Talk:Recognition of same-sex relationships in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Portal	Recognition of same-sex relationships in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Merge votes 2 Selective deletion 3 Deletion of paragraph in 'responses' section 4 Clarification needed 5 Blood bank libel 6 Photo necessity?

[edit] Merge votes

I vote keep separate. There is already a reference to it under the NSW item. The page rpoposed ot be merged is too long to slot in here. --Brendan 04:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote merge Tapeworm87 08:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I vote keep separate. The Relationship Declaration is not marriage - and should therefore not be included in the "Same-sex marriage in Australia" page. However it is the closest thing we have in NSW at the moment to marriage. Also to include the detail about all the benefits (limited as they are) that the Relationship Declaration would confer in the "Same-sex marriage in Australia" page would confuse this page I feel, and make it too long. I think the Tasmanian Deed of Relationships and the upcoming ACT Civil Unions should have their own branches also, as the rights they confer are different - the Tasmanian Deed can even be taken out by 2 sisters (for example) where one cares for the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.91.130 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Selective deletion

I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 05:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of paragraph in 'responses' section

The second paragraph of the 'responses to the bill section' was dubious at best and needed to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Character234 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Was the Attorney General a drummer? Under the ACT section someone has written Phillip Rudd when I think it should be Phillip Ruddock. Don't know how to change it though.

[edit] Clarification needed

I'd like to appeal to any knowledgeable Australian editors to consider reworking this article. As I read through the piece, I find it nearly impossible to understand the marriage/partnership status in each jurisdiction. I can see that the legal situation is murky in many places, but the article shouldn't be.

There is a lot of good info here on various acts and legislation; but I would like to see one clear, short statement (perhaps in bold print) at the beginning of each state/territory/city paragraph that tells me what the bottom line is: "Tasmania--Significant Relationships" etc.

As an American unfamiliar with the situation in Australia, I don't feel confident enough to do this needed clarification myself. Any takers, mates?  :-) Textorus 19:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood bank libel

In this edit to Recognition of gay unions in Australia, there was a claim saying "At present the Australian Red Cross has placed a ban on donations (since 1972) from all men who have sex with men.". The ARCBS currently has a one year ban, and I would be very surprised if they had a ban on donations to do with male-male sex back in the 1970s. And what's it doing in a gay union article (as opposed to LGBT rights in Australia) anyway?

This isn't the first time untrue stuff has been said in wikipedia about blood banking in Australia. Andjam 06:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• The blood bank info is not relevant to this article. I support its removal. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo necessity?

under the 'Civil union proposals' section, im just wondering if the photo is really necessary. Not saying it offends me or anything, i just hardly see the relevance.--Zoobz19 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6933.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.171.218 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)