Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


gay marriage

No description

Courtney Hart

on 20 August 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of gay marriage

The legal issue of marriage equality in Australia
Same-sex Marriage
Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage), is a socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. Same-sex marriage is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many nations.
In the event of same-sex marriage in Australia, the Australian government to this day does not legally accept the concept of same-sex marriage, despite most of the nations disgust.
Continued cases of discrimination
AS the years continued to unfold, discrimination continued to rise against same-sex couples. The disallowing of equality that Australia was advocating does not reflect what Australia truly is, a multicultural and freely accepting country.
Times are changing
Under the MARRIAGE ACT 1961 of Australia, it is highlighted in Subsection 5(1), marriage is defined as, ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all
others, voluntarily entered into for life’.
This evidently excludes the uniting of same-sex couples, fueling the discrimination that same-sex couples face today.
That discrimination was supposed to be protected under the Sex discrimination Act 1984 Cth but, doesn’t affect homosexual couples because they are considered single.
The defining case: Hyde vs. Hyde and Woodmansee 1856
The case, Hyde vs. Hyde and Woodmansee 1856 was the turning point of the MARRIAGE ACT 1961 , because it defined the definition of marriage that is used with it. This definition was accepted and followed, for many consecutive years.
The full case record
2003 the Family Law Act
The amendment of the 2003 Family Law Act is evidently a guilty occurrence of discrimination. The law was amended to allow de facto relationships to access the Family court for many matters. This was not extended to same sex couples, even thought the Property Relationships Act 1999 NSW equalized the treatment of same-sex couples and de facto couples, consequently displaying the ultimate betrayal experienced by same-sex couples.

2004 change to marriage amendment Act
PM Kevin Rudd's Statement
KEVIN Rudd has declared he will consider a plebiscite or referendum on the issue of gay marriage if Tony Abbott fails to grant his MPs a free vote to resolve the issue.
Mr Rudd yesterday sought to make his personal conversion to supporting gay marriage a central election issue and pitch to young voters, proudly declaring that he was Australia's first marriage-equality prime minister and was committed to marriage law reform. But the idea has been denounced by marriage-equality campaigners, who are concerned about such a national vote.

Article continued...
Advocates yesterday welcomed Mr Rudd's commitment to have marriage equality "resolved" preferably through a cross-parliament conscience vote, but said they did not support his fall-back option of a referendum, and asked him to set up a cross-party working group to advance the cause.
Mr Rudd said he was determined to deliver change and a plebiscite might be the way forward. "I would just prefer to have this thing resolved," he said...
PATRICIA KARVELAS From: The Australian June 29, 2013 12:00AM
In 2004 the Australian government reaffirmed its stance by passing the Marriage Amendment Act to insert the words that marriage is “the union of a man and a woman”,to prevent inter-country adoption by same sex couples and to prevent same-sex couples who marry overseas to have their marriage recognized in Australia. Furthering the specific detail of not allowing same sex marriage, the discrimination continues to run through the veins of the Australian government.

Media shaping public opinion
As the more open minded members of society choose to recognize and accept homosexuality, events and advertisements begin to take over the media. This cry for equality has swept over society, bringing awareness to the communities of Australia. An important event held down the streets of Sydney is the Mardi Gras festival, celebrating homosexuality and giving gays and lesbian individuals a chance to make their stance.

Effectiveness of the laws (Legal responses)- Access
Marriage Amendment Bill 2012
As politics grow and further same-sex marriage protests and cases are brought forward, the government still stands strong against the change, however, one man stood up for his belief. Current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd states his acceptance of the gay community and admits that changes evidently need to be made and equality needs to be advocated for.
Advertisement advocating for equality
Non-government responses
Many non-government related advertisements and talk shows such as 'Ellen' have seen the responses of the majority of the government and made their point clear: They believe gay/lesbian couples should me equalized. Ellen, a lesbian talk show hostess, makes her point entirely clear on her show, available for viewers all over the world to see.
While there are differences in language and drafting style, the purpose of these Bills is to amend the Marriage Act 1961 in order to allow people the right to marry, irrespective of their sex. The Bills also remove the prohibition on the recognition of marriage between same-sex couples solemnized in a foreign country.
On 13 February 2012, Greens MP Adam Bandt with the support of independent MP Andrew Wilkie, presented the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 to the House of Representatives.

On the same day, Labor MP Stephen Jones MP introduced the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 (the Jones Bill) to the House of Representatives.

As well as the Mardi Gras, advocates for homosexual equality also present advertisements like these all over the countries television screens, to create awareness.
The current laws relating to same-sex marriage in Australia are highly enforced throughout the legal system. However, this does not stop couples from traveling to other countries to exchange their vows. The Marriage Amendment Act of 2004 prevents the recognition of these overseas marriages in Australia, thus making the enforceability of the Australian law effective, however, continuing to discriminate against the gay community. An example of this case is, Australian citizen Portia De Rossi and Ellen De Generes with their marriage been taken overseas due to the position of the legal stance in Australia.
The law with respect to same sex marriage or marriage equality is a lesson in discrimination under Australian law. Australia is signatory to a number of UN Conventions that promote human rights including marriage equality, even Australia’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) indicates that an individual should not be discriminated against based on their sexuality. However, the Marriage Act 1961 clearly discriminates against same sex couples based on their sexuality. Considering that the parliamentary committee investigating the Marriage Equality Bill 2012 found that 64% of Australians supported Marriage equality the law is clearly not supporting the human rights of same sex couples, nor are they reflecting the values of Australian society.
Unfortunately, until the federal government makes a brave decision to allow a vote on this issue and passes a law that reflects the value of the majority of Australian society, same sex couples will not be able to enforce their right to equality.

In the changing of the law to allow for marriage equality in the gay community there is no evident loss that would occur through the passing of it. There is no financial benefit through the passing of the law so therefore it the resource efficiency of the law is not a factor.

-Google images have provided all images
-All video clips are from the site, YouTube

In the respect of access to the law of marriage and the equality of same-sex marriage, it is highly evident that it is non existent. Through article 16 of the universal deceleration of human rights that the Australian legal ministers signed, it states; "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." In combination with article 2, it is proved that any individual of any status cannot be denied these rights. This therefore states that the is law ineffective in achieving access for all people as the homosexual communities of Australia are denied the right to marry under Australian law.
Non-legal supporters response
In the positive response of many Australian citizens, it is believed that many support the idea of marriage equality. Statistics of the last vote for marriage equality prove; 62% of all Australians, 72% of Australians with children, and 74% of Labor voters believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. 75% believe the reform is inevitable. This is evidence enough to prove the ineffectiveness of the law.
Also, in the response to the law and its ineffective approach, many advocating groups are striving to create awareness and support for all homosexual equality in a highly effective manner.

Opposition response
In the eyes of many religious citizens and opposing individuals of homosexuals, same-sex couple are considered 'evil' citizens hoping to cause havoc. In this exasperated attempt to maintain their 'perfect' world, many citizens are disallowing the rights of innocent homosexuals through the fear of them being a 'threat' to society. It is believed the non legal attempts to peruse this law are highly ineffective.
Full transcript