Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ rights in Australia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 58: Line 58:
==Recognition of gay unions==
==Recognition of gay unions==
This should be a summary of the main article it comes from, rather than an exact copy. I think it used to be much shorter, so I'm not sure what happened. [[Special:Contributions/71.108.6.153|71.108.6.153]] ([[User talk:71.108.6.153|talk]]) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This should be a summary of the main article it comes from, rather than an exact copy. I think it used to be much shorter, so I'm not sure what happened. [[Special:Contributions/71.108.6.153|71.108.6.153]] ([[User talk:71.108.6.153|talk]]) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am intrigued about how PC and also incorrect the statement about the Federal Government blocking ACTs legislation re same sex civil partnerships. I cannot find anywhere in the constitution that allows the Federal Government to simply block legislation that is passed. I note that it can make laws with respect to the territories (which theoretically overturns the original law), however, this is not what happened. My understanding is that the Governor General did not sign the bill into law (as required) on the advice of the PM but was not obliged to do so. Wouldn't the correct understanding be that the Governor General refused to sign the bill into law aka withheld royal assent?? Be interested to know others thoughts. [[Special:Contributions/82.11.182.108|82.11.182.108]] ([[User talk:82.11.182.108|talk]]) 22:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)





Revision as of 22:51, 30 June 2008

WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconAustralia: Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconLGBTQ rights in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Improvement effort

Would anyone be up for helping in an effort to improve this article? I've just been looking around at some of the LGBT articles from other countries, and it really made me wonder if we can't do much better than this. Rebecca 00:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly deserves to be more than a list.--cj | talk 16:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be done by separating the article into various topics in the legal arena and tracing the history that way.
1) the decriminalization of homosexual sex acts
2) the recognition of civil unions
3) the establishment of 'marriage as between one man and one woman' laws
4) anti-discrimination laws in housing/employment
5) allowing LGBT to adopt
6) gays/lesbians serving in the military.
Any disagreements or other suggestions? 207.69.137.36 01:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the re-organization, but I am not good with getting the reference and citation links in the proper format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.115.165 (talk) 21:52, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time once again for reorganization. Since there is already an article on Same-sex Marriage, there's no need to repeat it. Perhaps a breakdown showing the dicriminalisation and recognition history and progress by each state:

1) LGBT history and activism (summary of early years and significant events)
2) Decriminalisation and recognition
Commonwealth
Civil union proposals
Social Security Act 1991
Immigration and sponsorship
Military service
Marriage ban
ACT
New South Wales
Northern Territory
Queensland
South Australia
Tasmania
Victoria
Western Australia
3) Adoption and parenting (This may have grown enough to have its own page, with a summary here)
4) Public opinion in 2007
5) Opposition groups
6) Other areas of LGBT rights
Inheritance and property rights

Other suggestions welcome!! 71.108.6.153 (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

The intro is poorly written, the result of several edits I'm guessing, and needs to be reworded to make it clearer. I would but honestly don't understand it. Cheers, Rothery 05:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

intro and whole article have been re-written.207.69.137.28 19:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The summary table at the end is actually incorrect and also inconsistent with the article. Homosexuality was not legalised in Australia in 1994 -- it was still illegal in Tasmania until 1997 (as noted earlier in the article)!! I tried to change it but it would not let me. Is someone able to change? 82.11.182.108 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of gay unions

This should be a summary of the main article it comes from, rather than an exact copy. I think it used to be much shorter, so I'm not sure what happened. 71.108.6.153 (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am intrigued about how PC and also incorrect the statement about the Federal Government blocking ACTs legislation re same sex civil partnerships. I cannot find anywhere in the constitution that allows the Federal Government to simply block legislation that is passed. I note that it can make laws with respect to the territories (which theoretically overturns the original law), however, this is not what happened. My understanding is that the Governor General did not sign the bill into law (as required) on the advice of the PM but was not obliged to do so. Wouldn't the correct understanding be that the Governor General refused to sign the bill into law aka withheld royal assent?? Be interested to know others thoughts. 82.11.182.108 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]