Partnership scheme are as far as I can see in my state just a registration of a domestic relationship, regardless of sex or the type. Marriage has much more meaning. The fed state has done nothing to recognise aussies/foreigners in foreign partnerships – unless I’ve missed this one… We can’t bring our partners back home like married couples can. How she got her French partner in then it would be interesting to know. She couldn’t be in an australian partnership becuase the French don’t allow people to do a PACS and a foreign one at the same time and someone above has said she is in a PACS!! – amazing

I can’t see how some of you guys can stand up for this woman, this spineless weak woman ,who not only is incapable of doing much on the environment but has done nothing to improve LGBT rights. She does have a responsibilty to us as a fellow LGBT person to stand up for our rights. I’m sorry but she is a person of high ranking, she’s well known , has power and should be standing up against the discrimination she claims she has been under herself. How weak!

The words civil partnership has only a British meaning! It doesn’t have the same perception as a marriage , we don’t see you in the same light as married couples and I guess for some of you that’s what you want but not all of you. It the same here in Australia. A marriage is a marriage and a CP is a registration of a partnership like our inferior domestic partnerships…

Excercise your freedom of speech to tell Ms Wong what you think of her support for homophobic discrimination here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/contact.asp?id=00AOU

This Wong person believes that law abiding, tax paying, same sex couples should be denied access to the legal contract of civil marriage because they are gay.

Regardless of whatever societal or religious or cultural traditions are associated with marriage, to deny access to the contract based on someone’s sexual orientation, is homophobic discrimination.

Perhaps some gay couples are happy with CP’s. Good for them. But those people are under an obligation not to try to undermine those people who are fighting for equality.

Wong is a repellent Gay Uncle Tom. She is actively campaigning against equal civil rights for gay people. She is a contemptible, self-hating idiot.

Her partner must also be pissed of their relationsip PACS would not have been recognised in Australia, that she would not have been able to join Penny as her married partner and that he immigaration rights would be a lot less than married couples.

Lab govt in Australia have not done much for LGBT rights. And this additional statement is not very encouraging.

AS for the rational person in this comment page goes on about meaning is a personal thing. Then many of us have CP, many of us have foreign partners, many of us will move around the world. The CP is equated to an inferior partnership abroad, isn’t a gay thing necessarily and the word marriage is a suprior thing, is understood. Guess what people understand what marriage means but don’t necessarily know what CP means abroad. Why should they, it has a different concept. To not think of international aspect in this day and age when creating new words ie CP is pathetic and lazy!

The word married will always mean more, will always have more prestige and should not only be open to man and woman. To do so gives us little prestige and lesser rights in its perception here and abroad.

For shame Penny and for shame lab govt in Aus and as in the lab govt in the UK. For shame on Stonewall to not come out in favour of gay marriage!!!

Notwithstanding this, I still managed to turn out entirely homosexual, which, given the above circumstances, could be said to be surprising. Gay was not an easy thing to be in the 1960′s, when I could have been imprisoned, merely for having this positive interaction with another human being. Yet my life was made rewarding and fulfilling by the love and unstinting support of friends, colleagues, and most of all, my family who never once treated me any less favourably because my passion was for a person of the same gender as my own.

There is no doubt that LGBT rights we have already gained could never have made it into legislature without the overwhelming support given by the heterosexual majority, responding to our appeals for human compassion, justice and fair play.

There is also no doubt that the public perception of a great many cogent issues of public interest has been profoundly changed by individual activism and education, such as Aneurin Bevan’s founding of the NHS in the UK, Florence Nightingale’s championing of the high nursing standards we enjoy today, the enactment of women’s suffrage, emancipation of slaves in the USA, and the outspoken advocacy of Harvey Milk. In all these cases public opinion changed, because it was ultimately seen to be right. The veil of ignorance and prejudice was lifted by strong individuals of high moral character, who never gave up.

While there is not universal support even in the gay and lesbian communities for gay marriage, few would want to deny this to people who seek it. Marriage has formalised the love and mutual commitment of countless heterosexual Australian couples, and poll results on the subject now make it clear that they do not wish to deny this to others wishing the same lawful acknowledgment for their relationships.

The granting of universal access to marriage and all that it connotes does not in any way threaten heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage will be as strong as ever, no matter whether we have gay marriage or not.

The electorate voted Penny Wong into office knowing her to be lesbian, thus giving her a platform from which to articulate public advocacy on any issue she sees fit. Her aboutface is therefore doubly disappointing because it appears to be more the response to faint heartedness and meanspiritedness, than rational thought. These are not qualities to be admired in anyone, let alone in a politician.

Sorry, but I do not see why more GLBT politicians do not come out in favour of what is right. Separate but equal is not right.

But before we single her out, let’s face it: probably everyone we all voted for (regardless of party) has more or less the same moral and ethicals standards.

Truth is, it hasn’t, so personally I feel that that sop to traditionalists/religious people was a waste of time. I also feel that people who may feel uneasy about same sex marriages have had time to get used to the idea in the years we’ve had CPs, so opening civil marriage to LGBT people shouldn’t be such a big thing to them.

I agree that people are entitled to their opinion and I don’t think that being against gay marriage necessarily means that the person is a bigot or nasty – sometimes it’s just fear and ignorance (I’m using that word in a non-pejorative way). However, I don’t think we can wait till every person feels happy about it, and, if we were to, then we should also make sure that interracial marriages, the re-marriages of divorcees, etc are all approved by everyone – which, of course, they’re not.

And, of course, different countries may view equal marriage as more acceptable or less acceptable depending on the general climate in those countries. But I do find it sad that the UK isn’t up with the leaders in marriage equality.

Indeed. I’ve already said that I’m all for it. I’m just trying to say that it’s pointless to insult those who think differently. Different countries have adopted different policies for this issue. I think that the UK has the 2nd-best solution right after the 10 countries that have legalised marriage equality. It’s a less-than-perfect solution but nonetheless a good attempt. People who have a better assessment of it than I do are not necessarily self-loathing fascists, they are quite possibly simply more traditional in this regard and don’t think it’s necessary to modify what marriage is currently in our society.

I disagree with them, I think it’s worth modifying it to make it into a fairer institution that recognises all relationships as equal but that’s only my personal opinion and it’s a big step for a lot of people.

Wrong in part. Same sex marriages happened in antiquity and in various cultures. And the religious part of that comment is irrelevant unless she’s talking about marriages in churches etc. A civil/legal marriage is nothing to do with religion.

Val – why can’t we just have one thing for everyone (or two things for everyone for those who wish to have a CP or don’t want their CP changed to a marriage)? We don’t have separate words for different races or mixed race marriages, and we don’t need it for gay people either. Marriage should be gender neutral.

Maybe Ms Wong is just towing the party line, but it’d be nice if she was brave enough to take a little step over the line and suggest that the world might not end if gay people were allowed to marry.