Compromise Turns Down Gay Marriage

[DesDownunder]

From Australian ABC report:

Delegates at the ALP (Australian Labor Party) national confernce have agreed to a resolution which will allow for the development of a national system to recognise gay relationships.

After days of debate, delegates at the ALP national conference finally compromised to pave the way for couples to have their relationships officially recognised and registered.

But gay marriage will not be allowed.

The amendment allows the introduction of legislation which will outlaw any discrimination against gay couples because they are not married, and any individuals on the basis of sexual orientation.

Moving the amendments at the conference, frontbencher Anthony Albanese said the resolution was undoubtedly a compromise.

"As those great political philosophers Jagger and Richards said: sometimes you can't always get what you want, but you get what you need," he said.

"The resolution before this conference provides the latter."

Mr Albanese made it clear to delegates that the resolution was not his ideal position, but said debate on the issue would move forward regardless of any resolutions moved.

"It is a resolution in which probably very few people in the room would agree with each and every component of it," he said.

Seconding the resolution, Attorney General Robert McClelland said the amendments would not undermine the institution of marriage.

He said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had made it clear there would be no changes to the Marriage Act, which would be needed to allow for civil unions.

"This resolution is not intended to and does not support any form of legislative or other action that in any way undermines the institution of marriage which is defined... as being between a man and a women," he said.

At the moment only the ACT and Tasmania allow civil unions.

But Mr McClelland said the resolution allows for the Government to strengthen legislation against discrimination of gay couples.

The resolution says that Labor will take action to develop nationally consistent, state-based relationship recognition legislation that allows for couples to have their relationship registered.

But he says that no schemes will be allowed that mimic marriage or undermine existing laws that define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The Labor Party conference decision above, flies against the survey taken recently (report) which showed:

The survey commissioned by lobby group Australian Marriage Equality showed support for gay marriage rose to 60 per cent, up from 57 per cent two years ago, following changes last year that removed some forms of discrimination against gay couples but did not allow marriage.

AME convener Peter Furness said the poll results challenged the argument against gay marriage used by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

The Wiki comments on Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd's religious attitude and his social conservatism, reveals, to my mind, the problems we have with the Christian right in left-wing politics in Australia, but that is just my opinion.

For further thoughts on the issue see these reports:

http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2009/0...iage-push/14270

http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2945_0_1_0_C

http://www.starobserver.com.au/soap-box/20...or-penalty/3520

[Graeme]

Not really a surprise. None of the current senior Australian politicians are willing to put themselves forward as being in favour of same-sex marriage, because they don't know what sort of response they'll get. On the other hand, the back-bench politicians are more in tune with community attitudes and they are the ones that are pushing for gay rights -- and that's from both sides of politics.

My view is that it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriage becomes legal in Australia (for the non-Australian members, marriage is a federal matter in Australia, so it only requires the federal government to pass a law allowing it and that's it for the entire country). Politicians tend to be conservative by nature -- they know what got them elected and they don't like changing their poistion or taking a stance until they are very confident that it won't hurt them politically. In other words, the law will generally follow community attitudes, not lead them. Once there is sufficient vocal support for same-sex marriage (a survey run by a pro-same-sex marriage group isn't going to be enough), the politicians will change the law.

[DesDownunder]

Not really a surprise. None of the current senior Australian politicians are willing to put themselves forward as being in favour of same-sex marriage, because they don't know what sort of response they'll get. On the other hand, the back-bench politicians are more in tune with community attitudes and they are the ones that are pushing for gay rights -- and that's from both sides of politics.

My view is that it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriage becomes legal in Australia (for the non-Australian members, marriage is a federal matter in Australia, so it only requires the federal government to pass a law allowing it and that's it for the entire country). Politicians tend to be conservative by nature -- they know what got them elected and they don't like changing their poistion or taking a stance until they are very confident that it won't hurt them politically. In other words, the law will generally follow community attitudes, not lead them. Once there is sufficient vocal support for same-sex marriage (a survey run by a pro-same-sex marriage group isn't going to be enough), the politicians will change the law.

