Same Sex marriage

[Minx]

WA is the latest place to be raising it's hand on the hotly debated issue of same sex marriage..well,  the ALP has passed a Motion in support of it.

Remains to be seen as to whether it will make it to the platform of Policy for the next State Election

The West Australian Labor Party has passed a motion supporting same-sex marriage in a move which will put greater pressure on the federal government to back the changes.

However the motion, supported by WA Labor leader Eric Ripper, came under attack from party heavyweights during the state conference in Perth on Saturday.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/9708874/wa-labor-backs-same-sex-marriage/

Given that in 2010 there were a tad over 47,000 divorces in the hetrosexual community where marriage is the norm in 2008, I tend to suspect that amongst a group who have striven for legal recognition, the rate would be somehat less
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/info/charts/divorce/numberdivorces.html

I can also see the diehard religious coming out in droves declaiming the idea and screaming themselves hoarse over the Sacrament of marriage and it's holiness.

[Senexx]

How do you shut conservatives up about gay marriage, you create a separate Act called the Gay Marriage Act or LGBTI Actand in that act give them all the same rights and responsibilities as in the Marriage Act.

Now watch the Gay Marriage proponents of different Gay politics fight it over that one. On one side we'll have its about the ceremony and on the other its about equal rights, the latter should be accepting of a Gay Marriage/LGBTI Act but whether they are or not, I'll turn it over to any of them here.

[Minx]

Not a bad idea

Any pollies reading right now? Think about it...a potential political winner

Maybe.I can still se some whinning about discrimination and the need for one Act

[jen]

I like it too... kinda obvious...

[Crankenstein]

I disagree with having a different type of marriage for heterosexual and homosexual people. Ideally I think it should be all under the one hat.

But that's my idea of Ideal...

In order to satisfy everyone I think the best way of doing things would be to have Holy Matrimony and Civil Union.

Holy Matrimony for all the Religious/Conservative types.

Civil Unions for everyone else - LGBT isn't the only issue (For instance... I'm an Atheist, that's where this idea came from).

(Obviously this isn't ideal because Holy Matrimony is a Christian thing... but short of chaning the name you see what I mean - but that's all this damned thing is anyway... a "name" debate)

[Chris]

I disagree with having a different type of marriage for heterosexual and homosexual people. Ideally I think it should be all under the one hat.
(Obviously this isn't ideal because Holy Matrimony is a Christian thing... but short of chaning the name you see what I mean - but that's all this damned thing is anyway... a "name" debate)

I honestly do *not* understand what the fuss is about... especially from Labor! People have been 'marrying' ever since there were laws governing people's social behaviour!

Anybody want to explain why the bureaucrats are so 'anti' gay marriage?? There has to be more to it than just the 'religious' aspect.

[Minx]

The arguments mostly put up are purely secular

However, I came across one argument which had more of a focus on government desire NOT to increase the potential for income support for same-sex couples
By  that, I mean - the ability to have married pensions etc
Does tend to give one some pause for thought

There's an interesting article in SLATE
It poses a doozy of a question

if a prerequisite of marriage is procreative capacity, then are the marriages of infertile opposite-sex couples not called into question?

http://www.slate.com/id/2277781/

There are a number of places around which discuss the issue
Love and Pride being one
http://www.loveandpride.com/informationcenter/tips.aspx?categoryid=2

IMO...JC is not recorded - or rather, interpreted, anywhere in the Fables as saying He was against it

[Cran]

The arguments mostly put up are purely secular

However, I came across one argument which had more of a focus on government desire NOT to increase the potential for income support for same-sex couples
By  that, I mean - the ability to have married pensions etc
Does tend to give one some pause for thought

It's an odd thought - a gay couple living together gets more as two single pensions, than a hetero couple living together on a married pension; and the difference is greater still if only one is on income support and the other is fully employed because the waged or salaried income is automatically not taken into account for the same sex co-resident. For opposite sex co-residents to obtain the same benefit, they have to show that they are not living as a couple.

At least, that was the case for many years; if it's been changed recently, I'm not aware of it.

Financially, it would be in the Federal Govt's interest to recognise same sex couples.

[Crankenstein]

If the above is true.... wow... 

[Cran]

It was true for over 21 yr olds; younger than that, it was more beneficial to be a couple than two singles, because the married rate (for non-education incomes) was not age-based.

[jen]

I didn't think of that Cran - you are right... I think they are more concerned about being trewated as a partner if they split, or if one dies though aren't they - and, of course, being seen as being married.

[Chris]

I didn't think of that Cran - you are right... I think they are more concerned about being treated as a partner if they split, or if one dies though aren't they - and, of course, being seen as being married.

The only reason the wife and I married over25 years ago was because we wanted to make sure when she went to Uni that we were going to be able to get 'married quarters'.

Turned out we didn't need to get married *or* the student accommodation, but never regretted 'doing the deed'.

[Cran]

Jen, apart from the grey area possibility that the remaining partner might then qualify for a widow's pension (or it's more recent abandonment counterpart) I'm not sure what you mean - can you expand on that concern?

Good for you, Chris.

Yes, the education-related supports were always treated differently to other income support schemes. And supported accommodation for low or "fixed" incomes also favoured couples over singles - more so if a child or children were involved.

The more left-leaning authorities who served in education and housing treated same sex couples as couples, even while their right-leaning contemporaries in Social Security and Finance did not.

I had all the fun of being interviewed by one of the TV current affairs programs in 1987 or 88 (too long ago to recall exactly) because I spoke out against the financial discrimination against hetero couples by the Federal Government (via the then DSS).

 

[jen]

Sure Cran...but first Chris

"The only reason?" Oh where is Mrs Chris now? 

Cran, I believe I heard that the one left behind has difficulty accessing super, having a fair say in funeral arrangements, and being treated as part of a partnership when a couple break up. These are vague memories of a story I saw on 60mins or something-or-other, so I hope I remembered it correctly!

[Cran]

Fair enough, Jen - super is managed by commercial funds, and where death clauses are invoked, beneficiaries are named by the person for whom the super (and life insurance) is paid;
funeral arrangements are a family issue unless a pre-paid funeral plan is in place;
breaking up is a private or civil court issue where the law is mostly concerned about children (if any) and fair division of property.

There have been examples of difficulties even for (actual or common law) married hetero individuals in each of the above circumstances.