I dont think the UN is going to do anything about this.

Neither do I really, but it'd be interesting to see what would happen. Since the US has similar laws and they contribute so much to the UN I guess it is unlikely to happen.

To play devil's advoc@....imagine Labor was in federally and passed a law allowing gay civil unions. A Liberal NT government then introduces and passes a law banning gay civil unions in the Northern Territory. Kim Beazley goes to the GG to have it revoked.....what would your response be?

To be honest, I think the ACT Parliament were overstepping the mark. There is a Federal Marriage Bill, and it should override the state bill because we enturst this issue to the Feds. I would like a Federal Government that had the guts to stick up to the homophobes, but as far as democracy goes, I don't think this was the encroachment of freddom. The insult to democracy comes from the fact that they are not allowing the same rights to everyone.

To play devil's advoc@....imagine Labor was in federally and passed a law allowing gay civil unions. A Liberal NT government then introduces and passes a law banning gay civil unions in the Northern Territory. Kim Beazley goes to the GG to have it revoked.....what would your response be?

I originally misread this quote. I have rewritten this answer. I would support whatever move supported equal rights, which I actually put above majority rule. Just as you believe Federal outweighs Local laws I believe equality outweighs majority. As I explain in my reply to MasonM equal righst is NOT a separate to the idea of democracy it is an integral component. Democracy it not just majority rule. I do believe in the GG's right or at least the right in general to overturn laws that infringe on people's rights, that office is there as a last resort (though I'd rather those powers had some more objective guidelines and weren't in the hands of one person). In my view governments local or federal shouldn't be allow to make rules that are anti-equality for law abiding citizens. Really something should be done about the Marriage act as well but I'm all for baby step at the moment and work on allowing civil unions as secular alternative. I conclusion the whole system is fucked up. We need a bill of rights that would make discriminatory laws like this illegal.

To be honest, I think the ACT Parliament were overstepping the mark. There is a Federal Marriage Bill, and it should override the state bill because we enturst this issue to the Feds.

Civil Unions and Marriages are significantly different. In a case where someone had a CU first and then got marriage the former would be automatically void. If the person moved outside the ACT it wouldn't be recognised. They are purely secular ceremonies and can't be performed by priests and so on. The latter is probably the most important difference since the Marriage bill was created to protect the religious idea of Marriage (which is ultamately a conservative Christian-centric view). By their own definition a Civil Union MUST be different to marriage because they defined marriage as between a man and a women. So if you have something that very closely resembles marriage that isn't between a man and a women it MUST be something else, which is why it isn't called Marriage. Therefore Civil Union laws can't be in conflict with Marriage laws because by definition they are seperate entities. Your don't called a chimp and a human the same thing just because we share a lot of our DNA. To put it another way: If you had a federal laws that govern dogs and the ACT makes laws that govern cats then those two sets of laws aren't in conflict. QED(at this point I'm being a bit facetious but only slightly)

Besides the Marriage bill is discriminatory anyway and is in conflict with the declaration of human rights (which doesn't define what marriage is). Even if it really did have a conflict with the marriage bill (which I still maintain is impossible as stated above) the government refused to tell us which specific amendment to make. So it was just strongarming for the sake of scoring political points with conservatives.

They have similar laws already in place in Tasmania and you don't see the government overturning their laws. They did it to the ACT because we are vunerable as a Territory and it was easy political points. If they'd done it to Tas then they'd end up in the High Court and it wouldn't be so easy for them.

I don't think this was the encroachment of freddom.

It is an encroachment to freedom because we can only have laws that replicate John Howard's narrow minded view of the world. In mean there is no point voting for a party with political views that are different from the government it terms of social policy. What next? Should we re-criminalise pot? Should we change our porn laws too? Electorates need to be able to make laws that reflect their constituents (within the boundaries of human right equality) otherwise why bother having local representatives at all? You may as well just have a dictatorship and be done with it. I agree it certainly isn't a encroachment of YOUR freedom banana bender boy

Thanks for the comments mate.

This is a huge misconception about democracy. Look in any dictionary and you will see that one of the definitions of democracy is that it eccompasses idea of equality with respect to the individual.

That's very true but what is being discussed here is not the rights of the individual as defined by a constitution (which defines those rights) but rather the legal redefining of a commonly accepted institution. It isn't quite the same thing as common sense would tell anyone.

Any time discussion of a change in law takes place in a true democracy those laws are by definition defined by the will of the majority which is really what this discussion is about.

I understand the point completely. The same debate has been going on here in the US.

The thing is, a same sex couple is not legally recognized as legitimate any more than a non-married hetero couple is recognized as legitimate. As individuals those people have exactly the same rights as every other citizen and are in no way denied any of those common rights.

What's really being discussed here is defining a new right, that being the right to marry someone of the same sex, and that still falls to back majority approval in a democracy.

Perhaps eventually these people will win the battle to establish this new right, perhaps not. It's a highly emotionally charged issue for both sides of the debate, and those are never settled quickly.

Even today a great many people still see a huge distinction between ensuring homosexuals are not discriminated against with regard to employment or housing, ensuring they have the same protections against violence under the law, (basically making sure they do have the same rights and protections as everyone else), and having the government (and society) give their lifestyle an official seal of approval and legitimacy through legal marriages.

It's not going to be an easy fight for them any way you look at it.

I believe, in Australia, a non-married couple (defacto) can be recognised as legitimate, particularly if the couple have children together (of course, I could be speaking out of my backside, but I think I'm right).

No, you're right. Any man and woman who live together for an extensive period of time are automatically considered (by centrelink anyway) as a de facto couple, with most of the rights of a full married couple. I had a problem with that a few years ago - I sharehoused with a girl for a year and a bit and then got a letter in the post asking about our relationship and threatening penalties for not telling them I was in a defacto.

"I would support whatever move supported equal rights, which I actually put above majority rule."

I agree with you on this. The federal marriage act should be amended.

"Civil Unions and Marriages are significantly different. By their own definition a Civil Union MUST be different to marriage because they defined marriage as between a man and a women. "

I don't agree. They're the same thing. That's why I don't get the big deal about gay marriage. A man and a woman/a man and a man/a woman and a woman...I don't see any difference. There shouldn't be any distinction.

"Electorates need to be able to make laws that reflect their constituents (within the boundaries of human right equality) otherwise why bother having local representatives at all?"

They are not there to deal with every issue. We have enacted Federation and the States agreed to defer a lot of power to the Commonwealth. This is one of those areas, even if the Feds are abusing their power. It's not the job of the lower powers, but higher powers (eg. us) to deal with this. Otherwise, should Broadmoor St be allowed to have gay civil unions if they want it?

I think what you're calling a baby step is similar to Howard's way of making concessions: make them in theory only.

The thing is, a same sex couple is not legally recognized as legitimate any more than a non-married hetero couple is recognized as legitimate. As individuals those people have exactly the same rights as every other citizen and are in no way denied any of those common rights.

I guess my point was trying to say here in Australia, a non-married hetero couple ARE recognised in the eyes of the law (albeit after having to prove themselves a couple, rather than produce a marriage certificate). Sorry, just being pedantic...

I saw that quote already, I read the hansard as soon I could.