Page 1609 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ACT but also across Australia. Once again, the ACT appears to be setting an example for acknowledging and implementing human rights principles.
I acknowledge the work of Good Process, the peak ACT GLBTI body, in advancing the rights of their community and responding to the Legislative Assembly and ACT government. They are a hard-working, inclusive group of people who tirelessly campaign for their rights and the rights of others. They were formed in response to the 2001-02 focus on the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people living in the ACT, with the intention of campaigning for legislative reform. And they have succeeded. I am sure they will continue to work on these well beyond the passing of the Civil Unions Bill, for a number of legal impediments remain to providing full equality to GLBTI people in our community.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (6.16): It is a bit of a quandary to me as to where I start in this debate tonight. I have to say—and my colleague Mr Stefaniak made the comment in his opening remarks tonight—the government was quite tardy in circulating its amendments, given that it is something of very big importance to us if you are agreeing with it or disagreeing with it. I register my concern that we were told so late. But I have to say too that the sheer amount of amendments that were circulated clearly shows how flawed the legislation was and still is. Put bluntly, this legislation is a dog’s breakfast. I do not think it does the gay and lesbian lobby any service whatsoever.
What can I call it? I am lost for words because it is some sort of personal agenda that is being put out here as some sort of lip-service. It appals me, but I will carry on. I cannot support any moves to diminish or mimic marriage. As somebody who has been married for nearly 30 years, I cannot do that. The house knows, and many members in the gallery may not know, I have a cousin and a nephew who are homosexual.
Whilst this Civil Unions Bill is aimed fairly and squarely, I would have to say—and from Mr Barr’s speech that was quite clear—at same-sex couples, the opposition’s bill seeks to recognise significant partnerships of people who are in loving and caring relationships. I stand today to say at the outset that I will never concede that marriage is anything to me other than a union between a man and a woman and that marriage will never be known as anything else. However much we try to change or move it and all become the same, marriage will remain supreme under commonwealth law and as God intended it to be. As we look at one aspect of this bill, I offer this quote from John Stott’s book, New issues facing Christians. He points out:
However strongly we may disapprove of homosexual practices, we have no liberty to dehumanise those who engage in them.
Therefore none of us can come to this debate with a holier-than-thou attitude of moral superiority. I am trying not to do that at all. We are none of us perfect and we need to recognise that we are all, first and foremost, human beings.
I heard Mr Barr’s impassioned plea in his speech. I feel your burden, Mr Barr. I am very torn about today’s debate. I am a person who fights for the battler or the underdog. I am a person who cannot tolerate discrimination or injustice, despite what the government continue to hurl at this side of the house. Of me, that is not true. I am also a person of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .