Australia Bans Same Sex Marriages

Australia's conservative government introduced legislation to ban same-sex marriages and wants immigration rules to stop gays and lesbians from adopting foreign children.
Prime Minister John Howard, who is struggling in opinion polls ahead of an election expected later this year, announced changes to the country's marriage law on Thursday.
The amendments are all but certain to be enacted by Parliament after the opposition Labor Party declared its support. The process should take several weeks.
<snip>
In a concession to gays and lesbians, the government has also announced that same-sex partners will be recognized for the first time by federal authorities as dependents.
<snip>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4138064,00.html

This is horrible. If I were in Australia I don't know if I would vote for them. Perhaps the Greens instead. This is a monumental blunder and they might lose the election by opposing the LGBT community so blatantly and disrespectfully.

So, you could rank another party first but still put Labor ahead of the Liberal party and therefore not really hurt Labor, at least not as much as voting for a Green hurts here. Also, Australia has proportional voting for Senate so there you could also vote for another party and not help conservatives.

The Australian form of government is so much better than our own.

...and Latham and the ALP have lost my vote because of this homophobic stand they are taking.

I was an anyone but Howard girl, but with this whole marriage mess coming up, I am now against any person who shows such disrespect for my community.

I really don't give a shit anymore. The country is gonna go to hell in a hand basket no matter if Howard gets back in or Latham wins.

edited to put things back:

"The amendments are all but certain to be enacted by Parliament after the opposition Labor Party declared its support. The process should take several weeks. "


Not surprising, since this is the country that:
- forcibly disarmed its citzens
- shipped boatloads of immigrants to a south pacific concentration camp, lest they sully the pristine beaches, then abandonded those camp resident to mercenary guards
- has yet to see a Bush family scheme that it doesn't sign up for (Iraq I & II)

Lol...

Only an American could whine about an almost universally approved Australian law banning firarms unless they're for work or sport.

There was hardly a single "forced" disarming, except for a few right-wing militia types.

And there hasn't been a single mass shooting in Australia since weapons were removed from the general community.

So take your legal- in- the- US Uzi 9mm and stick it where the sun don't shine, because 95% of the Australian population supports the ban on guns.

and misleading. The headline makes it sound as if it's already happened, but the first sentence says that the legislation has just been introduced today. Even though the article says that passage is "all but certain," it hasn't actually passed yet.

from a country that just 15 years ago went after people who endorsed women to become ministers of the church (e.g., Anglican).

While I for one do not agree with what the Howard government and the Latham ALP are doing to MY country, I certainly don't like seeing attacks like yours.

You need to take a look at the U.S's back door before saying things like that.

What I said is based on my personal contacts with Australians. I personally know the first Australian woman (Rev. Joanne Claring-Bould) who was ordained by the Anglican church and the monstrously hateful shitstorm that occurred as a result. Not to mention the Shielas who tell me how much they prefer US/Canadian men to Aussie men due to the higher level of male chauvinism Down Under. Granted there are many decent Aussie men, but I daresay that the degree of sexism differs between our countries.

or visiting for that matter.

What's the story in New Zealand?

but NZ is determined to make life miserable for horny teenagers:

Teens face tough new underage sex penalty

Teenagers who have consensual sex between the age of 14 and 16 face longer maximum jail terms - of up to 10 years - following the Government's decision to drop the proposed similar-age defence.

The new maximum jail term will be three years longer than it is under current laws.
<snip>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3568665&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

To me, this suggests a somewhat downbeat attitude towards sexuality.

the lives of it's young people like that.
my god that is stunning.

i mean -- not as in that's a stunning out fit -- oh never mind..

Sounds like a recipe for sexual neurosis.

it means they can't marry, yes, but the law DOES allow for same sex partners to have access to each others' superannuation, or what you guys would call 401(k)s. Included in this are a lot of other rights, just no 'marriage' by name.

It sucks, and I'm surprised Labor went along with it. But the important thing is that it's NOT the same as what Bush wants to do. Over here in Australia, the Common Law, passed down from England and modified over the last century, has ALWAYS defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This law is just affirming that. It can be changed JUST AS EASILY by an act of Parliament. (Aside from that, the law will face a challenge in the High Court anyway)

This does not involve an AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, which is much more serious. This is not as far-reaching and nearly-permanent as what Bush wants to do. Important to remember that. I'm not saying it's good, but don't let people in the US say, "Well Australia's more liberal than America and even *they* banned gay marriage." It's not the same kind of ban.

I don't know enough about Australian constitutional law to give any sort of informed opinion, but in Canada the Supreme Court has been quite involved in this issue. Essentially, it falls under the charter of rights.

On edit:

"In the past, Howard has said he believes marriage is for procreation."

At what point does he think non-procreative marriages should be annulled by the state, then?

State laws on marriage supercede federal laws anyway, according to the Australian constitution.

Any state that votes to legalize marriage in Australia can do so, and its laws will supercede the federal one banning it.

They'd have to change the Australian constitution to alter that, and they don't have a chance in hell of passing a referendum successfully