thorfinn | Equal Love Campaign

Australian Parliament House - Senate - Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009

Australian Marriage Equality - how to make a senate submission

Equal Love Campaign - Australia

Equal Love Campaign - Online Submission Form

Equal Love Campaign - details for who in the Senate to send stuff to

I write to express my support for the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009.

Although I myself am in a heterosexual marriage, my partner and I chose to do a registry ceremony in the morning with just ourselves and required witnesses, and then held what we consider our Real Wedding in the afternoon, in front of our relatives and friends.

A major factor in that decision to keep the "legal ceremony" out of sight is the required wording reminding people that marriage is an exclusive union of a man and a woman.

We both have a large number of non-heterosexual friends, and we felt that that required wording would be offensive to them, and offensive to us.

I wish that our friends who wish to be joined in marriage in Australia be allowed to do so, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Anything else is a blatant inequality - their relationships are not any less powerful or worthy than my own, so why are they not allowed to choose the union of marriage?

Thank you,

David Goh

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Well, there does need to be *something* that indicates what kind of union is involved so that the legal rights and responsibilities associated with that union are state-enforceable.

That said, I don't necessarily see why that has to be part of any visible ceremonial wording.

I like the idea that's been bruited around before of having the legal part be "civil union", and leave "marriage" up to individuals and/or religious organisations to define however they like.

Unfortunately the hardcore anti-gay-marriage religious campaigners are just as against that as they are any other proposal, since the point for them is that gay people should not be allowed to use the word "marriage".

Don't see why there has to be wording, the government has seems to know all about de-facto relationships. I just don't think relationships are anyone's business except the people involved, be they with one person, two people, or more, or of the same or different sex (with the exception of children and animals). Marriage just gives me the irrits.

*nod* The issue is that there are legal rights and responsibilities which attach to what is currently called "marriage".

These are *not* identical (despite efforts) to the legal rights and responsibilities which come with being de-facto, and the same applies to civil unions.

If there was nothing legal attached to any of those, then sure, there's no legal definition of any kind required.

Whilst I agree in theory that relationships shouldn't be anyone else's business - the problem arises that they do become other people's business in the case of acrimonious breakups, particularly in the case when children are involved.

That's the kind of situation where legal frameworks get involved... I'd like the legal framework to support more than two people, but at the moment, it doesn't even support two people, let alone more than that.

Take the smaller fight first, I think. :-)

You know the bit which pisses me off the most (apart from the obvious hetero definition), is the bit which says
"will you blah blah blah"

and the reply is "I will" or "I do"
I would only be able to say
"I will try"

And I would mean it, I would truely ruely try, but I just am really not sure about the "I will" because in my mind, I _need_ an escape clause. I just can't say "I will" because then there is no escape.

Yes, completely screwed up child of divorce here.

Ah. Fortunately, that bit is not in the required wording at all. You can do whatever you like apart from that - make up your own vows in whatever form you like. We did (and even if we had used a civil celebrant, we would have). :-)

The section in question is section 46. Note that religious celebrants don't have to use the wording, but there's only certain religions that are anointed with the power to conduct state sanctioned wedding ceremonies.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s46.html

MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 46

Certain authorised celebrants to explain nature of marriage relationship
(1) Subject to subsection (2), before a marriage is solemnized by or in the presence of an authorized celebrant, not being a minister of religion of a recognized denomination, the authorized celebrant shall say to the parties, in the presence of the witnesses, the words:

“I am duly authorized by law to solemnize marriages according to law.

“Before you are joined in marriage in my presence and in the presence of these witnesses, I am to remind you of the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are now about to enter.

“Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”;

or words to that effect.

(2) Where, in the case of a person authorized under subsection 39(2) to solemnize marriages, the Minister is satisfied that the form of ceremony to be used by that person sufficiently states the nature and obligations of marriage, the Minister may, either by the instrument by which that person is so authorized or by a subsequent instrument, exempt that person from compliance with subsection (1) of this section.

So that really gives the ability to use any verbiage whatsoever as long as all involved parties understand the verbiage to mean the intent of the law.

"Australia authorizes me to solemnize jigga-jigga..." And so on and so forth. As long as, oh let's say the minister, and the two participants sign a paper saying "jigga-jigga in the context of our marriage ceremony means [yadda]," you're completely golden.

Yes, correct - but only religious ministers are allowed to actually do that sort of thing. Registered civil celebrants have to use the required wording "or words to that effect" - which I'd assume have to be understood by the attendees of the wedding, as well as the principal parties.

See, I want to know why there are different rules for religious and civil ceremonies. Is the assumption that religious people already know what legal marriage is, but people who choose not to have a religious ceremony clearly need prompting on the issue?

That is, pretty much, the direct implication of the wording of that section of the act. Or at least that the religious minister will be providing guidance on the issue, whereas non-religious people don't get that guidance, and therefore have to be told it in their ceremony.

Equal Love Campaign - Australia

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject