Doug PollardMassachusetts, California...Tasmania?
June 20th 2008 20:40
Tasmanian devil - he bites!
The devil's in the details, as Tasmania moves to legalise same-sex marriage.
One of the rather trite aphorisms that run through “Lord of The Rings” is “Evil will may evil mar” – or, to put it less floridly, actions undertaken with bad intent may in practice contribute to good outcomes.
One such example seems to be the mean-spirited pandering to religious extremists indulged in by John Howard and the late coalition government. In order to keep these somewhat odiferous individuals onside - and if you think I’m being unkind, don’t forget they include Johns good buddies the Exclusive Brethren, who prefer not to educate their women, make them wear headscarves and walk three paces behind them, ban newspapers, computers and television, forbid all their members to vote, and don’t allow their children to go to university, and the Australian Christian Lobby, who knowingly spread inaccurate and discredited propaganda about gays and lesbians – the late and unlamented government amended the Marriage Act to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
They meant to make it difficult, if not impossible, for Australian gays and lesbians to ever get married. In fact, they may have achieved the opposite.
That’s because of the way the Australian constitution works. It contains a list of things that only Canberra can legislate about – but marriage isn’t one of them. Until 1961 Australians were married under state law: after that, marriage was regulated under the federal Marriage Act – not the constitution.
So long as the Marriage Act didn’t specify what marriage actually was, then all possible marriages, same or opposite sex, were a federal matter.
Then Howard changed the Marriage Act to define marriage as heterosexual only. A state law legalizing same-sex marriage would not now conflict with federal law.
Constitutional expert Professor George Williams explains.
“Until 2004, it was arguable that the federal marriage law was so broad that it covered the field with regard to marriage so as to leave no room at all for state or territory laws.
“However, amendments that year by the Howard government made it absolutely clear that Commonwealth law should be taken only to extend to marriage for people of different sexes and not at all to same-sex partnerships. It now provides that ‘marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’.
“By setting out so clearly the only type of marriage to fall under federal law, the change ironically created an opening for state and territory laws on other forms of marriage.
“It will be interesting to see if any state takes the opportunity to legislate not just for civil unions with public ceremonies, but same-sex marriage. The Federal Government would not have the easy option of vetoing such a law.”
Tasmania may be about to test the Professor’s theory, with the issue of this statement by the Green Party.
The Tasmanian Greens have announced an intention to table legislation to provide for same-sex marriage in Tasmania when the House of Assembly resumes on July 1st.
Greens Deputy Leader Nick McKim MP said that the Same Sex Marriage Bill 2008 is based on values like respect and tolerance, which he said most Tasmanians would share.
“If we are fair dinkum about removing discrimination we should give all Tasmanians access to the fundamental institutions of our society, including marriage,” Mr McKim said.
“There is no such thing as ‘mostly equal’, and until legislators provide same-sex couples with access to all civil institutions we will continue to discriminate against large numbers of people who deserve much better.”
“Recent progress on same-sex marriage in places like California has shown that there is nothing to fear and everything to be gained by this kind of progressive initiative.”
“Most Tasmanians share the values of tolerance and respect on which this legislation is based.”
“This legislation would grant rights not currently enjoyed by couples registered under Tasmania’s very good Relationships Act 2004, including equal rights to adopt.”
The Bill will probably fail, but the hope is that before it does, there will be a full parliamentary enquiry into the issue which may establish whether Professor Williams is right or not.
| 50 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
I did read, years ago, that some rich gays in the USA were dead against gay marriage being recognized, for obvious selfish reasons.
For me, it is all about being recognized as a family member/partner, when someone is in hospital or dying. I have known of gays being refused access to their injured and/or dying friend, in the good ole days, because they were not relatives, probably becuase the family told the hospital not to allow anyone but them in.
Then there was the revenge of the family, once the partner died, by refusing them to come to the funeral, and locking them out of the home and seizing all the deceased's possessions.
A friend of mine whose partner had died suddenly and unexpectantly, paid for the funeral, then was denied access to the funeral and any of his aprtner's possessions. my friend was a wealthy boy, so it wasn't as if he was trying to rip anyone off, merely collect a few momentoes he shared, and in fact bought himslef, for his dead partner.
I myself was denied access to the funeral of a guy I was in love with. The latent homphobia and hatred always comes to the surface in these circumstances.
cheers
fog