Get some sleep.  Other than some sympathy from European nations, I dont think the UN is going to do anything about this.  With Iran on the Human Rights commission?

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.

and they contribute so much to the UN I guess it is unlikely to happen.

Yes, they do, and get punched in the mouth in return.  The US does not rule the UN,  Indeed that is what many Americans hate.  But the true rulers are the tin plated dictators of failed nations.  Unfortunately they outnumber all others.

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.

Perhaps, but by definition democracy is rule of majority and no matter how much some would like to believe otherwise homosexuals are not the majority.

While I may not personally have a problem with homosexual unions, it is the nature of a democracy to go with the majority opinion and the majority does seem to have a problem with that issue.

No system is perfect.

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.

Perhaps, but by definition democracy is rule of majority and no matter how much some would like to believe otherwise homosexuals are not the majority.

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. There is good reason for this. It isn't enough that your vote counts equally. Your rights must also count equally too or the majority could vote to have your rights, including your right to vote, taken away. We are ALL in a minority of one and in various minorities of other sorts (racial, religious, what colour car we own etc); the minority of the individual is the most important because it is fundamental. The maintainance of the equality of rights for law abiding individuals must outweigh majority rule if democracy is to mean anything. If you don't protect the rights of minorities, especially the minority of one: the individual, you are protecting the rights of NOBODY.

While I may not personally have a problem with homosexual unions, it is the nature of a democracy to go with the majority opinion and the majority does seem to have a problem with that issue.

Actually this remains to be seen either way. However a recent poll showed that 45% of Australians were for same-sex Civil Unions and 34% were against. I don't know what the missing 21% think so it could go either way, at most it would be a 5% majority against but I doubt the whole 21% would be against it, some probably just don't care either way.

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.

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.

What I'm arguing is that is the process of redefining an institution, commonly accepted or not, should be even handed with respect to how it applys to all law abiding individuals. The important qualification here is what constitutes a "law abiding individual" and I suppose the majority could in outlaw homosexuality. Luckily all such laws have been democratically eliminated in Australia, as far I know. If you have defined a minority as being legal as to the actions that define that minority, as homosexuals have been (as opposed to the minorities that include murderers and so on) you should give them the same rights under the law. As it is now for gays in the ACT they aren't given the same rights with respect to: making medical decisions for their partners if they are incapacitated, inhertitance as next of kin and much more even though many homosexual couples have a similar relationship to heterosexual couples. I've known of some gay couples that have had relationships that have far out lasted hetero marriages. The idea that they shouldn't get equal treatment is disgusting.

I'm sorry to labour the point but there you have it.

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.

a same sex couple is not legally recognized as legitimate any more than a non-married hetero couple is recognized as legitimate.

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).

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 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).

My sister actually almost got into problem simply because her flatmate was male. They weren't even going out and centerlink (it might have even been the CES at that time!) wanted to assume they were a defacto couple.

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.

In my view it isn't a new right, as it is already encapsulated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, expecially article 16. Unless we remove ourselves as a signatory of the declaration we should be bound by it. Basic rights should guide the creation of new laws and they usually they make up the basis of new laws.

"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.

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.

I think the fact the Civil Unions HAS to be a secular ceremony is a huge difference. I agree there should not be any distiction but you can't tell people how to practice their religion. That is why for the moment a distiction has to be made between the secular and religious unions. Otherwise it would been seen as infringing on there right to practice their religion. It is one thing to prohibit people from carrying out human sacrifices or something but something else to ask them to redefine what a religious ceremony should entail.

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

I don't think that is a fair statement. If anything it sounds like you want to make gay people wait a zillion years before the marriage act is changed and hold out on Civil Unions on principle. THAT sounds like only wanting something in theory to me. At least if they were allowed civil unions first they would get the legal benefits of it (and could probably have some sort of private unrecognised religious service if they wanted too). That is a lot better then them getting NOTHING and having to wait until the marriage act is changed.

Otherwise, should Broadmoor St be allowed to have gay civil unions if they want it?

Absolutely! Why not? The rights set out in the declaration should overrule jurisdictional heirarchy. The federal laws should be changed but the ACT shouldn't have to wait for them to do so. The main problem is only having your union recognised in the one place, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be recognised in that one place if it is in the right with respect to the Rights in the declaration.