Comments on: Australia Introduces Rights for Gay Couples http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/04/29/1900 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:03:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: L. Junius Brutus http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/04/29/1900/comment-page-1#comment-9991 L. Junius Brutus Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:25:51 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/04/29/1900#comment-9991 It is unfortunate that they decided to include any cohabiting pair, not just those with romantic commitments. While I'm sympathetic to the plight of people like the British elderly sisters, it isn't quite the same as a romantic relationship and shouldn't be treated the same. It's basically what James Dobson backs in Colorado, 'reciprocal benefits', which is troubling. Still, it's one small step toward equality. Anything that makes the lives of gays and lesbians less difficult is to be lauded. It is unfortunate that they decided to include any cohabiting pair, not just those with romantic commitments. While I’m sympathetic to the plight of people like the British elderly sisters, it isn’t quite the same as a romantic relationship and shouldn’t be treated the same. It’s basically what James Dobson backs in Colorado, ‘reciprocal benefits’, which is troubling.

Still, it’s one small step toward equality. Anything that makes the lives of gays and lesbians less difficult is to be lauded.

]]> By: Joel http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/04/29/1900/comment-page-1#comment-9972 Joel Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:35:29 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/04/29/1900#comment-9972 "Essentially, we will have the same rights as married couples, except for the right to marry." Lol.. their against it because it woul dhave a ceremony, OH NOES that's too equal. But its all good, its really.. NOT the same thing. I sometimes get stuck at this logic.. i dont know why. It sorta makes sense when i apply the whole 'not the same thing' in analogy with other things. It ends up being a pathetic argument at establishing law, since... men=/=woman, nor are white=/black, or a more spirited argument, Jew=/=christian. Then i ask, Is a reproducing sexual organ really that important in a marriage? Is it as relevant as ones skin color? “Essentially, we will have the same rights as married couples, except for the right to marry.”
Lol.. their against it because it woul dhave a ceremony, OH NOES that’s too equal. But its all good, its really.. NOT the same thing. I sometimes get stuck at this logic.. i dont know why.
It sorta makes sense when i apply the whole ‘not the same thing’ in analogy with other things. It ends up being a pathetic argument at establishing law, since… men=/=woman, nor are white=/black, or a more spirited argument, Jew=/=christian. Then i ask, Is a reproducing sexual organ really that important in a marriage? Is it as relevant as ones skin color?

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/04/29/1900/comment-page-1#comment-9971 Timothy Kincaid Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:35:07 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/04/29/1900#comment-9971 Jim, Thank you for the clarification. Jim,

Thank you for the clarification.

]]> By: Jim Woulfe http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/04/29/1900/comment-page-1#comment-9967 Jim Woulfe Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:38:16 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/04/29/1900#comment-9967 <blockquote>the article does not clarify the methods by which the couples would be determined, </blockquote> In Australia, opposite-sex de facto couples have long had the same rights and obligations as married couples. There are established tests for the existence of a de facto relationship, such as cohabitation, financial interdependency, social and family recognition of the relationship, etc. In the current round of reforms, the definition of de facto will be changed to include same-sex couples, so that all the protections enjoyed by heterosexual couples will now apply to same-sex couples. Essentially, we will have the same rights as married couples, except for the right to marry.

the article does not clarify the methods by which the couples would be determined,

In Australia, opposite-sex de facto couples have long had the same rights and obligations as married couples. There are established tests for the existence of a de facto relationship, such as cohabitation, financial interdependency, social and family recognition of the relationship, etc.

In the current round of reforms, the definition of de facto will be changed to include same-sex couples, so that all the protections enjoyed by heterosexual couples will now apply to same-sex couples.

Essentially, we will have the same rights as married couples, except for the right to marry.

]]>