Sorry Graeme, but the survey was not run by "a pro-same-sex marriage group ...".

From this report in Gay Tas:

The poll, commissioned by Australian Marriage Equality (AME) and conducted by independently-owned Galaxy Research, was based on a sample of 1,100 randomly selected respondents from around Australia.

It found only 36 per cent of Australians oppose same-sex marriage, with four per cent undecided.

Galaxy Research have been recognised as the most accurate in both federal and state elections.

I agree with you that gay marriage is only a matter of time.

[Cole Parker]

Seems to me, if you want an accurate poll in reflecting the feelings of the citzenry of a country the size of Australia, 1,100 doesn't quite get the job done.

11,000 would have been better, or even 110,000.

C

[JamesSavik]

Sounds like Australia is trying the separate but equal approach.

[Graeme]

Sorry Graeme, but the survey was not run by "a pro-same-sex marriage group ...".

I stand corrected I saw who commissioned the survey and hadn't dug deeper to see who actually conducted the survey. Thanks, Des!

Sounds like Australia is trying the separate but equal approach.

Not really. No one thinks that a state-based domestic partnership registry is equivalent to marriage, but it does provide some benefits. One of the things here is that a de-facto relationship has many rights that I believe are only available to married couples in the USA. In many areas, but not all, areas of the law, a de-facto couple (that is, a couple living together for some time, but not legally married) are treated as being married. This, by the way, includes dealing with property settlements after a separation, which is why a lawyer friend of mine once said you should never sleep with someone for more than two years unless you intend to marry them.

I get the impression that senior politicians in several states would prefer to allow same-sex marriage (and they've fought with the religious zealots on the subject), but since it's not a state right in Australia, they are going with the second-best option of a state-recognised relationship. They acknowledge it's not as good as marriage, but it's better than no legal recognition at all.

One interesting byproduct of this is that adoption (excluding International adoption) is managed by the states. Having a legal recognition of a relationship should impact on the ability of gay couples to adopt, which will be the next 'fight' I can see coming up, and the federal government has limited, if any, ability to interfere.

[The Pecman]

I could see an interesting (fictional) story come out of a situation like this. What if you had a gay couple with adopted children, who were 100% legal in the United States, come to a country like Australia, where neither their marriage nor the adoptions were recognized? What if one member of the family were critically injured? What if the hospital refused to allow any member of this non-traditional family to visit or help make decisions on their medical care?

This could get very complicated, very quickly.

[Cole Parker]

I could see an interesting (fictional) story come out of a situation like this. What if you had a gay couple with adopted children, who were 100% legal in the United States, come to a country like Australia, where neither their marriage nor the adoptions were recognized? What if one member of the family were critically injured? What if the hospital refused to allow any member of this non-traditional family to visit or help make decisions on their medical care?

This could get very complicated, very quickly.

And the right sort of father in that situation could easily go berserk and become outrageiously violent.

Yes, fodder for a writer's imagination.

C

[DesDownunder]

I agree that there is much in the current situation that is fodder for many stories.

However, the Australian situation is somewhat complex with its current laws. Graeme rightly points out that the states have some influence (in adoption, for example).

As I understand it and I am no authority on the matter, the current anti-discrimination laws prevent discrimination on many grounds including same-sex relationships. There are both state and federal laws to consider. My own confrontation with the federal government welfare system called CentreLink which manages pensions and other social welfare payments, is that they are very careful to recognise what they call "marriage-like" partnerships with sensitivity until the partners are seen to deliberately ignore the law that requires them to inform CentreLink of their relationship status. CentreLink does have the authority to investigate domestic relationships to determine the nature of those relationships so they can, and I quote what I was told, "make sure you get the payment you are entitled too receive," which really means, "we want to makes certain we pay you at the lowest possible rate."

