On February 1 the Federal Government will lift its ban on Australian same-sex partners receiving the documents they need to marry in other countries where same-sex marriage is allowed.

David Bartlett's sister Angela Borella with her partner in Portugal

To her great credit, Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, has asked the Department of Foreign Affairs to start issuing certificates of no-impediment to marriage (CNIs) to same-sex couples marrying overseas on the same basis as they are now issued to heterosexual couples.

A CNI is required by many foreign governments as proof the foreigner who wants to marry in their country is of marriageable age and isn’t already married where they come from. 

The Australian Government initiative follows a decision by December’s Labor National Conference to give in-principle support to marriage equality and to reverse the CNI ban.

To me the ban always seemed particularly cruel and petty.

The fact Australia doesn’t allow same-sex marriages means hundreds of Aussie couples have been forced overseas to marry, at great expense and away from their loved ones.

Imagine how frustrating it was for these couples that the same government that had turned them into marriage refugees could still thwart their marriage where it was legal.

In many cases couples only discovered about the CNI ban after they had planned their wedding, and their plans had to be scrapped.

Worst of all is the denial of key practical spousal entitlements.

Some of the countries that allow same-sex marriage give greater rights to married couples than to de facto partners.

The CNI ban has deprived some gay Australians living overseas of marital rights in immigration, health care, insurance, parenting, wills and a whole range of other areas.

The Government justified the ban on the basis that same-sex marriages are not recognised in Australia.

But the legal advice Australian Marriage Equality received from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) said this misunderstood the primary purpose of CNIs and was a misuse of governmental power.

The Government’s rationale also ignored the fact that foreign same-sex marriages are increasingly recognised in Australia by private corporations, state governments and even federal government departments.

Perplexed by the Australian Government policy, some foreign governments either dropped the CNI requirement for Australians (e.g. the Netherlands), or dropped their CNI requirement altogether (e.g. New York state).

But it seemed every time a new country provided marriage equality the problem arose again to tarnish Australia’s image.

When the news broke that a CNI had been denied to Angela Borella, the lesbian sister of former Tasmania Premier, David Bartlett, it wasn’t just the Australian public that scratched its head.

Media across the Portuguese-speaking world began asking questions about Australia’s commitment to human rights.

But the Government’s change of heart on CNIs doesn’t just remove a foolish, petty policy.

It also speaks to broader features of the marriage equality campaign.

It speaks to what can be achieved when groups work together, in this case groups like AME and PIAC, and within the ALP, Rainbow Labor.

It speaks to the importance of ordinary people like Angela having the courage to speak out about their rights and their lives.

And it speaks to how far we have come since 2004 when the Howard Government first banned both marriages and CNIs for same-sex couples.

Back then Nicola Roxon was a prominent opponent of marriage equality. Now she not only supports marriage equality but is doing all she can within her portfolio to eliminate inequality.

The bigger battle, to allow same-sex couples to marry in Australia, is still to be won. But the repeal of the CNI ban should give marriage equality supporters renewed hope that we can and will achieve this important reform.

In the meantime, AME will be doing what it can to ensure the new policy has pride of place on relevant government websites including Smart Traveller.

After so many years of saying “no” to love, the world needs to see that the Australian Government is beginning to say “yes”.

Most commented

34 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:17pm | 27/01/12

      Overseas marriages to Australians by foreign nationals is largely immigration by stealth. A fair proportion of the marriages break up after the foreign national qualifies for permanent residency.

    • Sam says:

      01:26pm | 27/01/12

      Not all cases ( I married a yank who lives here now). But yes, it does happen, although it is not anywhere near as common as you think. the hoops you have to jump through are quite staggering

    • AliceC says:

      01:27pm | 27/01/12

      Could you please provide a reference to back up this claim?

    • Trevor says:

      01:34pm | 27/01/12

      You can get $10K in China for doing just that.

    • Zaf says:

      01:44pm | 27/01/12

      off topic

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      02:21pm | 27/01/12

      This story is about gay Australian’s being allowed to marry in foreign countries, what does that have to do with yet another hateful racist migration rant.

      The thing is, why can’t they get married in this bigotted back water of a place.

    • Kate says:

      02:31pm | 27/01/12

      Sometimes these marriages can be a bit sus if one partner is from a disadvantaged country and there’s no reason they can’t marry in their own country. A gay or lesbian Australian choosing to marry overseas makes perfect sense, considering they don’t have the right to do so here.
      I think the case of David Bartlett’s sister involves one Australian and one Portuguese woman (correct me if I’m wrong). Most overseas gay marriages would probably be two Australians travelling overseas to marry and then returning home.

    • AliceC says:

      01:25pm | 27/01/12

      Hopefully it won’t be too much longer until sane sex marriage is legalised in Australia.

    • Peter says:

      03:03pm | 27/01/12

      Sane sex marriage?  No way.  You definitely have to be IN-sane to get married.

    • acotrel says:

      05:32am | 28/01/12

      @Peter
      So you have to be insane to try and find your soul mate, and be happy with them ? I suggest Beyond Blue is a great organisation !

