a ranting we will go.
Jun. 14th, 2006 03:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
boodieI am not a great fan of the Howard Govt, I think they have done Australia no favours in a great many of the decisions they have made, this latest one in overturning states rights and overiding the ACTs law on allowing Gay civil unions is appalling.
There are far greater threats to the so called 'sanctity' of the marriage vows, and they are the marriage and divorce laws. Not gay people wanting to enjoy the same protection under the law as straight people WRT to superannuation, visiting rights, custody and yes even the ability to divorce.
Getting married is FAR too easy, there should be at least three months gap between the issuing of the licence and the actual wedding date, and ALL couples should undergo at least six sessions, separately and as a couple of pre-wedding counselling, where couples work out how they will live their lives AFTER they get married.
Where they work out divisions of labour, whether or not to have children, when to have children, outside interests, time spent together, financial responsibilities, and the intricate art of meshing two lives together into one.
And no one should be allowed to get married until they have passed this course, if its true love then they can handle the wait, and know that this will increase their chances of staying together.
Couples should have access to counselling for free in the first year of marriage to iron out the little kinks before they turn into big deal breakers, and after the first year, for a nominal fee counselling will also be available.
Couples, who feel that their marriage is over, will be required to attend compulsory counselling, both separately and together, in an effort to see if the marriage can be saved. This will also be offered to long term de facto relationships. The only exception to this will be if the marriage is an abusive one, and then the abused partner (male or female) will be given a fast tracked divorce and counselling.
Divorcing couples with children will be required to sign an undertaking that they will never use their children as bargaining chips in the divorce proceedings, children of divorcing couples will have access to free counselling as long as it is needed, this will also be offered to children of de facto relationships.
Even the cost of all of this will be insignificant to current cost of the outcome of a divorce rate of over 50 percent; gay civil unions are not a big threat to the 'traditional' family values that the religious right and the Liberals would have us believe. It is people rushing into marriage with NO freaking idea of what it all means.
There are far greater threats to the so called 'sanctity' of the marriage vows, and they are the marriage and divorce laws. Not gay people wanting to enjoy the same protection under the law as straight people WRT to superannuation, visiting rights, custody and yes even the ability to divorce.
Getting married is FAR too easy, there should be at least three months gap between the issuing of the licence and the actual wedding date, and ALL couples should undergo at least six sessions, separately and as a couple of pre-wedding counselling, where couples work out how they will live their lives AFTER they get married.
Where they work out divisions of labour, whether or not to have children, when to have children, outside interests, time spent together, financial responsibilities, and the intricate art of meshing two lives together into one.
And no one should be allowed to get married until they have passed this course, if its true love then they can handle the wait, and know that this will increase their chances of staying together.
Couples should have access to counselling for free in the first year of marriage to iron out the little kinks before they turn into big deal breakers, and after the first year, for a nominal fee counselling will also be available.
Couples, who feel that their marriage is over, will be required to attend compulsory counselling, both separately and together, in an effort to see if the marriage can be saved. This will also be offered to long term de facto relationships. The only exception to this will be if the marriage is an abusive one, and then the abused partner (male or female) will be given a fast tracked divorce and counselling.
Divorcing couples with children will be required to sign an undertaking that they will never use their children as bargaining chips in the divorce proceedings, children of divorcing couples will have access to free counselling as long as it is needed, this will also be offered to children of de facto relationships.
Even the cost of all of this will be insignificant to current cost of the outcome of a divorce rate of over 50 percent; gay civil unions are not a big threat to the 'traditional' family values that the religious right and the Liberals would have us believe. It is people rushing into marriage with NO freaking idea of what it all means.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 08:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 12:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 09:02 am (UTC)You've got my vote!
no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 12:55 pm (UTC)hmmm politics...
no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 01:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 02:05 pm (UTC)sadly.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-15 04:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-15 01:14 am (UTC)The sad thing is that practically EVERY country in the world who is dealing with the "OMG terrible gay marraige debate" has something in their respective constitutions about everyone having the "RIGHT to enjoy the SAME RIGHTS as EVERYONE ELSE". I mean, the fucking US Government is even trying to RE-WRITE their own constitution because... OOPS... we might have to allow gays to marry unless we ACTUALLY make it illegal.
Fucking makes me sick. There are FAR worse things than two men or two women who want to marry each other. Like "terrorism", or global warming, or bio fuels, or the oil reserves.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-15 04:29 am (UTC)When you're pissed out of your mind... great way to go into a marriage.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-15 10:02 am (UTC)Celebrities are always getting married and divorced at the drop of a hat. It's silly. And gays can't marry because it's wrong? In fact, BECAUSE they can't marry, some gay couples stay together longer than MOST straight couples. Now that's the kind of love and dedication you WANT in a marraige. =P
Gah! Kill... the.... dumb.... fucks!!
no subject
Date: 2006-06-15 05:40 am (UTC)That's not to say they're going to try again... and again... and again... >.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-15 10:00 am (UTC)Nice to know there are people higher up in the government trying to protect my rights and freedoms. =P
I'm Canadian btw. We have gay marraige now, but the douche in office is trying to have it banned again.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 03:03 am (UTC)And if it's promiscuity they're worried about, they need only look at all the heterosexual married males who go catting around. Puh-LEEZ!
These self-righteous idiots prate on about "family values," but I guess that's only for their own kind.
That's like the same religious wing-nuts who don't want people to have access to birth control information and materials and methods, and also want to outlaw abortion. This thinking is fallacious two ways:
1. If people have access to birth control information and materials and methods, there will be fewer pregnancies, and fewer demands for abortion.
2. If abortion is outlawed, it will NOT go away. There will be the "back alley butchers" coming back with a vengeance, and the obstetric wards will once again, as they were before Roe v. Wade, be filled with women with massive horrible infections.
Oh, but allowing people to have access to birth control just means they'll be promiscuous. Maybe. So what? That's none of anyone's damn business, anyway. Certainly not the business of someone who does not know either party from Adam's off ox but just wants to stick his nose in out of self-righteousness.
And these are the same people who say they are against the federal government sticking its nose into people's private lives -- well, they don't like the govermnent sticking its nose into THEIR private lives (because the examination will show them to be less than the perfect saints they try to pretend to be?) but they don't mind at all the government sticking their noses into the bedrooms of people they (the religious wing-nuts) don't like.
We narrowly avoided having hate and fear and prejudice enshrined in our Constitution.
The backlash, however, may have begun -- Kansas, a traditionally Republican state, has now a Democratic governor, several other Republican officeholders stand to be turned out, and some prominent Republicans in the state have switched parties and are now Democrats!
There may be hope, but I'm not holding my breath.
But please don't lump us liberals (at least those of us here in the U.S.) with the religious wingnuts. I am a liberal, and I don't care if someone wants to marry someone of the same sex, the opposite sex, no sex at all, or if he wants to marry his gatepost. I really don't give a rat's fart in a hurricane what goes on behind someone else's closed doors. And I'd be pleased to see gay marriages recognized. I think it would be a good thing for society.