Of course any two people who live together may be also considered as "domestic" partners and will also be subject to the lesser, 'couples rate' of welfare payments. How CentreLink deems the relationship is somewhat intrusive in that they can question your neighbours and family to determine how your partnership with someone is regarded, whether you cohabitate with that person or not! There is nothing new in this, heterosexual de facto couples have had this treatment for sometime, the law has simply been extended to same sex couples and is thus seen as a removal of discrimination. The fact that the nature of the extension has caused hardship and is furthering discrimination, is cited by LGTB activists and I find it difficult to disagree with them.

How this affects the visiting or immigrant couples and their children is an interesting line of thought, but I don't know the answer. I do think that many activists are seeing an opportunity to test the laws as discriminatory by exclusion or by inclusion which causes hardship, but it is uncertain and some legal minds, like others, seem manipulative according to their own persuasions. They do however, advise individuals to take out 'Powers of Attorney' to try to maintain your wishes in event of visiting rights at hospitals as well as seeing what procedures to follow in event of medical emergencies in which you are incapacitated. However these too can be overridden by other institutional means. Not likely, but it can happen on state by state basis.

It is a difficult area and any stories using the current laws or confusion thereof would either need to be well researched or fabricated satirically with a measure of sophistication.

Certainly it is opportunity for Monty Pythonesque treatment, but also for much wider and more horrifying 'Brave New World' compounded with Orwellian (1984) scenarios.

I have been working on such a scenario for sometime. It is not all that easy for one simple reason, the situation keeps changing on the cultural and political front almost daily if not hourly on some days.

The human race is very much at a crossroads of culture, technology and planetary abuse. Unfortunately those roads need a compassionate GPS and I can't see that happening anytime soon, even though I think Human Rights should be the basis of such guidance.

On the more personal front of human stories that show the effects of the times in which we live, there are many scenarios that could be explored, in much the same way that the movie Casablanca was a romantic story set against the backdrop of fascism and War.

The possibilities are most inviting if not daunting.

[Graeme]

I could see an interesting (fictional) story come out of a situation like this. What if you had a gay couple with adopted children, who were 100% legal in the United States, come to a country like Australia, where neither their marriage nor the adoptions were recognized? What if one member of the family were critically injured? What if the hospital refused to allow any member of this non-traditional family to visit or help make decisions on their medical care?

This could get very complicated, very quickly.

Someone could write the story, but I would have trouble believing it. I work at the edges of the healthcare industry, and I've visited hospitals enough with my two boys that I know that they are actually very tolerant when it comes to visitation, etc. If someone said they were the next of kin, then that's probably all they need to do -- they don't have to prove it. If the couple were from overseas, the hospital staff would be even less likely to question or interfere.

Of course, with fiction you can get away with anything. I certainly can't comment about all hospitals, but as a general rule I've found that the people who work in the Australian healthcare industry are not intolerant, at least not deliberately so. That, by the way, includes the Catholic-run hospitals (which are very much a minority here in Australia). I personally know of one long-term employee at a Catholic hospital that is openlly gay -- and has no problems (that I know of) at work.

To give more background the law did not explicitly define marriage until fairly recently. There was a case going to the High Court (our equivalent of the Supreme Court of the USA) regarding the recognition of the marriage of a few same-sex couples who had married in Canada. The then government made a quick amendment to the law to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, and the opposition let them because there was an election looming and they didn't want a distraction to what they considered to be the key election issues. It was farcical -- at one point the government had that legislation as a higher priority than anti-terrorism legislation until it was pointed out by the newspapers that they obviously considered same-sex marriage to be a bigger threat to the country than terrorists. The government quickly moved the legislation down the list to just after the proposed anti-terrorism laws.

Allowing same sex marriage would be as simple as repealing that legislation. It only requires a majority vote in the House and Senate and it's done. I don't think the votes are there (assuming the parties allow the politicians to vote their conscience, which I don't expect to happen), but I really don't think it will be that long before there are enough votes for it to happen. New Zealand has civil unions already and I expect that they'll allow same-sex marriage before Australia, but Australia would follow shortly afterwards.