The collapse of civilisation – part II

In a move that further advances the collapse of civilisation, federal parliament last night passed the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws Superannuation) Bill 2008, honouring a commitment made during the election last year – how dare they actually do something like keep a promise. Don’t they know about hard-core and soft-core promsies?

The bill – which was based on the recommendations that were tabled in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities report presented to the Howard government – is the first step in removing around 58 pieces of discriminatory legislation from federal laws. Another law was sent back to the lower house for some technical amendments.

Liberal senator George Brandis said to parliament:

It’s a shame that these reforms were not undertaken by the previous Liberal government.

Hear hear.

Now for some this change is meaningless, for others (like myself) it means that I am beginning to feel less than a second-class citizen.

Kudos to Penny Wong.


23 Responses

  1. People should be aware that the superannuation changes are not applicable to non-government superannuation companies – it remains a voluntary thing for them.

  2. Fair enough SB. But it is a start!

  3. Joni, I’m more concerned that it’s the end.

    The hypocrisy in arguing these changes will end discrimination but still disallowing same-sex marriage is what has turned me off the Rudd govt so much.

  4. The Rudd Govts (and the ALP opposition’s) position on same sex marriage, or rather the change in the definition of marriage to specify ‘between a man and a woman’ was a concession to the radical right.

    Not one of the ALP’s finer moments.

  5. I agree it’s a very positive move. I also agree that it is not the only step that should be made to end same-sex discrimination. Hopefully, more action in this area will be taken in the not-too-distant future.

  6. Long time gay activist Rodney Croome writes about this on his blog today:

  7. It’s typical of the MSM to report this as “Government refuses to allow same sex marriage” rather than acknowldge that the Government is removing discrimination against same-sex couples in some 100 areas”

    One step at a time…

  8. reb

    yep – we need to take baby-dance-steps.

  9. How long between steps, Joni & Reb?

    There’s only been two in my lifetime: decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1984 (NSW) and the federal change passed yesterday.

    We’ve only got this far by activism not by sitting back and waiting for pollies to do anything.

    I would like to be an Australian citizen with the same rights as other citizens before I die.

  10. I am with reb on this issue. It’s all about not wanting to frighten the horses. This is just me, but I think that the way to go is to be reassuring to the general public that relationships are normal in every way and so the conclusion is that it is discrimination that is the bogey man. Yes agreed Sans, militancy, but softly.

    Re marriage, earlier on there was far too much publicity about churches being ‘forced to’ marry gay couples. Anything wrong with a civil ceremony for gay couples? To me, once civil ceremonies are in place then it won’t take much time for some religions to come on board..some will..some will never accept gay marriage and that is the perogative of that particular religion.

    Re above, I would be pushing for gay civil registrations (the same as oppositive sex civil registrations) as the term ‘marriage’ gets mixed up with religion.

  11. Hi Min,

    In Australia marriage is a function of the state. A priest, minister, iman, rabbi or whatever cannot marry you unless they are licensed by the state to do so.

    The marriage certificate issued by religious organisation is not a legal document for proof of marriage; only the certificate issued by the each state’s Dept of BD & Ms is.

    I’ve never come across anyone or any organisation insisting that religious bodies would be forced to marry same-sex couples just as they are now exempt from most discrimination laws.

    A couple legally joined, whether at the registry office or in a hot air balloon at 2000 ft, by licensed celebrant are considered to be married by the state.

    What gets me hot about this, is that I saw AG McClelland when he announced the legislation to change the 100 odd pieces of discriminatory federal legislation arguing that discrimination based on sexuality was a bad thing and in the next breath stating that the govt would continue with the current same-sex marriage discrimination. The hypocrisy just makes me sick. Either the govt is there to govern for all Australians or it isn’t. I wonder if Hawke or Keating were the prime minister they would have the guts to tackle the issue now. I don’t like Rudd’s use of religion in his job (how many interviews does he do outside a church? Do you hear him announce his attendance at church last Sunday while at the conference in Peru? Who gives a shit about his religion except when he (and other god-botherers) use it to justify public policy?

    Although specifically referencing the recent Prop 8 in California, Keith Olbermann from MSNBC argues it better than I can:

  12. Hi Sans..yes I know. Civil Registration was introduced to England and therefore to Australia circa 1856 and prior to that all bd&ms were church registrations.

    The point that I was trying to make (which I obviously did badly) is that when a lot of people read headlines stating Gay Marriage that their 1st impression is forcing churches to marry people. This impression has been reinforced by a number of shrill comments from members of the clergy. What’s the bet that if someone put a poll online reading: Do you agree with gay marriage? But would you agree to gay civil registrations? that the answer to Qu1 would be 65-35 against but that answer to Qu2 would be 75-25 for. That is, there isn’t much understanding out there re the difference but when people see the word ‘marriage’, they think the word ‘church’. Hence my comment that I would pushing for Gay Civil Registration rather than the more commonly used term Gay Marriage.

    The world is changing very quickly me’thinks and that the power of the fundamentalists is waning..the election of Julia Gillard non-married person helping a lot.

  13. I still reckon we call it a Gayriage and be done with it.

    I cannot see what the problem is, why do the breeders want to keep all the misery of marriage to themselves? Let us be miserable too. LOL

  14. Excusez moi joni there are ladies in the audience…humpff a breeder, double humpff.

  15. Oops… breeder means both sexes (that is heteros).. but I now see the problem with me using that term and will now restist in the future.

    Sorry for any offence.

  16. That’s ok sweetie. Ok so I’m a heteros..or some’fin’. I thought that I was Min.

  17. I will stop digging.



  18. Good choice joni. You are on dangerous ground. Why am I categorised as a breeder/hetero but I don’t catagorise you and partner now do I… Stern looks from Min.

    But on the other hand, you are very cute and an excellent friend.

  19. min, i was being flippant and am sorry for offense.

    And yes – we still squishy friends.

  20. Yes me too being flippant. Let’s join hands and dance off into the sunset and give everyone (especially reb) a ewww moment ;-)).

  21. What evidence have these two loonies produced to support their claims? None except their prejudices, it seems.
    They are a disgrace and should be removed from their positions as health ambassadors immediately, frogmarched to the stocks and pelted with Coogee sundaes!
    After that, they should be confined in a mental institution with Nurse Ratched as their care-giver and have Christopher Pyne as their sole visitor!
    And if that’s not punishment enough we should run a national competition to find a more suitable punishment for the buggers!

  22. One of them has been given the flick.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: