Good on you Jon Stanhope

This was on the website of The Canberra Times today:





Kevin Boreham and Edwin Ho made an official commitment to each other at Canberra’s first ceremony for a same-sex civil partnership at the carillon yesterday. Picture: KATE LEITH

It's not a marriage. It's a "commitment ceremony".

But although a legal marriage is still not recognised in the ACT, I commend the Stanhope government for their dogged position on the issue.

"The ACT’s first same-sex civil partnerships were registered in May after the ACT Government, under pressure from federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland, gave up on its bid to enshrine gay civil unions into law.

Mr McClelland had argued the ACT Bill mimicked marriage.

Threatened with the overturning by the Federal Government of the ACT legislation, Mr Corbell reluctantly accepted a compromise that would allow same-sex couples to register their relationship and have a ceremony paid for by taxpayers, but without any legal recognition.

Mr Corbell and Chief Minister Jon Stanhope were scathing in their criticism of federal Labor for reversing assurances it would allow state and territory governments to decide their own position on same sex unions.

Couples have four options for registering their partnership under the amended legislation, from simply handing in the paperwork, to the commitment ceremony.

A spokeswoman for gay lobby group Good Process, Heidi Yates, said while she was still disappointed in the Federal Government’s turnaround on same-sex unions, she welcomed the provisions the ACT Government had made for a ceremony in the registration process.

"Providing for an administrative official to be present is significant because it confirms the fact that all relationships, regardless of gender, are recognised at ACT law, and that we value loving, committed relationships of all couples, regardless of gender," she said.

The National Indigenous Times ran an opinion piece by Dr Paul Vout on the matter:

When interviewed by Kerry O'Brien on The 7:30 Report, McClelland was asked why maintaining the prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples (available in Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa and New York State) was not discrimination.

Despite the spilling of much verbiage, noted by O'Brien at the time, McClelland simply did not answer.

Yet the answer was simple: 'It is discrimination, but we're going to keep that discrimination anyway.'

That is regrettable, but probably a political reality for the moment. What was perhaps more disappointing, however, was the Attorney's statement that the Rudd Government was opposed to not just same-sex marriage, but also anything which "mimicked" marriage.

Besides the pejorative use of the word "mimicked", the sentiment expressed amounts to a declaration that same-sex couples should not expect Labor to introduce civil unions, as has happened in New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

They should not expect to have their relationships recognized at the highest level, even though they are not called a 'marriage'.

Once again, this sentiment fails to recognise the fact that marriage is not just a religious and social institution. It is a legal - even a constitutional - institution.

To deprive that institution, or an equivalent 'civil union', to a substantial group of Australians because some find the notion of gay couples repugnant, is indefensible.

I find the bigoted comments of many religious and social conservatives repugnant, but I would not deprive them of the institution of freedom of speech or the right to practice their religion.

One group of Australians should never be permitted to deny fundamental legal rights and institutions to any other group on the basis of prejudice, tradition or even religion.

That is called 'oppression'.

At least it's a start. Although it is still outrageous that gay marriage is still so opposed, I know Australia must walk before it can crawl.

We must take the small steps before we do a California. Click here for background.