Talk:LGBT rights in Australia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Ack - about time this was created. How should we best go about expanding this one? Chronologically? Thematically? By state? Ambi 10:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The article Same-sex marriage in Australia is fairly decent (created in February 2004(!)), so don't forget to have a look there before writing stuff here. Outside of recognition of same-sex marriages, are there many current issues, or is it largely historical? Andjam 11:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you raise a good point. There's plenty of room for a fantastic historical article, but most of the lingering rights issues aside from same-sex marriage would probably be best raised in the context of the individual state laws (c.f. Abortion in Australia) - something that may need to be at another title. Ambi 11:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I suspect some anti-discrimination laws are federal rather than state in nature. I think there's federal racial anti-discrimination legislation (mentioned in context of the Mabo and Wik debate). Andjam 07:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Astrosodi comments: There are a number of issues relevant to gay rights in Australia that have direct relevance to the marriage debate - this is essentially because a whole set of benefits and rights is only available at the federal level (for example, despite making some amendments to 'equalise' the rights of same-sex couples with heterosexual couples in relation to superannuation, there have now been further recent significant amendments to superannuation laws that are not available to same-sex couples, and there are taxation, medicare, and social security benefits that same-sex couples cannot access or take advantage of), so despite general recognition at the state level, this only makes state level benefits accessible to same-sex couples. Additionally, federal anti-discrimination laws do not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is a very complicated field, because of the dual system and the huge differences between the state-level recognition and the federal level of recognition, particularly as the federal government controls so many of the benefits provided to australians, and is increasingly encroaching on state-level issues, such as recent significant changes to industrial relations, which sees a number of employment related issues affected. This is quite a complex task, and is related to the 'marriage/civil unions debate' because if that were implemented on a federal level, then many of these issues would be fixed automatically by updating the definition of 'spouse' or including a definition for 'civil partner'. This is a really big job, in my opinion, as there are so many areas to cover. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrosodi (talk • contribs) .

Sounds like you know a lot about this, maybe you could write it up for the article? Cnwb 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

From the Encyclopedia of Melbourne

The Encyclopedia of Melbourne has entries on 'Gay Men' and 'Lesbians'. I'll add some more to the skeleton so others can flesh it out some more. Cnwb 08:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

History of Queer Melbourne

There's an upcoming walking tour of the history of Melbourne's queer community, which sounds absolutely fascinating [1]. It's part of Midsumma. Cnwb 08:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Damnit - I'd love to go, but I'm set to leave two days beforehand. Ambi 09:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Blood donation

The Australian Red Cross has a ban on all sexually active gay and bisexual men (who have been active in the past 12 months) from donating blood

I'd be surprised if bisexual men who have been sexually active only with women over the past 12 months would be prohibited from donating blood. Does anyone have a citation that'd say that that would be covered by the ban? Thanks, Andjam 03:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are a male and have had sex with a male in the last twelve months, you cannot donate blood. Ambi 03:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the article gives the impression that all bisexual men who have been sexually active in the past 12 months are banned from giving blood, not just those who have sex with men in the past 12 months. Andjam 04:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Then clarify it, don't remove it. Ambi 04:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Were you implying that I had previously removed it? Andjam 04:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

More on blood donation

The law however, does not offer such bans on IV drug users or heterosexual couples, also at-risk of transmitting such diseases.

What's meant by "the law"? As far as I know, the ban on donation is one enforced by the blood bank, not by the government.

People using IV drugs without prescription from a doctor aren't allowed to give blood, if I recall correctly. If people using prescription IV drugs in Australia (as opposed to places like Russia) are at risk of getting diseases, a citation would be good.

If I recall correctly, there are also restrictions on some of the riskier forms of sex even for heterosexuals, such as sex with prostitutes, sex with people from overseas and the like.

