Comments on: Australian Green Senator Sarah Hanson-Young introduces gay marriage bill

By: Nate

Nate — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:15:49 +0000

“While there may be some who will say that the idea of marriage, the name, the title, is the important thing, plenty of people just don’t want queers to have the right to anything but shacking up together.”

Plenty of people don’t want them to even have that right. And some don’t want heterosexuals to have that right either.

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:38:34 +0000

Third Party Revolution, Did you actually read the article ? If you did you would know that its a senator from the Green party who has tabled the marriage bill, not the sex party which does not even have any members in parliament.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:03:29 +0000

There is no way to achieve equality by accepting the beliefs of others while denying our own. I accept the right for others to define marriage as they see fit, just as I will gladly accept the right to define it as I see fit. To say that they can define it, while I can not, is not equality.

I do, however, find the civil union debate a useful litmus test for whether people really are homophobic. For example, in Washington State in the US, a whole lot of rights were added to Civil Unions there. Now people are mobilizing to take those rights away, insisting that they are tantamount to marriage.

While there may be some who will say that the idea of marriage, the name, the title, is the important thing, plenty of people just don’t want queers to have the right to anything but shacking up together.

I also say this as a gay man, and I do not support calling everyone homophobic who has a dissenting opinion.

By: Mihai Bucur

Mihai Bucur — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:34:24 +0000

Jonathan: Why does providing for same-sex marriage entail a violation of someone else’s point of view of beliefs? In Australia, marriage is a civil institution which can be conducted in a civil registry office such as a town hall. Religious groups can also solemnise marriages, but it is up to them which ones they choose to solemnise.

This point needs to be made over and over again. Marriage is NOT a religious institution; indeed, most marriages taking place today do not occur in a Christian church. Thus, I fail to see why “civil unions” should be accepted but “civil marriage” should not.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:07:51 +0000

Well, that falls under the category of “Separate but Equal” and in America at least… that didn’t work out so well because separate is inherently in-equal.

Besides, if a separate “Gay-Union” arrangement is created it will undoubtedly be lacking one or two of the major benefits of marrying.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:59:58 +0000

I think it’s good that there’s equality, but really, why is there such a push for marriage? Can’t you push for equal rights unions?
I mean, I know it’s a small distinction, but if equality can be achieved, whilst respecting what others believe, shouldn’t that be the go ahead?
Isn’t it rather hypocritical to expect people to respect your point of view, if you won’t respect theirs?
Before someone labels this comment as coming from an old fashioned religious zealot… I’ll just put it out there… I’m gay.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:19:16 +0000

It’s great to hear! I really hope Australia allows Marriage equality. There is enough discrimination in this world.

By: Third Party Revolution

Third Party Revolution — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:35:58 +0000

I am not really surprised that this was published by the Australian Sex Party.

By: Catholic Trotskyist

Catholic Trotskyist — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:33:39 +0000

Not good.