![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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 05:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I vote keep separate. There is already a reference to it under the NSW item. The page rpoposed ot be merged is too long to slot in here. -- Brendan 04:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I vote merge Tapeworm87 08:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I vote keep separate. The Relationship Declaration is not marriage - and should therefore not be included in the "Same-sex marriage in Australia" page. However it is the closest thing we have in NSW at the moment to marriage. Also to include the detail about all the benefits (limited as they are) that the Relationship Declaration would confer in the "Same-sex marriage in Australia" page would confuse this page I feel, and make it too long. I think the Tasmanian Deed of Relationships and the upcoming ACT Civil Unions should have their own branches also, as the rights they confer are different - the Tasmanian Deed can even be taken out by 2 sisters (for example) where one cares for the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.91.130 ( talk • contribs)
The second paragraph of the 'responses to the bill section' was dubious at best and needed to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Character234 ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Was the Attorney General a drummer? Under the ACT section someone has written Phillip Rudd when I think it should be Phillip Ruddock. Don't know how to change it though.
I'd like to appeal to any knowledgeable Australian editors to consider reworking this article. As I read through the piece, I find it nearly impossible to understand the marriage/partnership status in each jurisdiction. I can see that the legal situation is murky in many places, but the article shouldn't be.
There is a lot of good info here on various acts and legislation; but I would like to see one clear, short statement (perhaps in bold print) at the beginning of each state/territory/city paragraph that tells me what the bottom line is: "Tasmania--Significant Relationships" etc.
As an American unfamiliar with the situation in Australia, I don't feel confident enough to do this needed clarification myself. Any takers, mates? :-) Textorus 19:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
In this edit to Recognition of gay unions in Australia, there was a claim saying "At present the Australian Red Cross has placed a ban on donations (since 1972) from all men who have sex with men.". The ARCBS currently has a one year ban, and I would be very surprised if they had a ban on donations to do with male-male sex back in the 1970s. And what's it doing in a gay union article (as opposed to LGBT rights in Australia) anyway?
This isn't the first time untrue stuff has been said in wikipedia about blood banking in Australia. Andjam 06:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
under the 'Civil union proposals' section, im just wondering if the photo is really necessary. Not saying it offends me or anything, i just hardly see the relevance.-- Zoobz19 ( talk) 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6933.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.171.218 ( talk) 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that all the news links and Hansard links at the bottom of the page are removed. I don't see how it helps, and just seems to clutter the page. If there is a better location for them, perhaps someone can move them there. Thanks. Ikzing ( talk) 05:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to bring this to everyone's attention:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/24/2428430.htm
The commonwealth loopholes have been closed it seems, but I am not that experienced with editing wiki. Lachy123 ( talk) 08:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've put up the Cleanup tag on this article, since it is a bit of a mess. Australian relationship law is indeed among the most compelx in the world, and I'm not entirely sure what the best way to reorganise this article will be. I'm leaning towards having four large sections:
What does everyone think? Finally, I also propose moving this article to Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. The article specifically talks about the legal recognition of same-sex couples, rather than the broader subject of same-sex relationships, which would also have to include topics such as demographics, the sociology of these couples, etc. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I originally added a mention of the rejection of the 09 bill under the 09 bill section but this has already been discussed earlier so I removed it. However I added to the intro the intention of the Greens to reintroduce the bill after the 2010 election. Is that ok? small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieBob ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm wondering whether it would be possible to add a section to this article which lists parliamentarians who are on the record as supporters of same-sex marriage in Australia. I believe that the list below is comprehensive. I have citations for all but a couple. 202.138.25.32 ( talk) 06:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Labor Party HOUSE OF REPRESENATIVES 1. Michael Danby MP, Member for Melbourne Ports, VIC 2. Peter Garrett MP, Member for Kingsford Smith, NSW 3. Sharon Grierson MP, Member for Newcastle, NSW 4. Andrew Leigh MP, Member for Fraser, ACT 5. Stephen Jones MP, Member for Throsby, NSW 6. Kirsten Livermore MP, Member for Capricornia, QLD 7. Graham Perrett MP, Member for Moreton, QLD 8. Sid Sidebottom MP, Member for Braddon, TAS 9. Bill Shorten MP, Member for Maribyrnong, VIC 10. Melissa Parke MP, Member for Fremantle, WA 11. Janelle Saffin MP, Member for Page, NSW
SENATE 1. Mark Arbib, Senator for NSW 2. Doug Cameron, Senator for NSW 3. Trish Crossin, Senator for NT 4. Louise Pratt, Senator for WA 5. Claire Moore, Senator for QLD 6. Penny Wong, Senator for SA
Liberal Party HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1. Teresa Gambaro MP, Member for Brisbane, QLD 2. Mal Washer MP, Member for Moore, WA
SENATE 1. Simon Birmingham, Senator for SA
Australian Greens HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1. Adam Bandt MP, Member for Melbourne, VIC
SENATE 1. Bob Brown, Senator for Tasmania 2. Christine Milne, Senator for Tasmania 3. Rachel Siewert, Senator for WA 4. Scott Ludlum, Senator for WA 5. Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator for SA
Independents HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1. Andrew Wilkie MP, Member for Denison, TAS
I would greatly appreciate a simple timeline listing all legislative changes and attempted changes, eg first moves to decriminalise homosexuality up to latest reforms, as well as other major events eg first Mardi Gras. I realise it wouldn't actually be 'simple' to do otherwise I'd try myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs emma hudson ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Just changed the information regarding Laurie Ferguson. Previously it said that he represented the seat of Macarthur in Victoria. He actually represents the seat of Werriwa in NSW. Additionally, Macarthur is also a seat in NSW, not Victoria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieBob ( talk • contribs) 06:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
This article looks slightly out of date.
I'm not sure if I'm speaking too soon, but I havn't seen any updated information in reference to the changes in same sex relationship laws in the ACT and Tasmania(e.g. legal ceremonies).
Plus if I'm not mistaken. Shouldn't the ACT and Tasmania's colours on the map be changed to the "civil union" colour? Do they now fall under the "civil union" category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.48.197 ( talk) 10:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The introduction incorrectly described South Australia. According to the Statutes Amendment (Domestic Partners) Act 2006 (Number 43), the same-sex couples may make a written agreement called a Domestic Partnership Agreement about their living arrangements. I have added this to the article.PjThompso 09:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso ( talk • contribs)
UPDATE QUEENSLAND NEW CIVIL UNION LAW PASSED IN DEC 1ST 2011. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-01/queensland-parliament-passes-same-sex-bill/3705444?section=qld — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.190.18 ( talk) 15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I have begun editing some sections of articles in realtion to the Civil Partnerships Act 2011 that was passed on December 1st 2011 in QLD. Just to double check are we considering same-sex unions and same-sex partnerships as the same thing? The wikipedia page for same-sex unions does also refer to unions as partnerships or should we consider this more of a Domestic partnership registry. Im finding it to be very ambiguous when reading all the news articles that have been released. Here is the link to the bill so that people can assess it: http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/53PDF/2011/CivilPartB11_P.pdf Daniel.w92 ( talk) 05:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed Rob Mitchell as it's the only name in the list without a cite and I cannot find a cite online for him. I've left a message on the contributor's talk page. Timeshift ( talk) 05:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I've just updated these lists, which included adding in politicians who have declared their support since the last update, and removing those who are no longer sitting. One thing I noticed while checking some of the references was that 'support' did not necessarily equate to voting for it, should such a law come before parliament. What I was hoping someone could tell me is, what is the requirement for this list for a politician to be considered to support same-sex marriage? Is it a declaration (be it implicit or explicit) that they would vote for such a reform, or just a statement (however vague) that they at the very least don't have anything against it. What about the ambiguous cases, where they declare personal support but state they would not vote for it?
Incidentally, below is a website that would be useful in keeping these lists updated, as it is essentially summarising the same information, usually with links to the news articles the information is derived from. http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/whereyourmpstands/
121.45.69.236 ( talk) 13:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
In the introduction section, end of the fourth paragraph; "Nevertheless, despite equality of rights, Australia does not have a national registered partnership or civil union scheme."
Australia does not have a national registry of hetrosexual marriages or defacto relationship either. These are register at a State level. However the Law regarding Marriage [1] is national and therefore a distiguishing factor.
124.179.93.164 ( talk) 07:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
"Nevertheless, despite equality of rights, Australia does not have a national registered partnership or civil union scheme."
I think this sentence is misleading and should be removed, or at least be revised to show that there's no national registry for all relationships. Though, this would just leave "despite equality of rights", i.e. same-sex couples already have all the rights as married/un-married heterosexual couples. And I think this would remove the 'punch-line' the original author intended. Maybe the whole section needs to be revised.