Also, why is the sentence in this article? Is it to suggest that the Red Cross is hypocritical? If so, who is making the accusations of hypocrisy? Plantiffs or just some wikipedian? Thanks, Andjam 04:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There are one set of rules for gay people engaging in regular consensual sex. There are another set of rules for straight people engaging in regular consensual sex. This article does not state that the Red Cross is being hypocritical. It just states the facts. Ambi 04:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
You argue that it is verifiable. But verifiability, while vital, is not enough. It also has to be noteworthy. Andjam 04:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. It is an ongoing political issue, and the cause of a lot of ill will between the gay community and the Red Cross - hence the anti-discrimination action in Tasmania. What is your problem with this issue? First you were arguing that it was incorrect, and now you're claming it's not noteworthy. Bah. Ambi 01:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to ask me about the merits of the law case, please do so on my user talk page. With regards to the merits of the article: I'm not opposed to the article talking about the lawsuit, or arguments by the plantiffs against the ban. What I am opposed to is wikipedians inserting their own arguments against the Red Cross ban. To quote WP:NPOV: Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted.. And there is nothing wrong in arguing that something is incorrect and also not noteworthy. Also, try to be a bit more civil. Thanks Andjam 10:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As a side note, the person who mentioned that straights (incidentally, there was no mention that homosexual females are also allowed to donate) and IV users are allowed to donate [2] also talked about "Greens' progressivve pro-gay policies" (the "progressive" bit is a bit redundant) and talked about Bracks "admitting" something rather than "saying" something. Andjam 10:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Andjam, I just paraphrased the article, no NPOV inteded, but civility isn't really your forte, especially if you consider that fact that you baited me on my own talk page as "I'm letting you know that I'm talking about you again on Xtra's talk page" Do as I say, not as I do, eh? Lefty on campus 09:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That ain't no fact, Lefty. I wasn't baiting you. You had complained previously [3] that I like to "gossip" about you, so I subsequently let you know that I was talking about you. If you feel I've been incivil elsewhere, let me know. I didn't mean to argue that you were deliberately inserting POV, I was merely indicating that one of the people editing the article hasn't yet got the hang of the tone needed for wikipedia articles. Andjam 09:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Gay women are allowed to donate because statistically they have the lowest risk factor for contracting HIV and Hep B and C. The person who added that information is incorrect. IV drug users are not allowed to donate blood at all. They are banned for life. Also, this isn't an Australian issue. It's the Blood Bank in general. For instance, in the US men who have had sex with another man even once since 1977 are not allowed to donate ever. The Blood Bank in Australia is a lot less restrictive with their rules than it is in many other countries. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes that is my mistake, all IV drug users and "sex workers" are banned however, gays aren't banned from sperm and organ donation, while all blood supplies are screened for HIV anyway (making the ban completely non-sensical). Ambi, I like your passion for these isues!! Sarah, gay blood isn't banned worldwide, no such ban exists in Spain or Switzerland and soon-to-be-Sweeden for gay donors. Maybe this will help, [4] Lefty on campus 09:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Blood screening is only of limited effect, as it can't detect newly infected people (six months or so I think), so the ban isn't non-sensical. Saying that the ban is nonsensical is original research. Also, this isn't Turin, so passion doesn't live here. Passion isn't needed, just diligence. The aim of wikipedia isn't to change the world, but to describe it. You may like to read something like Wikipedia:Five_pillars some time. Andjam 09:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it can be detected in 3 months [5]. How is my comment that the ban is non-sensical (on a talk page, mind you) original research? I gave an opinion on a talk page, no where included on the article page, and not ever intended to be. Contrary to your belief, everyone does have an opinion in real life, and as long as the article remains neutral, it isn't an issue, so with all due respect, what is your problem?? I would ask that you keep the evangelism to a minimum, too. It's unsettling. And could also be termed baiting by any reasonable person. All I did was commend Ambi on her passion in other words, determination - nowhere did I urge her to insert her POV in the article (can you point to the passage where I did?) I didn't realise that I couldn't do that on a talk page. Silly me, discussion is not for discussing content. Ooops. WADS, I would seriously suggest you get over your own issues, or else this article is going to suffer if you excessively critique anything we write. It was bare bones until a few weeks ago. Lefty on campus 23:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an Evangalist (though I may be a technical evangelist outside of wikipedia), but I find such a statement un-called for. Wikipedia:Talk pages says that stating opinions on a subject (eg saying that a ban is nonsensical) even on an article talk page is discouraged. And what does "WADS" stand for? Thanks, Andjam 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense to compare blood bank rules to organ and sperm donation. Only about 1% of deaths qualify for organ donation, so they don't have such stringent rules and instead the donor's entire medical history is taken into account and that includes lifestyle factors. Also, people with hepatitis are allowed to donate certain organs under certain conditions, but they are not allowed to donate blood. Donated sperm is kept quarantined for six months and undergoes a lot of testing before it is released. Sperm and organ donation and blood donation are completely different issues and should not be compared. The deferral is not nonsensical. You can agree or disagree with it but to claim it makes no sense when it is based on clear medical statistics is ludicrous. Yes, I know that in some countries the blood donor rules are different. I never said it was a worldwide rule, only that it is not specific to the Australian blood bank. Obviously bloodbanks in different countries are free to impose their own rules. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As an addition, something has to be added about the new ACT civil unions that apply to same-sex couples (or at least a brief descrption and a link to the same-sex marriage Australia page), I'd do it now but I have too much work to do!! Lefty on campus 09:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This page really needs a state-by-state split-up, as per abortion in Australia. A coherent history section wouldn't be bad, either. Ambi 08:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Rfc Costello's comments

