In a series of edicts to civil celebrants that overturn at least 30 years of accepted practice, the Attorney-General's Department insists couples must exchange vows only as "husband" and "wife". Celebrants must also remind everyone that "marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman".
These edicts have only been in practice since Feb 2006, which explains why I have heard that particularly exclusive phrase only at recent weddings and why others insist they didn't have to say it so neither should we. This particular "solidifying" of the marriage act was supported by both the Liberals and ALP.
The Greens introduced the "Marriage (Relationships Equality) Amendment Bill 2007" to the Senate on 28th Feb 2007 to specifically alter this wording to read "the union of two persons, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity, voluntarily entered into for life". I'm unable to find any information on any future decisions on this Bill.
I don't see why we can't just say "the union of two persons voluntarily entered into for life". It's not like anyone has to read out any other agreements or contracts they sign...
Some further reading on The Senate and Legislation. This particular bill has received a "second reading".
Given our current government's choice to veto the ACT's attempts to legalise same sex marriage, the chances of this Bill being passed are zero, as it effectively attempts to do the same thing.
As a backup plan I expect it is possible for the celebrant to say the offending phrase only to the bride, groom and witnesses in private, and omit it from the ceremony as a whole.
We shall see.
What I could work out from the article (via BoingBoing)...
Further, Rudd's latest suggestion that all submissions to cabinet include a family impact statement is apparently aimed at Christians too! Are Christians the only ones with kids? Or are they only ones who care about them?
John Howard said:
"The broad interaction of public life and Christianity has almost drawn a strange awkwardness in the response of many people,"
Well when the only time they're mentioned by a politician is in the same sentence as either porn or children, it's any wonder.
I would suggest that John Howard would have been more correct replacing "Christianity" with "religious faith". There seems to be no more awkward conversation than one regarding faith between two differing opinions.
Anyway, didn't the ALP suggest internet porn filters last year? The 2006 ALP version was to force all ISPs to filter, then require anyone who wanted to get around the filter to apply. The 2007 Liberal version is more practical software provider solution where free internet filter software will be available to all, as well as a boost to police illegal internet content.
Update: Looks like some are reading this as ISP level filtering. ISPs are saying censorship by the private sector is a bad idea and it will slow down their broadband speeds.