Vatican's "Eclipse of God".

It's all too much like a co-ordinated effort.

damien

Rather conservative? They're one of the most xenophobic crowds around.

Rozie

People simply shouldn't let this pass. There's a time when you really should figure out ways of "organising" riots.

The people responsible should be shamed and permanently banned from politics. Simple as that. Preferably, a punch in the face too.

Rev Hellfire

That’s it riot if you don't get your way :rolleyes:
In a conservative society and the Australians are pretty traditional in their ways, such actions would be an excellent way of further polarising attitudes against samesex couples.

Rozie

Rev Hellfire wrote:

That’s it riot if you don't get your way :rolleyes:
In a conservative society and the Australians are pretty traditional in their ways, such actions would be an excellent way of further polarising attitudes against samesex couples.

Or showing that if they can cause trouble for you, you can cause civil unrest for them.

"Riot if you don't get your way" sounds like Relativist Pap. Anyone who knows half a thing on social issues would find this ridiculous. It's not even that it wasn't passed to begin with, but that it was immediately reversed. Some conservative little ****s pissed off they didn't get to force their beliefs on other people.

claire h

That's horrendous. Sheesh.

Rev Hellfire

I believe you're the one who espoused rioting and by definition violence.

Rozie wrote:

There's a time when you really should figure out ways of "organising" riots.

Anyway the issue here wasn’t same sex unions, which are available in Australia. But rather that this law attempted to circumvent an existing statute (1994, which defined marriage as between man and woman) and it was for that reason it was struck down.

Civil Unions vs Marriage for homosexual couples, that’s what’s the issue in this case really is.