Posted on 01/19/2006 1:40:56 PM PST by SirLinksalot
Govt defends block to same sex marriage
January 18, 2006 - 9:29AM
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has defended his department's action in attempting to block a legal same-sex marriage overseas.
The Australian Embassy in Vienna refused Melbourne man Peter Kakucska a certificate confirming his single status once it became clear he needed it to marry his male partner Markus Muehlmann, an Austrian national.
The Netherlands requires proof that foreign nationals wishing to marry there are not already married in their country of origin.
Australian embassies provide this proof in the form of a Certificate of No Impediment to Marriage, or a Single Status Certificate.
Last year, the couple took advantage of laws that entitled them to apply to marry in the Netherlands.
Mr Kakucska told ABC radio embassy staff knew his sexual orientation, as he had crossed out the word "female" in the partner section and wrote "male" and his partner's name.
"I was told I had to wait because they would ... communicate with Canberra regarding the situation, because they realised this wasn't normal procedure for them," Mr Kakucska said.
"(I get) a sense that they wanted to wash their hands of the whole issue.
"They made me feel like a second-class Australian citizen abroad."
The embassy issued him with a statement that read: "Following the advice of the Australian Attorney-General's Department we herewith certify that Australian law does not allow the issue of a Certificate of No Impediment to Marriage to persons wishing to enter into a same-sex marriage."
He was also refused a Single Status Certificate.
The Netherlands ultimately accepted the documents, along with an affidavit from Mr Kakucska as proof he was single. The couple married in the Netherlands in November.
Mr Ruddock said he stood by the decision.
"Our department issues a document that fulfils the purpose for which it is requested - that is, to deal with two issues," he told ABC radio.
"First, to certify that there is no impediment because a person has been previously married and therefore to marry them would be occasioning an offence of bigamy.
"And secondly, to indicate that if a person marries in accordance with his intention abroad that it be recognised in Australia.
"And it's the latter purpose for which certificates are sought to which we are not prepared to give such a certification because the law in Australia does not permit marriage between same-sex partners."
Mr Ruddock said while some coalition MPs were agitating for changes to allow same-sex couples to access the same superannuation and other entitlements as heterosexual couples, he did not believe there was support for same-sex marriage.
"We are seeking to ensure people are not discriminated against or disadvantaged, but the view is we will not redefine marriage."
He said the states had the power to determine whether to allow same-sex civil unions, but marriage remained a Commonwealth power.
Not while the current party is in power
Saying they are discrinated against because they can't marry a same sex partner is ridiculus. No one else can either. If some citizens were allowed to have same sex marriages and they were not then THAT would be discrimination! They have the same right to marry as everyone else, marry a person of the oppisite sex. No discrimination exits except in their minds so they can blast the government and heteros.
The twisted minds of homosexuals. *sigh*
Marriage is defined as one bloke and one sheila.
No matter how gays spin it, it is not discrimination.
Two gay people are in love. They cannot get married.
Thus they do not have the same rights.
Actually those suffering the homosexual disorder are free to marry members of the opposite sex rather than pretend to marry a member of the same sex. Marriage is not a right [it] is a religious sacrament with a civil license...
Surely you are not promulgating propaganda supporting the homosexualization of society on FR?
What Free Republic is all about:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
OH Aussie Dasherrrrr
I guess this topic is liberal troll attractive?
The Howard Government NEVER caves in to international pressure.
I'm so proud of our team in Canberra!
Two gay people are in love. They cannot get married.
Thus they do not have the same rights.
That logic doesn't solve the argument. how about:
Two unrelated people are in love. They can get married.
A brother and sister are in love. They cannot get married.
Thus they do not have the same rights.
I am assisting in pinging the list temporarily.
Thanks for the ping!
The Howard Government is firmly committed to Rule 1!
I'm so proud of our team in Canberra!
Yes! Lets hope Canada gets conservative leaders...
Two straight folk are in love. They can get married.
Two gay people are in love. They cannot get married.
Thus they do not have the same rights.
Actually those suffering the homosexual disorder are free to marry members of the opposite sex rather than pretend to marry a member of the same sex. Marriage is not a right [it] is a religious sacrament with a civil license
---
Not to everyone it isnt. Many people dont see marriage as a religious thing at all. Or is it your contention that atheists dont get married?
My personal view is that the government should get the hell out of marriage altogether.
Two straight folk are in love. They can get married.
Two gay people are in love. They cannot get married.
Thus they do not have the same rights.
That logic doesn't solve the argument. how about:
Two unrelated people are in love. They can get married.
A brother and sister are in love. They cannot get married.
Thus they do not have the same rights.
---
EXACTLY! They do not have the same rights. However, as you point out that is not the end of the issue. The issue of wether people SHOULD have the right or not is different to the issue of whether people do have the right. I was simply correcting a mistake by one poster.
Two gay people are in love. They cannot get married.
Thus they do not have the same rights.
What a moronic argument. I love my children. I cannot marry them. My rights are not infringed. Besides, homosexuals and courts have no right to redefine the word 'marriage.'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.