The ACT passed the most progressive same-sex partnership laws in the country yesterday, granting couples the right to legally binding ceremonies, but the Federal Government will almost certainly veto the changes.
A spokesman for federal Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O'Connor confirmed yesterday the Federal Government's position that such provisions ''undermined and mimicked'' marriage had not changed, but would not say whether the new laws would be disallowed.
''We will need to review it in light of whether it's consistent with other national approaches to relationship recognition,'' the spokesman said.
The territory's Civil Partnership Act was introduced 18 months ago but only after lengthy negotiations with the Rudd Government, which agreed not to sink the legislation if the ACT Government removed provisions for legally binding ceremonies almost identical to the ones passed in the Legislative Assembly yesterday.
The Howard government had scuttled the ACT Government's entire Civil Partnerships Act in 2006 which had also included legally binding ceremonies.
ACT Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury succeeded yesterday in re-introducing such a provision with the ACT Government's support. The Opposition voted against Mr Rattenbury's Bill.
Mr Rattenbury said yesterday the new laws were about ''equality, decency and respect''.
''This is a step forward for same-sex couples in the territory. It is not marriage equality for all couples, it should not be seen as a substitute for marriage equality, but it is a step forward,'' he said.
ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell amended Mr Rattenbury's Bill to exclude heterosexual couples from the new, legally binding civil union ceremonies, after receiving legal advice that extending them to heterosexual couples could be unconstitutional according to the Commonwealth's exclusive powers to legislate with respect to marriage.
He said yesterday the Federal Government now had no legal basis on which to oppose the ceremonies.
''So unless they are able to come up with an argument that says why this impinges on the constitutional powers available to them and they haven't been able to do that I simply have to conclude that this is a form of discrimination, it is a form of bigotry towards gay and lesbian people,'' Mr Corbell said.
''There could be no other conclusion that you could draw.''
The new laws will take effect next week, and any civil partnerships registered under them between their enactment and any disallowance from the Federal Government will remain valid. Under existing laws a partnership is only made official through the signing of documents, and although ceremonies can be held they have no legal status.
Meanwhile, an emotional Andrew Barr, the only homosexual MLA and preparing for his own civil union later this month, wept as he praised the Assembly's progressive-ness.
''I think it is a matter for considerable pride that this Parliament has taken that action and continues to support loving, caring relationships,'' Mr Barr said, weeping openly in the chamber.
''I think we all define ourselves in some way by who we choose to share our lives with, and that love, the trust and intimacy and commitment are found at the heart of all good relationships.''
Shadow attorney-general Vicki Dunne said the Liberals rejected the Bill because it was unconstitutional, as the new ceremonies were inconsistent with the Marriage Act.
She rejected the suggestion that her position had anything to do with her Catholic faith, which is held by the majority of her parliamentary party.
''A civil partnership ceremony still looks like a marriage, it still sounds like a marriage, it still feels like a marriage and therefore it probably is a marriage, and as such it will challenge the Commonwealth's Marriage Act,'' Ms Dunne said.
''My views as a Catholic are well known, but the views that I put forward today are the views of the party room and they relate to the relationship with the Marriage Act.''
Mr Rattenbury accused Opposition MLA Jeremy Hanson of hypocrisy after stating in his maiden speech to the Assembly last year that he ''believed in advancing the rights for gay and lesbian people'' but voted against the Bill yesterday.
Mr Hanson would not be drawn on his personal views yesterday, but denied he was being hypocritical.
Email a friend
Favourites
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
MySpace
Reddit
Newsvine
LinkedIn
Kwoff
Twitter