It has over a million views, and the producers are trying to get it aired on TV in advance of the ALP convention that will be deciding whether to include marriage equality in its platform:
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:20 am
by alice
Much appreciated - I've just sent it on to a few of my friends.
Thanks for sharing the link
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:20 am
by Andrew D
I'm just an ignorant American, so can you fill me in?
ALP?
Platform for what?
You know me: I'm entirely in favor of marriage equality. But I'm feeling lost at sea ....
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:34 am
by Scooter
Sorry, Australian Labour Party. They will be deciding whether to include marriage equality in their party platform.
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:55 am
by BoSoxGal
That's lovely. I saw it first when George Takei linked to it on his Facebook page. I hope the ALP does the right thing!
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:24 pm
by rubato
It's a great idea.
What is public sentiment like in Aus?
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:30 pm
by loCAtek
That was so cute, he's a great actor ...and cute too.
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:32 pm
by The Hen
rubato wrote:It's a great idea.
What is public sentiment like in Aus?
We are waiting for the legislation to change to catch up with public opinion.
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:56 pm
by dgs49
Interesting position taken by the pols, from what I'm reading. Libs favor a "conscience vote," because they fear backlash by cultural troglodytes (i.e., religious believers) if they make "equalisation" a firm party position.
Will Oz progress to equalization for incestuous marriages (for adults)? Polygamy? Polygyny?
If not, why not? Are y'all being "progressive" or not?
NOTE: As a religious believer, my position is that the Church should decide what IT considers to be "marriage," and the State should decide what IT considers to be "marriage," and I have no problem if they are different.
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:52 pm
by Scooter
Polygyny is a subset of polgamy. A dictionary can be a helpful tool.
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:19 am
by Lord Jim
Well, I guess the Canucks won't be legalizing polygamy any time soon:
Polygamy Ban Upheld in Canada
By DARRYL GREER
VANCOUVER, B.C. (CN) - After years of uncertainty, British Columbia's Supreme Court upheld Canada's criminal ban on polygamy, finding that while the law does infringe upon religious freedoms, it is justified to prevent the significant harms polygamy inflicts upon society.
Chief Justice Robert Bauman wrote that he based his lengthy ruling on "the most comprehensive judicial record on the subject ever produced." He concluded that the "case is essentially about harm; more specifically, Parliament's reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage."
Of course I guess the Canadian Supreme Court could overrule the one in British Columbia...
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:27 am
by Scooter
The opinion was all over the map. This one is going to the Supreme Court of Canada for sure.
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:09 am
by Andrew D
This appears to be a one-judge opinion. Is that correct?
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:33 pm
by Scooter
Yes. The Supreme Court of British Columbia, in spite of its name, is primarily a trial court and not the highest court in B.C. (which is the Court of Appeal of British Columbia). This was a constitutional reference case, not a criminal prosecution; British Columbia is unique among the provinces (I think) in allowing constitutional references to be heard by a trial court rather than an appellate court; the advantage, as I understand it, is the ability to hear evidence that bears on the case, rather than being confined to arguing points of law as in an appellate court.
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:22 am
by Andrew D
Scooter wrote:Yes. The Supreme Court of British Columbia, in spite of its name, is primarily a trial court and not the highest court in B.C. (which is the Court of Appeal of British Columbia).
That's what I thought. It's a lot like New York, where the trial court is the Supreme Court, the intermediate appellate court is the Supreme Court Appellate Division, and the highest court is the Court of Appeals.
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:16 pm
by Gob
The Queensland Parliament has joined Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT in passing legislation recognising same-sex civil partnerships.
As expected, the Opposition voted against the bill as did most independent MPs.
Labor MPs were allowed a conscience vote and four voted against the legislation, but the final result was not as close as expected with a margin of 47 votes to 40.
Inside Parliament, Premier Anna Bligh reflected the views of a majority of her party.
"The bill that is before the Parliament is a bill that seeks to strike a blow against prejudice and strike a blow against discrimination," she said.
My favourite story about how Australia recognizes same-sex couples - I met two guys on a vacation, one originally from Hawaii and the other from Sydney. The American was able to immigrate to Australia to join his partner under an immigration policy that recognized "non-familial emotional interdependence". I just thought that was a really cool imaginative way to get around the legal impediments to recognizing same-sex partners as family.
Re: Marriage equality ad in Australia
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:02 pm
by Gob
Never heard of it myself, but a quick google...
Section 181 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) provides that the Governor-General may make regulations for the purposes of the Act. In addition sections 23 and 33 of the Act enable him to make regulations providing for different classes of visas and entry permits.
The purpose of the Regulations is:
- to provide for the grant of permanent residence to a person (and the dependent children of such a person) who has established a genuine and continuing non-familial interdependent relationship with an Australian citizen or permanent resident.
