Same-sex some rights

“You’re elected as a secular political leader. What I have by way of a private religious belief, I’ve always been up-front about that.” Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told the ABC’s new political talk-back program Q&A last Thursday night.

The emphasis on secular government is an important one in a world brought to the brink of religious extremism – a virtual facedown of jihadists and a George Bush-championed religious right.

According to the founding principals of western democracy there is an absolute distinction between the functions of church and state and Australia is often boastful of a particularly clear and pronounced secularism, a moniker of pride in a multi-cultural world.

In late 2005 the revival of the abortion debate by then-Health Minister Tony Abbott heralded a worrying blurring of those lines. No matter an individual’s personal views on the highly controversial topic, a government mandated moral judgment seemed inappropriate for a nation that has permitted legal terminations for over 30 years.

Given the supposed social liberalism of the new Rudd Government; as exhibited by the ‘Sorry’ speech on February 12 of this year, by Kevin Rudd’s acknowledgement of indigenous forefathers at the commencement of every speech, positions taken on childcare and parental leave and on the environment; it may appear incongruous that there remains a deliberate refusal to acknowledge same-sex marriage. It seems particularly bizarre given Mr Rudd presides over the first federal government to include an openly gay minister.

In moves commended by queer lobby groups and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), the Federal Government is set to make over 90 legislative changes to remove discriminatory aspects in law that have previously disadvantaged same-sex couples in Australia, in line with recommendations made in an HREOC report from June 2006 called Same-Sex: Same Entitlements.

Commenting on his department’s commitment to this reform, Attorney-General Robert McClelland stated, “The changes will provide for equality of treatment under a wide range of Commonwealth laws between same-sex and opposite-sex de facto couples.” However, despite the official Labor policy not to interfere with legislation passed by individual states and territories, and their opposition to the Howard Government’s overturn of the ACT Civil Unions Act of 2006, they have used the Territories Act to disallow same-sex unions in that state.

With the first of the legislative reforms due to be tabled in Federal Parliament tomorrow, TheVine caught up with Heidi Yates from the Good Process Lobby Group in Canberra. “We were very disappointed by this turn around on civil partnerships,” she said. “Our community consultation, which we have carried out over five years, clearly indicated that a legal ceremony is important to couples, both personally and more broadly in tackling social discrimination.

“Their position really flew in the face of the wishes of the ACT community, which were very clear, and also the right of the ACT Government to determine policy and pass legislation for the people of Canberra. The Stanhope Government had gone to the last election with part of its policy platform very clearly stating that they would legislate to give equality to all couples regardless of gender. They were returned with the largest majority ever held in the ACT Legislative Assembly, so clearly they had a mandate to do this work.

“If this legislation did breach the Marriage Act then [the Federal Government] had the right to challenge that law in the High Court. Rather than doing that they took the back route of threatening to overturn it with the Territories Act. It was incredibly disappointing.”

Perhaps there is simply a failure on the part of the present and past federal governments to understand the demand for a comparable, formal, legal alternative to the traditional bonds of ‘holy matrimony’. “People really feel it is important to have a social declaration and a ceremonial component in the legislation,” Yates continued. “We know, anecdotally, that an increasing proportion of the population is choosing not to marry because they see it as a religious institution or an institution that has a history of oppressing women. Having a national scheme which is an alternative to marriage and does not have all the historical and religious connotations that marriage has, but that is a state institution that gives couples all the same legal rights and obligations would give all couples in Australia more options when it comes to how they go about structuring their lives and relationships.”

She considers that the New Zealand model, which provides comprehensive legal parity across all legislation for all registered couples, is one that we can aspire to here in Australia. She considered, “At this stage they haven’t formally proposed a national relationships registry, but certainly that would be a very big step forward in terms of creating equity for all couples, regardless of gender.”

By Rachael Bolton

• Currently 5/5 Stars.
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5