Talk:LGBTQ rights in Australia

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)

It certainly deserves to be more than a list.--cj | talk 16:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• PC isn't necessarily a bad thing here, but the issue of blocking could possibly be misleading. Under the ACT section, it states exactly what you say: "The Civil Unions Act 2006, which created civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples and made them legally equivalent to marriage, was enacted on 9 June 2006, but quickly disallowed by the Governor-General on 13 June 2006 under the direction of Attorney General Philip Ruddock." It is my understanding that bills could get "rubber-stamped" by the GG without specific intervention from the federal government. I may be wrong, but it may be this unnecessary intervention that is considered blocking legislation. Ikzing (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• • So therefore the references under the Howard years that refer to Howards government and the Commonwealth blocking the legislation should be removed!? The Constitution requires the GG to grant Royal Assent to all Federal Bills and also those of the Territories. There is no provision under the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to block territory legislation (there is provision for it to make laws and those laws could override territory legislation), therefore the GG has the power to allow, disallow or hold for her majesty's pleasure. Strictly speaking the GG decided to withhold royal assent effectively vetoing the bill. Also noticed the table down the bottom is incorrect -- homosexuality was not legalised in all states until 1997 -- there are many inconsitencies in this article and the information often contradicts itself. 82.11.182.108 (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)