That the injustice might continue due to the bigoted opinions of the public.
That's a pretty arrogant position imo, you are implying that the majority of the public are bigots. What is your evidence for that ? .
Also, goo people can be swayed by logical fallacies put forward by bigots, you only have to look at FB posts to see that.
Apologies if i missed this somewhere in the discussion, but what will be the difference between a civil union, such as it is, and marriage, such as is proposed?
Apologies if i missed this somewhere in the discussion, but what will be the difference between a civil union, such as it is, and marriage, such as is proposed?
What Is Marriage? Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses.
What Is a Civil Union? A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level.
Would the Australian public be happy if they were denied marriage, and instead only offered a "Civil union".
I guess you can argue that the back seat of the bus goes to the same destination as the front seat, so denying blacks the right to sit at the front seat is ok, because they should just be happy with the back seat, because it gets them to the destination. Would you accept a law that restricts blacks from sitting in certain seats on the bus? I mean they still get to ride the bus.
As, Luutzu pointed out, there obviously is a difference, other wise people wouldn't be trying to restrict gays to civil unions.
-------------------------
***Is there a legal difference?***
no skin off my nose
I am not implying that they are, I don't know if they are or not, I am just saying that if they are, then they vote may be no, which is a risk that we shouldn't have to take.
.
It's called democracy. .
Who said marriage was a fundamental right anyway ?
De-facto relationships have the same legal recognition as marriages. It's no big deal.
In my view this is a case of lgbtis wanting to prove they are the same as everyone else, when in fact they are not in one important area.
But anyway, I prefer to trust the good sense of the voters rather than some of the people we end up with as politicians.
De facto relationships and family law
This fact sheet provides information about the laws affecting de facto couples. The laws cover property division, maintenance, financial agreements and the superannuation of people in de facto relationships. All de facto couples have the same rights as married couples under the Family Law Act in relation to the distribution of property. Same-sex relationships are included within the definition of 'de facto couple' in federal laws. The Child Support (Assessment) Act also applies to same-sex couples.
It's very sad that the americans are more progressive than Australians are on this issue.
Much like women and blacks being afforded equal rights, equal rights being afforded to same-sex individuals is inevitable, and I'm surprised so many still try and get in the way of it. It's a selfish, crusty and outdated attitude. In the not too distant future those who still oppose it will be in the very small minority, as most will realise that gay marriage actually has no negative implications on the rest of society.
As has been pointed out, same-sex couples are already recognised as defacto and can already adopt and raise a child....so where is the issue? Are we worried that we might accidentally drive past a wedding ceremony involving two people of the same sex, and the distraction will cause one to veer off the road in horror?
Who said marriage was a fundamental right anyway ?
.
De-facto relationships have the same legal recognition as marriages. It's no big deal.
In my view this is a case of lgbtis wanting to prove they are the same as everyone else, when in fact they are not in one important area.
It's very sad that the americans are more progressive than Australians are on this issue.
Much like women and blacks being afforded equal rights, equal rights being afforded to same-sex individuals is inevitable, and I'm surprised so many still try and get in the way of it. It's a selfish, crusty and outdated attitude. In the not too distant future those who still oppose it will be in the very small minority, as most will realise that gay marriage actually has no negative implications on the rest of society.
As has been pointed out, same-sex couples are already recognised as defacto and can already adopt and raise a child....so where is the issue? Are we worried that we might accidentally drive past a wedding ceremony involving two people of the same sex, and the distraction will cause one to veer off the road in horror?
Xenophon's preference has always been a parliamentary vote.It's scary how the politicians want the public taken out of every decision making process, and they just assume they have a God given right to speak for us on every subject. Nick Xenophon has now decided to oppose a plebiscite. Was this an election platform that he ran on ? If it was I didn't see it. Pollies seem to think they can say "vote for me, I'll decide later what is best for you".
I've had a gutful of that sort of thing.
Which area is that?
Xenophon's preference has always been a parliamentary vote.
His policy platform was based on supporting marriage equality, but his underlying principle is to achieve this (and other legislative decisions) by doing it in the most straight forward, cost effective manner.
I honestly don't see why it's such a big deal (or a surprise) that he has decided not to compromise his principles.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?