The Law Marriage Equality III

Remove this Banner Ad

Caesar said:
Really? I wasn't aware that her position was ever different to what it is now. Got a link or something?
Click to expand...
She is a foundation member of Emily's List Australiaand co-writerof their charter.
I posted a copy on another thread sometime ago.
I'll try track down a link.

Not word for word from the charter,it is much clearer and succinct,but this is from th website headed "What we believe in"

Equity
We strongly believe in the right of every woman to enjoy equal rights and privileges before the law, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. This is because equality is a fundamental human right that should be enjoyed by all.
Click to expand...

I also posted a few links to other comments on the subject from Gillard which clearly demonstrated her stance pre-leadership, which again I would have to dig up.
 
I wish the Govt would just allow gay marriage and be done with it. I'm yet to hear a rational argument against it. Who cares if two blokes or sheilas get married? There are millions of them living together in relationships all over the place and it has been going on for centuries. It just seems so stupid to me that there is still this kind of prejudice in the world when we actively steer our kids away from prejudicial behavior. It's a bloody ring on a bloody finger and a bloody bit of paper. Get over it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

This post to those who say they are not homophobic but are against gay marriage. Homophobes need not respond. I am aware of your position.

This weekend my partner flew up to Cairns for his nephew's wedding. I was not invited as I haven't met his nephew yet. That was fine with me, as I didn't particularly want to go and I had to stay and look after our dogs anyway. The thing that bothered me was that my partner's brother's wife was invited. She had not met the nephew either. But they just assumed that the wife would want to accompany her husband. That same assumption wasn't made for me. The family are not homophobic and have actually been very welcoming. Yet I feel that our relationship wasn't affirmed like my partner's brother was. Gay marriage is about affirmation and validation.
 
Caesar said:
You can be in favour of equal legal rights for homosexuals without being in favour of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Nah, not really.
 
Caesar said:
Of course you can. There are very, very few people who oppose equal legal rights for gay couples. The opposition is towards labelling those rights 'marriage'.
Click to expand...
Then, there can be no "equal" legal right if gays are legally barred from marriage. Doesn't make sense. That's not 'equal' in law at all.
Nor does it make for social equality.
The legal rights are only one part of the equation. Another is social the inclusion.
That is a big part of the whole issue. "You can have a little union of your own and we'll allow all the same legal rights - except to legally marry".
"Now, don't you feel 'included'?"
That is creating a barrier: not unlike allowing blacks to travel on public transport - as long as they give up their seat to a white!
 
Monniehawk said:
Then, there can be no "equal" legal right if gays are legally barred from marriage. Doesn't make sense. That's not 'equal' in law at all.
Click to expand...
If homosexual couples have access to a legal framework that confers legal rights identical to what heterosexual couples obtain through marriage, that is legal equality. Whether it is called marriage or not is legally of no consequence.
 
Caesar said:
Of course you can. There are very, very few people who oppose equal legal rights for gay couples. The opposition is towards labelling those rights 'marriage'.
Click to expand...

But rights won't be equal til marriage is available to everyone so your argument falls flat on its face.
 
Raskolnikov said:
But rights won't be equal til marriage is available to everyone so your argument falls flat on its face.
Click to expand...
I've been through this in this thread previously. It depends on your perspective on what the word 'marriage' means.

For those who believe marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, the concept of gay marriage is an oxymoron. Even if they are fully in favour of equal treatment of homosexuals, they cannot grant your request because in their eyes what you are asking does not make sense. It would be like me, a 100% Angloceltic Australian, saying that I don't have equal rights until I can call myself Aboriginal.
 
Caesar said:
If homosexual couples have access to a legal framework that confers legal rights identical to what heterosexual couples obtain through marriage, that is legal equality. Whether it is called marriage or not is legally of no consequence.
Click to expand...
Yep, it is, actually!
It would be illegal - or at least, not legally recognised - to call it 'marriage'.
Therefore, it ain't legally equal! It is actually legally differentiated.
And that legal differentiation just further authorises social exclusion.
Can't you see that one actually validates the other?
 
Monniehawk said:
Yep, it is, actually!
It would be illegal - or at least, not legally recognised - to call it 'marriage'.
Therefore, it ain't legally equal! It is actually legally differentiated.
Click to expand...
You do understand what legal rights are, don't you?

If heterosexual and homosexual unions are treated equally under the law, there is no legal differentiation. The terminology used in statute is irrelevant.
 
Caesar said:
You can be in favour of equal legal rights for homosexuals without being in favour of gay marriage.
Click to expand...
A given, but as I said I have linked to other comments Gillard made pre-Prime Minister which indicate her support for Gay marriage.
As I also said I will track these down a soon as I can along with the actual charter of Emily's List which also supports Gay Marriage.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Caesar said:
You do understand what legal rights are, don't you?

If heterosexual and homosexual unions are treated equally under the law, there is no legal differentiation. The terminology used in statute is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
If that were actually the case no Gays would be lobbying to be recognized equally under the law. No?
 
Caesar said:
You do understand what legal rights are, don't you?

If heterosexual and homosexual unions are treated equally under the law, there is no legal differentiation. The terminology used in statute is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Legally maybe, ideologically no. Any union called anything else other than marriage will always be seen as inferior by mainstream society.
 
Raskolnikov said:
Legally maybe, ideologically no. Any union called anything else other than marriage will always be seen as inferior by mainstream society.
Click to expand...

Not inferior but different
  • The main function of marriage has been for the public affirmation of a monogamous relationship for the purposes of raising a family. A man and another man are never going to have sex and produce a baby.
  • Women usually change their surname to the man's or a joint name when they get married; because it means all the family has the same name - again irrelevant to two men in a relationship.
  • The research shows that it is the norm in long term gay relationships for sexual activity outside the relationship. And why would they be monogamous?
Even if 'gay marriage' was legalised it would still be seen as different by mainstream society. Because it is.
 
All a moot argument now anyway.
It's inevitable, simply waiting for the right time and impetus.
We'll probably have to wait until Abbott loses the next, next election as it won't happen on his watch no matter what percentage of the people want it.
 
Caesar said:
Being in favour of a legal framework providing substantive equality that doesn't use the word marriage.
Click to expand...

we should do the same with "blacks", "redheads", "people with no front teeth" and "fat people" and tell them they can have a legal framework providing substantive equality but can't use the word marriage.

they should have no issue with it and feel special that we have a unique carve out for them which almost treats them the same as everyone else
 
Caesar said:
I am not arguing for or against it.

I am saying that legal rights are dependent upon their substantive impact, not what you call them in whichever statute bestows them.
Click to expand...

I hear where you are coming from but can't help but think its like making blacks sit at the back of a bus or use separate toilets.

They still get a seat but just not the same as the rest of us.


I can't think of another example which gives gays, women, coloured or the aged the same substantive rights/ impact but under different pieces of legislation. I am sure there are but I just can't think of one. Do you know of any?
 
It's quite common in relation to children, because most law does not recognise minors. For example, in NSW there is separate legislation that gives children between 16 and 18 the same right as any adult to consent to their own medical treatment.

There's more than you think floating around. Up until a few years ago, a woman's right to vote and hold public office in NSW was enshrined separately to men in the Legal Status Of Women Act. It only disappeared as part of a wider consolidation of a whole lot of electoral legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ibd77
  • Locked
World War III, Is It Inevitable?
Replies
5
Views
583
Gethelred
Gethelred

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top