Gay Marriage Bill in Australia

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicbudgie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholicbudgie

Guest
Below is the text of an email sent to me from the Thomas More Social Action Groups.

Dear friends,

Thanks for the company of those of you who came to the Thomas More Winter School. Some very good news:

MARRIAGE as the union of a man and a woman MIGHT MAKE IT!

Thanks for whatever work and prayer you undertook to help keep marriage in Australia between one man and one woman. It looks like we may win.
The Senate Inquiry into the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2004, has received over 12,500 submissions (more than for any other senate inquiry ever), the majority being for man / woman marriage.

There was a gathering of a thousand people in Canberra yesterday, and Government and Labor said that they would pass legislation within this current sitting of parliament, ie, within two weeks (see article from The Age below).

A short “Marriage Amendment Bill 2004”, which doesn’t say anything about homosexual adoption, will be reintroduced into the Senate. Liberal and Labor are both SAYING they are happy with it

But these are politicians we’re relying on, so what can we do to help them carry through with their promises and complete the job?

I’ve put some ideas below.

God bless,

Michael Casanova.

ACTION TO HELP FINISH THE MARRIAGE WORK

1. PRAY, because this stuff matters

2. TELEPHONE (or email) MARK LATHAM’S OFFICE (02) 6277 4022

Ask Mr Latham to have the ALP fulfil its promise to support the amendments to the Marriage Action by voting for the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 in the Senate when it resumes in August. Thank him that the Labor Party supported this Bill in theHouse of Representatives, but make it clear that if the ALP does not let this bill through the Senate before the election, you and your friends will consider this a clear signal that Labor doesn’t support marriage and that this will influence your vote.

3. TELEPHONE (or email) YOUR ALP FEDERAL MEMBER (if you have one) AND ALP VICTORIAN SENATORS WITH THE SAME MESSAGE.

Particularly important if you live in one of these marginal ALP Lower House seats:

Ballarat, Ms Catherine King, Catherine.King.MP@aph.gov.au, 5338 8123;

Bendigo, Mr Stephen Gibbons, Steve.Gibbons.MP@aph.gov.au, 5443 9055;

Burke, Mr Brendan O’Connor, Brendan.O’Connor.MP@aph.gov.au, 9744 7988;

Chisholm, Ms Anna Burke, Anna.Burke.MP@aph.gov.au, 9898 0675;

McMillan, Mr Christian Zahra, Christian.Zahra.MP@aph.gov.au, 5127 1066;

Port Melbourne, Mr Michael Danby, Michael.Danby.MP@aph.gov.au, 9534 8126;

And the following Vic ALP Senators:

Kim Carr, senator.carr@aph.gov.au, 9639 2798

Jacinta Collins, senator.jacinta.collins@aph.gov.au, 9800 2055, or 1300 131 538;

Stephen Conroy, senator.conroy@aph.gov.au, 9408 0190, or 1300 131 546;

to be continued…
 
…continued from previous post

Gavin Marshall, senator.marshall@aph.gov.au, 9347 9533;

Robert Ray, senator.ray@aph.gov.au, 9804 5630.

Labor backs ban on gay marriage
By Meaghan Shaw
Canberra
August 5, 2004

Gay marriage will be made illegal in Australia before the federal election after Labor yesterday said that it would support the Government’s proposed ban.

While Labor has stated previously that it is opposed to gay marriage, it had referred the original legislation to a Senate committee to examine the legal, constitutional and social impacts of the legislation.

Opposition attorney-general Nicola Roxon told the National Marriage Coalition forum in Canberra that Labor would now pass the bill.

“We understand how strongly many people feel about retaining and promoting the institution of marriage between men and women and as a bedrock institution for families,” she said.

Prime Minister John Howard told the forum that he would reintroduce legislation within a fortnight, saying he wanted the issue dealt with before the election.

While gay marriage is not recognised in Australia, Mr Howard has expressed concern that the courts could adopt a more liberal interpretation. He said he wanted to enshrine in law the notion that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others.

“It would be a great pity if this issue were left hanging in an election campaign,” he said.

“In putting it into law in the next two weeks nobody can say it’s being used as a wedge, nobody can say it’s a diversion, everybody can say it’s a united expression of the national parliament and therefore of the will of the Australian people.”

Labor’s move was condemned by gay groups and the minor parties.

Equal Rights Network spokesman Rodney Croome said that by breaking its promise to send the bill to be examined by a committee, “they have shown themselves to be completely untrustworthy on gay and lesbian rights”.

Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Damien Meyer said Labor had abdicated any claim it may have had to being a party of social justice and inclusion after its “gutless” decision.

Australian Democrats justice spokesman Brian Greig said Labor had made a panicked decision to remove the issue from the election. He said both the Government and ALP were pandering to conservative religious organisations.

The National Marriage Coalition, formed last month, consists of the Australian Christian Lobby, Australian Family Association and the Fatherhood Foundation. It is supported by Catch the Fire Ministries, the evangelical church addressed by Treasurer Peter Costello in May.

More than 1000 people from all over the country attended yesterday’s forum, arranged only three weeks ago to influence parliamentarians on the marriage legislation. They gave Mr Howard three standing ovations.

One speaker, Margaret Court, former tennis star and Christian minister, told The Age that homosexuality was a sin of the flesh, and the children of gay unions suffered shame and guilt. “I think they’re thinking about a relationship for their own selfishness and not for the children.”

Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson addressed the forum, which was attended by other MPs, including Kevin Andrews, Neil Andrews, Bronwyn Bishop, Ron Boswell and Guy Barnett.

Mr Howard is reintroducing the bill so that it deals solely with gay marriage, either in Australia or overseas. The original bill included a ban on gay couples adopting children overseas. Ms Roxon said Labor did not support this because adoption law was the responsibility of the states and territories.
The Age @ 150
 
Dear Michael,

Praise God for all your hard work. You have a strong alli in your part of the world Called Couples For Christ (CFC). Contact in Melbourne jimlizardo@mail.com

God Bless,
Davis Gray
CFC - Chicago:)
 
An Update.

Thank you for the work and prayers you may have put in to keep marriage
between a man and a woman.

We won!

Here is a report from the man who originally got the idea to get a
marriage bill passed, Richard Egan of WA.

Regards,

Michael Casanova.

The Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 passed the Senate by 38 votes to 6 on
Friday, August 13th with the Labor Party voting with the Government in
favour of the traditional definition of marriage as “the union of a man
and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for
life.”

The Bill specifically provides that “A union solemnised in a foreign
country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another
woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.”

This will preclude any recognition by Australian officials or judges of
same sex marriages contracted overseas in places such as Ontario, Quebec
or Massachusetts where same sex marriage has been legalised by court
order.

Labor’s support for the passage of the Bill finally gave effect to an
earlier caucus decision to support the Howard Government’s proposal to
incorporate the traditional definition of marriage in the Marriage Act
1961.

However, Labor had previously derailed the Government’s efforts to pass
this legislation. An earlier version, the Marriage Legislation Amendment
Bill 2004 was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Committee by the Senate, with Labor voting with the Australian Democrats
to ensure this Committee was not due to report until October 7th. This
clearly created the risk that the Bill could not be voted on before the
Parliament was dissolved for an election.

Labor insisted on the referral because this version of the Bill also
included provisions prohibiting adoption of overseas children by same
sex couples.

The Government responded to this by introducing a new version of the
Bill, the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004. This Bill did not include the
adoption provisions. Nonetheless, on June 24th Labor voted in the Senate
against the first reading of this Bill.

In response to these actions of the ALP, the National Civic Council
along with the Australian Family Association initiated a major campaign
effort to persuade Labor to stop its stalling tactics and support the
passage of the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 during the August sitting of
the Senate.

to be continued…
 
continued from previous post…

Many of our supporters telephoned Labor leader Mark Latham and local
Labor MPs and Senators as we requested. Along with other pro-family
groups we generated thousands of submissions to the Senate inquiry. It
has now been announced that 16,074 submissions were received, with the
overwhelming majority supporting the traditional definition of marriage.

The Australian Family Association along with the Australian Christian
Lobby and the Fatherhood Foundation formed the National Marriage
Coalition and at short notice organised a National Marriage Forum at
Parliament House which was attended by over 1200 people.

It was at this Forum on August 4th, that Nicola Roxon, Labor’s shadow
attorney-general, announced that if the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 was
re-introduced to the Senate during that fortnight then Labor would vote
for its passage. Subsequent efforts by the homosexual lobby and its
supporters in shadow cabinet and caucus to reverse this commitment were
resisted by Mark Latham.

It is clear that this outcome is a victory for the family, for
grassroots democracy and for the future of Australia. It is also of
great encouragement to our friends in the United States and elsewhere
who are engaged in a similar battle for marriage.

