Tassie Parliament in deadlock on gay marriage
The future of Tasmania's proposed laws to allow same-sex marriage rests on a knife edge, with the state's upper house evenly split on the issue.
Aug 7, 2012
The future of Tasmania's proposed laws to allow same-sex marriage rests on a knife edge, with the state's upper house evenly split on the issue.
"I am taking advice on several clauses in the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961. There are several potential inconsistencies which should be investigated and evaluated to determine if the Bill, in its current form, is likely to be an effective, functioning Act, should it be passed."'Greg Hall: likely to vote NO Independent MLC Hall represents Western Tiers, the rural -- and conservative -- heartland of the Apple Isle. "The feedback I've had from my constituents on this issue is that they believe it's a step too far," Hall told The Burnie Advocate. "I support the legal recognition and those things we have already done. I've spoken to many people and they identified themselves as traditional Labor voters and they are very unhappy." Paul Harriss: likely to vote NO Harriss, a Legislative Council powerhouse from the conservative Huonville district, told Crikey his previous position was not to support same-sex marriage, and he believed that was "a valued community position [which has] stood the test of time". "I have a very strong view on what my previous position is," said Harriss. "Marriage between a man and a woman is pretty much where the community is at." However Harriss said he needed to see the legislation first, and "you never know" what would happen to it in the upper house. In his maiden speech in 1996, Harriss said:
"I have been encouraged by my personal result at the election, in fact quite humbled by the strong endorsement of the position which I took prior to the election. People knew what my position was in terms of the Liberal Party and in terms of the debate currently before this House. I stood fairly strongly on the principle of anti-gay law reform."Tony Mulder: likely to vote YES A former police commander for Tasmania Police, the independent was elected to the seat of Rumney last year. "I think that marriage is really a religious institution, but we're well past that particular line now and it really isn't any business of the state as to who should be marrying whom," he said to the ABC this week. "However, all said and done I think that gay marriage is much better than miserable marriage." During his inaugural speech to the Legislative Council last year Mulder spoke on governments' delving into moral and religious issues. "It is not the role of government to impose one group's morality upon another," he told the chamber. Tania Rattray: undecided but likely to vote NO Independent from the electorate of Apsley; Rattray represents a country district and is of conservative political stock. "There's some pretty significant issues to consider in my mind," Rattray told Crikey. "Firstly, any potential High Court challenge and what the impact that might have on the Tasmania budget for one, would have to be a real consideration given the economic challenges we're facing. Also, two: is it really the most significant issue that Tasmanians feel needs a priority at this point in time for this government. My personal opinion is no. I'm going to talk to my constituents and see how they feel about it." Rattray says she's been receiving a fairly even amount of correspondence both for and against the legislation, although "a lot of the fors are not Tasmanians". And her personal view? "I don't have an issue with these people's sexuality. But whether marriage is a step too far ... I haven't arrived at that yet," said Rattray. "Like my constituents, I'll be grappling with that as well." Sue Smith (president): would not vote in the first instance, but likely to vote NO As president of the Leg Co, independent MLC Smith gets the deciding vote if tied, but she would be likely to maintain the status quo and vote against same-sex marriage. "It wasn't on the agenda at the last election, therefore there is no mandate," Smith told The Burnie Advocate. "As an individual I'm entitled to an opinion and my opinion is that marriage is between a male and a female." Smith is a respected and powerful Legislative Councillor who has a record of conservatism on social issues. She represents a North-West Coast electorate, traditionally one of the state's most religious districts. Adriana Taylor: UNDECIDED Independent MLC Taylor represents the working class area of Glenorchy in Hobart, is on holidays in Queensland at present, and has not responded to Crikey's request for comment. "While I feel very strongly about not discriminating against gay people, I'm not sure that marriage is necessarily the word that they need ... They need equality," she said in an AAP interview earlier this week. "Whether equality is the same as 'the same' is another matter." Rob Valentine: likely to vote YES The gregarious ex-Hobart Mayor, socially progressive and known around town for his ubiquitous jaunty hat, told Crikey: "In principle I support same-s-x marriage". "It would certainly take away some of the discrimination that exists at the moment," Valentine said. "It's about commitment, it's not about gender." Valentine said he wanted to see the legislation first, and said he believed churches should have the freedom to not conduct same-s-x marriage ceremonies. Jim Wilkinson: likely to vote YES The Leg Co stalwart and lawyer, who represents the well-heeled (and Green-leaning) parts of Hobart such as Sandy Bay, told Crikey: "prima facie I've got no real issue with [same-sex marriage]". Like Valentine, Wilkinson said churches should not be compelled to conduct same-s-x marriage ceremonies. He also raised concerns at what would happen should married same-sex couples divorce, given that matters relating to children and property may be covered by federal law, not state law.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not already subscribed? Get your free trial, access everything immediately
Thanx for this round up.
Agreed, thanks. It’s nice to see where they stand from a factual perspective.
Won’t matter. Even if Tasmaina does legislate, it will go to the High Court and will be declared unconstitutional.
The legal advice is rubbish. Because there is no Federal law mandating same sex marriage, the states can legislate on it? Please.
There is a Federal Marriage law and as the advocates keep saying, marriage is the same, regardless of whether it is same sex or hetero. The states can legislate same sex civil unions (and they should), but for Tasmania, like all the states, same sex marriage will be a fantasy until constitutional change.
Anne Twomey, the professor of constitutional law at University of Sydney, argues that a Tasmanian law on same sex marriage may be constitutional depending on how it is worded. See her article in the Conversation ‘Explainer: can Tasmania legalise same-sex marriage?’.
Gavin Moodie, while the Twomey article makes a (very) slightly interesting read it doesn’t really outline a case for the Tasmanian legislation having any weight except if: a) they call same sex marriage something other than ‘marriage’ or b) the legislation only applies in Tasmania and has no standing in any other state or in the Commonwealth. Which really means that saying there is “legal advice” is pulling a long bow and a few legs. Sure, there might be some political gameplaying to have with it at the state level and it may demonstrate how pathetic the Labor Party’s national platform as against its bullshit ‘conscience vote’ is but in the end, as Scott says, it won’t matter. Cleverdick manoeurvring in the ALP is its own biggest problem. Why do they do it?
If A = B, where A and B are legal entities, and I choose A and someone else chooses B then I presume we would be equal in law. Does not seem too complicated
However, why in the world is Crikey and some other media outlets writing “same sex” as “same s-x”? SEX, its ok to say and write, and, might I say, perform.
Tony Mikus, scroll down to the bottom of today’s Crikey bulletin, past all the staff addresses and you will find your answer. Crikey is not being precious by publishing ‘s-x’.
It may be ‘ok to say and write’ but some servers take a grim view of it as content.
The Devil of a Tasmanian Parliament – Dog knotted.