I think those comments made by costello (voting for one's religion) are important to include, that passage was the first time I'd heard about them (never reported on the news). At least discuss or notify the removal before deleting useful and helpful information. Thanks PSYCH 08:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

as a separate issue, I don't know how to add links at the bottom to refer to the article,, so I just left it as an external link, if someone can tidy, it'd help. Thanks. PSYCH 08:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

does anyone else think the subheading is miseleading? Howard has been leader for a decade now so "gay rights in the last decade" is really as it was before , "under the Howward government." so why the change? PSYCH 08:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Costello comments are not about gays or gay rights, thus, irrelevant. The heading was misleading as it implies that Howard was behind everything, when it involved things such as people's personal opinions and court decisions. Xtra 09:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse, assuming you've read the article, you'd know those comments were about the legitimacy of people being allowed to vote against gay rights by voting for their religion, and thus is appropriate for inclusion. PSYCH 09:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Relevance and structure

This article needs to concentrate more on issues to do with gay rights, and less on what this minister said when, unless they are announcing some kind of new policy. This article also really needs to be structured better. Xtra 11:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It may need to be structured better, but that'd probably involve creating "Gay rights in (state)" articles. Also, maybe it'd be better if everyone left this article alone for a few days. Andjam 11:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am looking at restructuring this article, but some of the sources and information don't match up. Xtra 04:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In what respect? Ambi 04:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the content currently in the article is on-topic, though it's probably best to make a section specifically on same-sex marriage, merge material from this article on that topic into Same-sex marriage in Australia, and put a summary of that article here. This article does need more information on non-marriage-related rights issues: more info about in what circumstances discrimination is not allowed, the history of de-criminalization of homosexual acts, something about the history of gay bar raids, the history of the national movement, etc. -- Beland 17:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Selective deletion

I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 04:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done the same again. --cj | talk 11:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Proxies

Message to anonymous vandal. Why should I justify my edits to you when all you do is vandalise and defame me? Please - logic?!?!?! Xtra 09:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)
      • "Strictly speaking the GG decided to withhold royal assent effectively vetoing the bill." ...exactly, AND its disallowance was at the request of the federal government. From what I understand, if the attorney general did not step in, it probably would have passed, so shouldn't that point be mentioned? That's all I'm asking. Please feel free to state this more accurately if you like, and you are more than welcome to fix any other inconsistencies you find to make this a more useful article. Ikzing (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Homosexuality was legalised at the Commonwealth level in 1994, effectively nullifying contradicting state laws. So technically, it became legal nationwide in 1994 desipte still being on the books in Tasmania until 1997. All depends on how you want to measure it. There may be a lot of contradictory information on the page, but there are a lot of contradictory laws, and I for one am just trying to muddle through all the laws to try to get an accurate picure of the current situation. Ikzing (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "tas" :
    • {{cite web |title= Employer's Responsibilities |publisher= Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commission, Tasmania |url= http://www.antidiscrimination.tas.gov.au/employers_responsibilities |accessdate= 2007-09-03}}
    • {{cite web |title= Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 |publisher= Austlii |url= http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/aa1998204/|accessdate= 2008-05-08}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

New Victoria IVF Legislation

In reading the draft bill, I can't be certain whether this will give male couples access to IVF, ie. sending their surrogate to an IVF clinic. A recent news article (http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2008/10/08/debate-begins-over-ivf/2057) suggests males will also benefit, stating "The bill also deals with surrogacy, smoothing the way for gay men to access non-commercial surrogacy with provision to gain parentage of a child through the County Court once the child is born."

Ikzing (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)