203.15.103.1 ( talk) 06:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)tbarnes
Currently there are two alternative paragraphs for this article section. These are:
David van Gend, a Christian right political candidate, frequently promotes his opinion that gay parents will create a stolen generation [2] [3] [4] and has taken quotes of Julia Gillard out of context. [5] TV channels that ran his ads during the Sydney Mardi Gras were widely criticised on social media, [6] [7] and the Advertising Standards Bureau received "a large number of complaints" but cannot adjudicate over political advertising. [8] [9] Foxtel has been bombarded with threats of subscription cancellations from customers after running ads from van Gend's organisation, [10] [11] and multiple radio and TV networks have declined ads from van Gend, with NOVA Entertainment saying the ads don't fit with their youthful brand. [11] An August 2015 episode of Media Watch found that growing numbers of tv channels refuse to run van Gend's ads, and that news media coverage of stunts for and against same-sex marriage was "skewed" towards the positive side. Paul Barry argued that "both sides of the debate have an equal right to be heard". [11]
In August 2015, Paul Barry the host of the ABC, Media Watch program entitled, Media equality on marriage equality? said, "the overall media coverage of the debate has also been skewed" citing examples by both the print and electronic media. He said, "both sides of the debate have an equal right to be heard". [12]
Possibly the two alternatives can be combined. I seek a solution from other Wiki editors. B20097 ( talk) 13:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The support of Senators Sam Dastyari and Lisa Singh, for SSM - as claimed by AME - is at odds with their non-support, cited at < https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/> (there may be other inconsistencies in the current article tabulations of politicians). " Australian Marriage Equality is an advocacy group . . to pursue the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Australia". The AME citation-substantiation is simply "SUPPORTER" in green-font or "OPPOSED" in red-font - nothing more. AME does not have a NPOV when compiling these statistics. Reliable sources should be used for any claim regarding political support for SSM. All entries in the current tabulation require WP:RSs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B20097 ( talk • contribs) 05:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, The following sentance appears in the second last paragraph of this section:
These two propositions reflect the bias of the author - in that the first one uses "dislikes" to diminish the comments made by Lyle Shelton in the referenced article; and the second asserts that the comments labelled as "vicious attacks" by the subject were in fact mere criticism. Neither of these views are stated in the references. Given this is likely a contentious section in an article about a contentious subject, I'm not making the edit (I don't edit Wikipedia much) but put it to anyone taking an interest in this page that in the interests of removing bias the sentance would be better worded something like:
Quotes from the existing references that support this:
If someone who has been involved in curating the content of this page would like to make this edit, I'd greatly appreciate it. It just stuck out like a sore thumb when I read it as reflecting a particular view that Mr Shelton's comments were not valid, and that's not helpful for encyclopedic content.
Juzzie79 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/translatewipilink.ASPX?Folder=oldbills&Criteria=BILL_ID:r2123;SEQ_NUM:0;When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
This article has too much trivial detail about things which will not matter in the long term. Its like a summary of related news articles. I don't think it matters what an MP said 10 years ago about it. Each poll result doesn't have to be elaborated on. If contributors to this page could summarise some of the information, not focus on what politicians have said and include just the most significant events the article would be clearer and be read more. - Shiftchange ( talk) 22:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The two relevant sections under the COMMUNITY DEBATE section (Religious and lobby groups and Free expression and religious liberty) read like an advertisement or lecture from opponents of SSM. The whole section is unnecessarily detailed. I would hazard a guess that when or if SSM becomes legal in Australia, after things calm down this whole section may well be deleted or significantly reduced. But for now, feel free to discuss it here. Jono52795 ( talk) 08:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://democraticaudit.anu.edu.au/papers/focussed_audits/200707madpartsexlty_no9.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This article needs a trim back and I know how. All the sentences that consist solely of statements should be removed because they are unencyclopedic. They explain nothing. We should not include details such as what Anthony Albanese said after the second reading of the Marriage Amendment Act 2004. We should not be listing a grab bag of statements that made recent headlines. We should not be documenting when various politicians or organisations make statements of support or otherwise because this is too arbitrary: it is based on a personal whim. This explains nothing. The exception to this is in the creation of stand-alone list pages.
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are to write about the subject. We are not here to transcribe what was said about things. That is considered trivia. Please see Wikiquote if quotations are really important to you. - Shiftchange ( talk) 12:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
All the sentences that consist solely of statements should be removed— I presume you mean "all the sentences consist solely of quotations ...". Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Although a non-involved admin is usually the one to move, in this case we have unanimity of responses and it is clear this is an uncontroversial move. Invoking WP:SNOWBALL in particular as well as WP:CONSISTENCY. Jono52795 ( talk) 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia →
Same-sex marriage in Australia – This change of title is standard for every other country that has legalised SSM. Whilst I realise some might think the current title more accurately refers all the content of the article, I believe
WP:COMMONNAME &
WP:NPOVTITLE would recommend the change of title.
Jono52795 (
talk)
07:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Can we now close this per WP:SNOWBALL? Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Turns out it’s a case of WP:MOR. See WP:RM#TR for the technical request I’ve made. Anyone (admin) or otherwise who can fix this would be much appreciated. I apologise, I haven’t encountered this before. Jono52795 ( talk) 03:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Jono52795 ( talk) 03:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
For the benefit of this user and any other potential trolls, and in accordance with WP:BRD, Australia is the 25th country to legalise/recognise SSM (see here). UK/Northern Ireland situation could lead some to challenge this, but every mainstream media source considers Aus. the 25th, so feel free to discuss the claim here. Jono52795 ( talk) 01:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Wouldnt it just be better to add a clarifying note that it is not yet legal throughout the UK and Mexico? If the sources are consistent that may be the better approach. Goldcactus ( talk) 21:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Goldcactus ( talk) 21:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
A number of edits were made exclusively to the SSM history section. They contained poor grammar, excessive headers and were designed to make the page unreadable and poorly formatted. These edits were made by User talk:210.50.251.233 and came with no explanation for their justification. Suffice to say it is a deliberate effort on the part of some anti-gay juveniles to make this (and other gay rights pages) as illegible and complex as possible. Jono52795 ( talk) 06:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)