This morning’s Age is reporting that the federal Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, has warned Jon Stanhope that the federal government will overturn the planned civil union law in the ACT.
The move is reminiscent of the Government’s 1997 disallowance of a Northern Territory law legalising euthanasia.
Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has written to ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope warning him against enacting the ACT Civil Unions Bill as it currently stands.
The bill aims to give same-sex couples equal legal rights with married couples. It expects the bill to be passed in May. But it has caused a furore in Federal Parliament.
In a letter to Mr Stanhope, Mr Ruddock said the Government considered same-sex relationships were matters for the states and territories.
But it opposed “any action which would reduce the status of marriage to that of other relationships, or which would create confusion over the distinction between marriage and same-sex relationships”.
Weirdly, Ruddock’s argument is to do with the use of marriage celebrants to officiate at civil unions, not the civil unions themselves:
The Commonwealth has no problem with state laws giving same sex couples the same legal rights as married couples. But it objects to the use of marriage celebrants — licensed under federal marriage laws — performing civil union ceremonies, which the ACT bill appears to allow for as well as all other provisions that equate civil unions with marriage.
A couple of observations about this (it’s 4 a.m., so excuse me if I’m stating the bleeding obvious in my efavirenz-affected state):
1. Is it just me or does the language in the quoted paragraphs smell just a little bit off? Things like “reduce the status of marriage to that of other relationships” and “confusion over the distinction between marriage and same-sex relationships” strike me as oddly paranoid and more than a little insulting. It seems clear the Ruddock objective is to maintain, at all costs, a hierarchical distinction, and the more he speaks on the subject, the clearer his position becomes. All relationships are equal, but some are more equal than others.
2. The Age describes the move as “reminiscent of the Government’s 1997 disallowance of a Northern Territory law legalising euthanasia.” If that’s the case, I hope Stanhope stands his ground. There was a level of debate and public engagement about euthanasia during the 1997 standoff between Canberra and Darwin which helped to bring that issue to public attention. If discrimination against queer relationships was also given that level of attention, that would most likely be a good thing. And unlike the euthanasia question, most people in Australia are in favour of equal treatment for queers.
So bring it on.
A note for overseas readers: The ACT (Australian Capital Territory), where Canberra is, is not a state but a territory, and while it has its own government its laws can be overridden by the federal parliament at will. In 1997, the federal government used these powers to overturn a law passed in the Northern Territory (where Darwin is) which legalised (briefly) euthanasia.
We are at a turning point in the future of a fundamental and cherished Australian institution, the ABC. Right now, the Cabinet’s budget committee is deciding the ABC’s funding for the next three years. Their next meeting is on Tuesday.