Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay couple have Australia’s first legally recognised civil union ceremony

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Brian Burton 25 Nov 2009, 3:45pm

    Not too long ago, an Austrailian Chap told me that he envied my UK Civil Partnership. Well ‘Lay Me Kangaroo Down Sport,’ the Aussies have done it! This is great news, The chap in question do’sent know how sad I felt for him when he said that he envied me!

  2. Good news, but how sad that Rudd is threatening to overturn the legalisation of civil unions.

  3. Aussie Gay Activist Paul Mitchell 25 Nov 2009, 5:41pm

    Wow 20 years that is way longer than most heterosexual couples!!!!
    If he vetoes the law I will veto all of my support for Kevin Rudd because Kevin Rudd is no longer popular anymore because of the controversial leadership and continuous lies and wedge-issue politics that play around in the ultra-right-wing Labor caucus being run by the Hillsong church and the Australian Christian Lobby and on top of that the ETS/CPRS that the Liberal party is against and hell-bent on opposing and blocking in the Senate where the Government does not have a majority.
    I bet Kevin Rudd would not last more than 5 more years being married with Teresa – I hope they break-up and see what it is like for us like for us gays – just like what happened in both Maine and California over in the US were rights can be given then at the last minute be stringently taken-away by a majority vote on a ballot box [welcome to our world]!!!!!

    If I was a prime minister I will completely get rid of ALL straight marriages, veto all other pieces of discrimination and outlaw all marriages and divorces – including all the current marriages (retrospective laws)!!!!
    Plus all current legal marriage certificates are herby ‘null and void’ or revoked until further notice you heterosexuals!!!!!

  4. Simon Murphy 25 Nov 2009, 6:52pm

    Does Kevin Rudd support the ban on straight divorce.

    If not then why not?

    If he wants to ‘protect’ marriage he should be removing the lazy opt-out that divorce give.

    ‘Protect’ marriage – ban divorce!

    Congrats to the couple by the way. I’m sure they would have married if they have been allowed.

  5. rudd sounds like a homophobic bigot whop is still deep in the closet. if he is he needs to be outed

  6. Christopher Alan 26 Nov 2009, 4:33am

    How great for Warren and Chris! Congratulations to you both.

    How sad for Mr Rudd… Personally I have never liked the name Kevin, but I swear this has nothing to do with my judgment on our Prime Minister here today.

    For one, he needs to remove his “I am Prime Minister.. therefore I can overturn things as I see fit” attitude on this one.. and listen to the people of Australia! Ruddy :: The folks of australia have made their choice!!

    And secondly… I agree with Simon above … protecting the right of marriage can only happen if divorce is banned. The sacred right is violated daily by all those couples who take the second door on the left…. Life isn’t a new game on The Price is Right… and the gov’t should take a look at the people who want this to happen and why.

    I just cannot believe that ANYONE would be opposed to seeing their son, daughter, best friend, mother, father, sister, brother, next door neighbour, cousin frank who always gets drunk at christmas and tries to feel you up the basic principle of proclaiming love for his or her partner before friends and family.. and commiting to each other legally.

    /rant

  7. This isn’t about gay rights.
    It’s about some people forcing society to accept their immoral lifestyle; something every society has rejected for good reason since the year dot.
    As long as they don’t label it MARRIAGE (which it is NOT), they are free to do what they like.
    But I would consider revoking my marriage license if we were to be bundled into the same category as homosexuals.

    Marriage has nothing to do with the state. The catholic church introduced paperwork only relatively recently as a means of control. Up until 2006 in Scotland you could pronounce yourself married without signing a single paper. And to this day, the US states of Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and the District of Columbia, and several provinces in Canada still recognise ‘common law’ marriages.
    Marriage is between a man and a woman; the state has never played a part until relatively recently.
    If homosexuals desire the same legal rights as married men and women then yes – allow ‘civil unions’. But do not call it marriage. That is all I am saying.
    Homosexuals are no more sinners than the average Joe Blow in the street. I am just expressing dismay that the long-standing institution of marriage as it has been in every culture and society on earth, is being completely degraded in a mere few short years.
    The state has nothing to do with marriage. A legal license means nothing to God.

  8. Brian Burton 27 Nov 2009, 1:40pm

    Burt,
    You sad, sad person Life is moving forward and the only threat to your good self is that you are going to be left behined. The essence of life must be allowed to move forward Burt or else we stagnate. Your basis of thinking seems to be sheer terror at ‘moden’ events. You probably credit your neighbour with the possession of those virtues which are of benefit to you. Pleasure is Nature’s test, her sign of approval. When we are happy we are always good, but when we are good, we are not always happy!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all