|
|
23 January 2009
McClelland Challenged on Gay Marriage
Advocates
for same-sex
marriage
have
challenged
Federal
Attorney-General,
Robert
McClelland,
to say how
much support
for marriage
equality is
necessary
before the
Rudd
Government
reverses its
opposition
to reform.
| |
 |
| |
Attorney-General Robert
McClelland
Photo: ABC Online |
Australian
Marriage
Equality (AME)
spokesperson,
Alex
Greenwich,
said Mr
McClelland
has written
to the group
justifying
Australia's
laws against
same-sex
marriage on
the grounds
that this
discrimination
"reflects
the widely
held view in
the
community
that
marriage is
between a
man and a
woman".
"According
to a
nationwide
Galaxy Poll
published in
June 2007,
57% of
Australians
support
same-sex
marriage",
Mr Greenwich
said.
"Another
Galaxy Poll
released
this week
shows 54% of
people in
what many
regard as
Australia's
most
conservative
state,
Queensland,
also support
equal
marriage."
"We have
written back
to Mr
McClelland
demanding to
know exactly
how high
support for
marriage
equality
must be
before his
Government
pays
attention
and removes
existing
discrimination."
In its open
letter to Mr
McClelland
AME also
quizzes the
Attorney-General
on other key
issues
including:
-
the
status
of
overseas
same-sex
marriages
in
proving
the
existence
of a
same-sex
union
for
immigration,
tax
and
social
security
purposes,
-
the
continued
refusal
of
the
Federal
Government
to
grant
the
necessary
documents
to
Australians
entering
same-sex
marriages
overseas,
-
rules
restricting
registered
marriage
celebrants
from
expressing
support
for
equal
marriage.
"Recognition
of
financial
and
workplace
entitlements
is
welcome,
but
until
the
Federal
Government
removes
marriage
discrimination,
or at
the very
least,
begins
to relax
the
Howard
Government's
heavy-handed
policies
on the
issue,
it will
be
judged
by us to
have
failed
the gay
and
lesbian
community",
said Mr
Greenwich.
LETTER
TO
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(EXCERPT)
19
January
2009
The Hon
Robert
McClelland
MP
Attorney-General
Parliament
House
Canberra
ACT
2600
Dear Mr
McClelland,
Thank
you for
your
letter
of 16
December
2008
regarding
the
recognition
same-sex
marriages.
There
are
several
matters
raised
in your
letter
we wish
to
clarify.
Also,
since
your
correspondence
the
Same-Sex
Relationships
(Equal
Treatment
in
Commonwealth
Laws –
General
Law
Reform)
Act has
come
into
effect,
raising
a number
of
further
matters.
Rationale
for
marriage
discrimination
In your
letter
of 16
December
2008 you
state:
“The
Government’s
policy
on
marriage
reflects
the
widely
held
view
in
the
community
that
marriage
is
between
a
man
and
a
woman.
The
Government
is
not
considering
any
change
to
this
policy”.
We note you
fail to
answer the
question we
put to you
in our
original
correspondence
of October:
“…will
the
Government
reverse
its
refusal
to
recognise
same-sex
marriages
if it
can be
shown
that a
majority
of
Australians
support
equal
marriage?”
Again, we
ask you to
answer that
question.
Further, in
our letter
of 14
October 2008
we referred
to evidence
that a
majority of
Australians
support
marriage
equality.
This
evidence
includes a
nationwide
Galaxy Poll
commissioned
by campaign
group GetUp
and
published in
June 2007
which found
that 57% of
respondents
supported
same-sex
marriage.
Can you
please tell
us:
-
if and
why this
is
insufficient
evidence
of
popular
support
for
marriage
equality,
whether
you have
contrary
evidence
and what
that is,
and
precisely
how much
evidence
of
popular
support
for
marriage
equality
would be
required
to have
you
reconsider
your
current
policy?
The
Migration
Act and
other
federal
laws
In your
correspondence
you
state:
“…overseas
same-sex
marriages…will
continue
to
be
acknowledged
under
policy
as
non-conclusive
evidence
of
the
existence
of a
de
facto
relationship”.
We
believe
it is an
affront
to
married
same-sex
partners
to be
deemed
de facto
partners
when
they
have
made a
very
deliberate
choice
to
solemnly
declare
their
commitment
and
thereby
enter a
legally-binding
formalised
relationship.
We also
dispute
your
assertion
that:
“The
definitions
of
‘de
facto
partner’
and
‘spouse’
which
will
be
inserted
into
the
Migration
Act
impose
very
similar
requirements
on
both
married
and
de
facto
partners”.
A
married
partner,
or
someone
intending
to marry
their
partner
in
Australia,
can
apply
for and
be
granted
a visa
immediately.
A de
facto
partner
must
have
been in
the de
facto
relationship
at least
12
months
before
lodging
the
application. In
this
regard,
we note
that in
some
countries,
the
conditions
needed
to prove
the
existence
of a de
facto
relationship,
like
living
together,
would
result
in
prosecution.
However,
given
this
matter
appears
to pivot
on a
change
of
government
policy
more
generally,
we have
a range
of
specific
questions
about
non-conclusive
evidence.
-
Will the
existence
of an
overseas
marriage
between
two
people
of the
same sex
have the
same
evidentiary
value
for the
purposes
of the
Migration
Act as
the
existence
of a
marriage
between
two
people
of
different
sexes?
If not,
why not?
If so,
what
steps is
your
Department
taking
to
ensure
all
relevant
officers
of the
Department
of
Immigration
and
Citizenship
are
aware of
the
evidentiary
value of
overseas
same-sex
marriages?
Will the
existence
of an
overseas
marriage
between
two
people
of the
same sex
be
considered
non-conclusive
evidence
of the
existence
of a de
facto
relationship
under
other
federal
laws,
including
laws
governing
superannuation,
taxation,
social
security,
parenting,
and
defence
force
and
other
federal
public
service
benefits?
If not,
we would
like to
know
why,
given
your
policy
on
immigration,
and
given
that
Australian
state
civil
unions
are
conclusive
proof of
the
existence
of a de
facto
relationship
in these
areas.
If so,
can you
outline
steps
taken to
ensure
the
relevant
government
agencies
are
aware of
this?
Thank
you for
your
time and
I look
forward
to your
response.
Yours
sincerely,
Peter
Furness
National
Convener
|