While we are delighted that Labor joined the Government in supporting
this legislation, and we are grateful to those within the Labor Party
who argued vigorously for this course of action, it is important to note
that Labor has restated its commitment to give legal recognition to same
sex couples.

Just as Labor Governments have done in almost every State and Territory,
if Labor wins the Federal election they will amend every piece of
Federal legislation - other than the Marriage Act 1961 - to secure the
same benefits for same sex couples as are given by Federal legislation
to married couples and opposite sex de facto couples. This would include
superannuation, social security, veterans’ benefits and access to the
Family Court of Australia for division of property following separation.

Some elements within the Labor Party, including Nicola Roxon, have
suggested that Labor may also consider a system of civil registration of
same sex relationships. This would give them an official status
equivalent to marriage in all but name.

The unique status of marriage as the foundation of the family which is
the basic building block of society and the best environment for the
rearing of children can be undermined not just by changing the
definition of marriage to accommodate other sorts of relationships such
as same sex relationships but also by giving other relationships the
kind of legal recognition and social benefits that should only be given
to marriage .

While we should savour this very significant victory we should also
realise that the fight for marriage is not over yet.

In June 2003 when the Supreme Court of Ontario changed the common law
definition of marriage to accommodate same sex couples News Weekly
reported that “This finding has grave implications for Australia,
opening up the possibility that in a similar case the High Court could
likewise find that the constitutional meaning of marriage has changed.”
The passage of the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 has forestalled this
particular threat to marriage.

We are grateful to all of our supporters who acted on our call to arms
and contributed to this victory.

Richard Egan, WA State President, National Civic Council
 
Oh, btw, Michael Casanova is not me. He’s the guy who has been sending me the emails. Michael runs the Thomas More Group here in Melbourne.

In Australia, the Liberal Party has a correlation with the Republicans in the USA, and the Labor Party has a similar connection with the Democratic Party.

John Howard is the leader on the governing Liberal Party and as such is the Prime Minister. Mark Latham is the leader of the opposition Labor Party.

Just to background it a little.
 
oh wow, that is awesome :clapping: … I may move to Australia if America keeps going the way it’s going. I know we should stay and fight the good fight, but sometimes it’s just so discouraging.

What is Australia’s stance on abortion? Is it legal?
 
Is abortion illegal in Australia? The answer has to be “yes”. Then “no”. Australia is made up of six states and two self governing territories and each of those state parliaments has it’s own laws on the issue. However, unlike the US, Australia’s constitution gives the Federal Government power to regulate matters of national importance over-riding the states, health policy and funding being one of them.

As such, being as the medical proceedure of abortion is covered under our Medicare system, which is federally funded, the federal government has final say.

Abortion on demand is not allowed. Both Labor and Liberal support this. The proceedure is allowed if it is considered in the best interests of the mother’s well being. However, no one bothered to define exactly what this means, so the pro choice crowd have lobbied to widen the choice so far that, because it is not expressly forbidden, a woman can obtain an abortion if she is in a state of mental distress, and of financial poverty (ie she can’t afford to have the baby).

Problem is is that the main womens hospital (not being sexist - it’s called the Royal Women’s Hospital) doctors happen to be about as pro choice as you can get - basically a woman can walk up, say “I cannot afford the baby” and the docs will tick the mental distress box and provide the proceedure.

And, claim it under Medicare so that taxpayers foot the bill!

I suppose that is why I became involved in the issue - I had a friend who got herself into trouble and decided to procure an abortion. I didn’t particularily want her to but she had made up her mind. So, I went with her to the Royal Women’s under the flawed assumption that “I cannot stop her, so I might as well be a familiar face”.

Obviously, as a practicing Catholic that caused me a little problem! I have since realised the error of my judgement and had to receive absolution. I found out the hard way that the power of evil is very tangible.

Unfortunalely, my friend Georgie fell into the throes of post abortion syndrome and cut off contact. The only thing I can do now is hold her up in my prayers, and by becoming involved in the issue on the right side of the fence I can hope to undo some of the damage.
 
So did she blame you for supporting her? After, she regretted having the abortion and that was why she cut off contact?
 
I cannot honestly aswer that. Georgie cut ties with everyone she and I knew - friends of friends, etc. I just think she got really really sad about the whole thing and assumed she could forget it, and that part of her life, by starting anew.

I really don’t know.

Oh, yeah, the URL for Michael Casanova and the Thomas More Social Action Groups is tmc.org.au
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top