?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Wed, Apr. 30th, 2008, 07:02 pm
Good news for a change!

I never would have expected this from the previous government, but my hopes were not high for this one either: the federal government is overhauling laws about gay couples to remove discrimination against them in laws relating to tax, social security and superannuation. As the article is at pains to point out, this will also result in less benefits in relation to social security but that's only fair--legal recognition cuts both ways.

But there's more! Even though this has long been official Liberal Party policy as well they would never dare to enact it for fear of enraging the powerful Christian Right. But a lot of the Christian Right's lustre must have worn off after the election; they pulled out all stops to save the Liberals at the last election (crucifixes aplenty were in evidence among Liberal party workers on election day) but it wasn't enough. The opposition leader, after pressing the usual hot button issues (marriage, adoption, IVF) is cautiously promising to support the bill. If he is true to his word, this leaves Family First's one senator powerless to stop it. *suppresses an urge to gloat*

Wed, Apr. 30th, 2008 01:05 pm (UTC)
guma_kawauso

I read about this yesterday from ABC.

My question is how do you feel? I mean it's not marriage, but it is a form of protection.

And lastly, a though about the crucifix. They are nothing more than Roman Electric Chairs. XD

Wed, Apr. 30th, 2008 09:06 pm (UTC)
marko_the_rat

Marriage is a Christian ritual that's not of interest to us. (In spite of the way I might have sounded in my post, I'm just non-Christian, not anti-Christian. It's the abuse of religion that the Christian Right and Family First are guilty of that I object to.) But if and when they bring in registration for gay couples we'll look at that. We want to formalise our love for each other.

Wed, Apr. 30th, 2008 10:09 pm (UTC)
tania

What upsets me slightly is that they're insisting they won't allow any kind of formal ceremony for gay couples. To me it feels like sweeping it all under the rug; they'll allow you to register (in a mechanical, bureacratic kind of way) but not really celebrate the ocassion in any formal sense. Eh... :\

My boy and I aren't too keen on the Christian rite of marriage either and were thinking of getting 'married' eventually via a civil union, and then we did some research and discovered just how few options there are in that area.

Thu, May. 1st, 2008 10:15 am (UTC)
marko_the_rat

That's okay, Ristin and I can make up our own furry ceremony when the times comes. It will be furry... yet tasteful. ;)

Wed, Apr. 30th, 2008 01:56 pm (UTC)
twigmouse

Take THAT family first! :-)

Wed, Apr. 30th, 2008 08:08 pm (UTC)
porsupah

It's been wonderful to see reports of this come in. ^_^ Of course, it'll take more than most of the civilised world accepting that sexuality has nothing to do with one being a good or bad person to convince the bigots, who still seem to hold a fair degree of power in the US (though not as much as they might like, judging by Shrub's ratings), but excellent news nonetheless.

(And why do groups like "Family First" and "American Family Association" seem to promote the idea that no family can include anyone who isn't purely heterosexual? Do they really know no families that get on perfectly well with various members of the family, direct and extended, being bi, gay, or anything else? It's a subtle bit of framing)

Thu, May. 1st, 2008 10:17 am (UTC)
marko_the_rat

I'm automatically wary of any group that claims to be upholding "family values". It always seems to be a smokescreen for something else.

Thu, May. 1st, 2008 03:15 pm (UTC)
royal_dog

sounds like a step in the right direction!