Homosexuality - same-sex

Homosexuality - same-sex 'marriage'

In the past decade (and more), homosexual rights activists have waged a persistent campaign to have their relationships 'recognised'.

This has been in various forms - first, they campaigned to have homosexuality itself decriminalised (in Victoria this occurred in the early 1980s.)
Then they campaigned for the changing of laws to recognise their 'rights' - and receive acceptance of their relationships by gaining rights that de facto couples have. (In Victoria this happened in 2000).
Then the next step in the path to 'recognition' is for formal recognition of relationships - either formal 'marriage' or 'civil unions'.

same-sex 'marriage'
At present, same-sex 'marriages' are recognized in six countries:
* The Netherlands - 2001
* Belgium - 2003
* Spain - 2005
* Canada - 2005
* Norway - Passed June 2008 - in force from 1 January 2009. Media article.
* South Africa - 2006

- On 1 December 2005, South Africa's Constitutional Court extended marriage to include same-sex couples which went into effect by December 2006. The Parliament passed a law allowing that.

The U.S. state of Massachusetts (2004) and the state of California (2008) have also recognised same-sex 'marriage'.

Civil unions/Civil Partnerships
Other countries have recognised 'civil unions' - these include the UK (2006), Denmark and Sweden.

Australia
In Australia, the government took a decisive step in 2004 by amending the Marriage Act to include a statement that marriage is between a man and a woman. The federal government does not formally recognise homosexual relationships.

Some Australian states have changed their laws in various ways. Regarding the formal recognition or registration of relationships, only Tasmania (which was the last state to decriminalise homosexuality in 1994) has a 'relationships register', which was introduced in January 2004. Click here.
In the first two years of its operation only 58 couples registered - 43 in the first year and 15 couples in the second year. Click here . There were 63 couples by April 2006.
By December 2007 there were 100 couples. Click here for more details.

The Australian Capital Territory proposed a 'civil unions' Bill which went to the ACT Legislative Assembly in March 2006. This was passed but was overturned by the federal government - a second bill, the 'Civil Partnerships Bill' was then proposed and the Coalition again said they would overturn it as it was too close to marriage.
Following the election of the Rudd federal Labor government in November 2007, the ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said he would re-introduce his law. This caused a flurry of reaction from the Australian Christian Lobby, mainly because the ALP had committed to a policy of supporting state-based relationship registers prior to the election.
When Kevin Rudd said he would not overturn state laws (meaning the ACT law if passed would stand), the ACL said Mr Rudd was breaking faith with the Christian community and reminded Kevin Rudd that he and Labor had promised they would not allow civil unions, but would support state-based relationship registers similar to that proposed by the ACL and enacted in Tasmania (this was in the Labor platform prior to the election). The federal Attorney General Robert McClelland met with the ACT Attorney General and they agreed to discuss it further with the idea of getting a nationally consistent scheme. Then Kevin Rudd eventually said that that he supported relationship registers, which the ACL commended him for...
As they say, a week is a long time in politics!

Sometimes cities introduce such legislation when the state or nation does not provide for such recognition. For example, San Francisco has a relationships register but the State of California does not.

Sydney introduced a relationships register in 2005 (an updated form of a register first started in 2003), called the City of Sydney Relationships Declaration Program under the leadership of Lord Mayor Clover Moore. Ironically, in the first 12 months ONLY 22 couples registered !

NEW Study...
DEMAND FOR SAME-SEXMARRIAGE: EVIDENCE FROM THE UNITED STATES, CANADA , AND EUROPE
By Maggie Gallagher & Joshua K. Baker (April 2006)
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
This study analysed all the countries where same-sex marriage is currently available and looked at how many homosexuals are actually 'marrying' when they have the legal option to do so.
In general they found that between 1% and 5% of homosexuals have 'married' in places like The Netherlands and Belgium.
In Canada and Massachusetts they estimated higher figures of 14 - 16 %. Part of the reason for these higher figures may be due to the fact that people from outside those countries can be 'married' in Canada - and though the Mass. law says only residents can 'marry', non-residents have 'married.
Detailed analysis of the available data.....
Click here for the 12 page report .

Bias....
Whenever one investigates this subject, we must be very aware that much of the research is done by homosexuals themselves.
This VERY enlightening article from World Net Daily picks up several incidences where homosexuals have done the research... and this is often NOT disclosed....
Homosexual adoption report written by 'pro-gay advocate'
World Net Daily, 25 March 2006.

Articles
A selection of articles opposing the acceptance of same-sex 'marriages'.

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
By Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.
Family Research Council
"Married and Gay Couples Not All that Different," proclaimed the headline of a news article portraying homosexual households as remarkably similar to married couples. "We're the couple next door," claimed one partnered homosexual. "We have a dog and a cat. I drive a Volvo. I'm boring." Such down-home portrayals of homosexual couples are meant to provoke the question: Since gay couples really differ only in that both partners are of the same sex, what rational basis exists for denying them full marriage rights?
Are homosexual households, as the article suggests, simply another variant of human relationships that should be considered, along with marriage, as "part of mainstream American society"?
On the contrary, the evidence indicates that "committed" homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:
· relationship duration
· monogamy vs. promiscuity
· relationship commitment
· number of children being raised
· health risks
· rates of intimate partner violence
Finally, this paper will present evidence from gay activists themselves indicating that behind the push for gay marriage lies a political agenda to radically change the institution of marriage itself.

Talking About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions
By Maggie Gallagher, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
I. Why Does Marriage Matter?
When their mothers and fathers don’t get and stay married, bad things happen to more kids more often: more poverty, welfare dependence, child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, physical illness, infant mortality, accidental death, homicide, premature and promiscuous sexuality, early unwed pregnancy, suicide, juvenile delinquency, educational failure, conduct disorders and adult criminality. Children suffer and whole communities pay the cost in crime, social disorder and high taxes as government steps in to deal with the needs created when families fall apart. Family structure matters and the family form that does the best job for kids is the child’s own married mother and father.[1]
Marriage is not created by government. It is older than the Constitution, older than America, older even than the church. It exists in every known human society and it always has something to do with bringing men and women together so that society has the next generation it needs and children have both mothers and fathers, as they need.
She then gives 5 reasons for opposing same-sex 'marriage'.

More articles are available at the Wilberforce Forum page on this topic.
Click here.

Author: Jenny Stokes | Modified: 18 August 2008