    • M says:

      08:00am | 28/01/12

      acotrel, you missed the pun mate.

    • Worker says:

      09:34am | 28/01/12

      And polygamy

    • Rose says:

      01:27pm | 27/01/12

      Well Done Ms Roxon, an important step in ending the current farce in Australian marital law. Nest step, allowing same sex couples to marry in Australia.
      I can’t understand a situation where it is perfectly legal for Australian adults to be in a consensual same sex relationship, where it is in fact illegal for any one to discriminate against people according to their sexuality, it remains OK for the Australian government to deny the right to same sex marriage, an obvious discrimination.

    • Presto says:

      08:03pm | 27/01/12

      I don’t understand why we even have a law that states what marriage is. As far as I am aware if you are in a de-facto relationship you have all the rights of a married couple. Why not leave marriage to those who coined the concept the Church?

    • acotrel says:

      05:36am | 28/01/12

      @Presto
      Julius Caesar was married, he was around long before Constantine !

    • Presto says:

      10:56am | 28/01/12

      @acotrel “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

    • Carz says:

      01:32pm | 27/01/12

      CNIs should never have been issued based on sexuality but on whether or not a person was free to be married. Overturning this discriminatory policy is a step towards equality.

    • Craig of North Brisbane says:

      01:46pm | 27/01/12

      Erm, how did the Howard Government ban anything in 1994, two years before it came to power?

    • Rose says:

      03:24pm | 27/01/12

      The Howard Government redefined marriage in the Marriage Act in 2004, ten years later than the author stated (fairly shoddy workmanship there), but that government still legislated to ensure discrimination against same sex couples without reasonable justification.

    • AdamC says:

      02:37pm | 27/01/12

      I agree with Roxon’s decision but, seriously, does this Alex Greenwich person have to be so tiresomely inflammatory in his language? I mean, ‘marriage refugee’? That is like a neologism someone would make up as a joke. Is it possible for the gay lobby to show a little bit of maturity, please?

    • Markus says:

      02:53pm | 27/01/12

      I almost went blind from the eye-roll induced by “Media across the Portuguese-speaking world began asking questions about Australia’s commitment to human rights.”
      Even the pro-Republic whingers would consider that ridiculous hyperbole.

    • Peter says:

      03:13pm | 27/01/12

      Agreed.  I also get the impression the author doesn’t apreciate that we cannot all go jet off to another jurisdiction just to dodge Australian law and then expect Australia to support us in that move.  Imagine if we all did that whevever we didn’t like Australian law?

    • John T says:

      03:05pm | 27/01/12

      How much to marry a foreign chick? I need the cash.

    • Kassandra says:

      03:12pm | 27/01/12

      Paul Keating was Prime Minister in 1994 not John Howard. Oops.

    • nihonin says:

      03:48pm | 27/01/12

      Wow, what happened to all the posts that were here about an hour ago, not quite agreeing with the agenda, me thinks.

    • Zeta says:

      04:02pm | 27/01/12

      Meh. Kinda glad mine didn’t get a run. I’m in a really ultra-conservative mood today. Like I’ve been possessed by the ghost of Goldwater or something. *spooky voices* cuuuuut taaaaaxes. faaaaamily vaaaaalues. woooooo.

      Must be getting old and cranky. And the god damn homosexuals and liberals are to blame.

    • tim says:

      11:56pm | 27/01/12

      Yawn…kind of tired of people using name calling as a response to people who don’t agree with them. Seriously, calling people ‘bigots’ simple because they disagree with you is not making an argument. Got to just love post-modernism that prevails in our universities and the complete and utter contentment to just through out logic and argument in favour of name calling. You can toss out the dictionary too, you can just use the term ‘bigot’ to mean whatever you like these days!

    • Craig says:

      08:49pm | 28/01/12

      This approach seems terribly flawed to me.

      1) A same-sex couple apply for ‘no impediment’ paperwork from the government.
      2) They receive the paperwork stating there is no impediment to either of them marrying - that they are not married to anyone under Australian law.
      3) The couple goes overseas to a progressive democracy and is wed.
      4) They return to Australia as a married couple - however Australia does not recognize their marriage (Australia does not recognize same-sex marriages conducted overseas as valid).

      Here’s where it gets interesting…
      5a) One of the couple falls in love with someone of the other gender and decides to marry them. As their same-sex marriage is not recognised in Australia, they are free to wed in Australia, ignoring the other relationship.

      5b) one of the couple falls in love with someone of the same gender and decides to marry them. They request ‘no impediment’ paperwork from the government and, as their same-sex marriage is not recognised in Australia, they are free to go and get we’d overseas.

      5c) the couple falls out of love and decides to get divorced. However they are not entitled to do so under Australian law, which doesn’t recognize their marriage in the first place.

      While Roxon means well, the only viable approach is to change the law and recognize and allow same-sex marriage in Australia. Otherwise we’ll simply see more lawyers profiteering from non-bigamy (when you marry multiple people, yet the law doesn’t recognize any of the weddings) and non-divorce (the divorce you can’t have as the government doesn’t recognize you as married).

      And if Australia’s government says “we will recognize overseas same-sex marriages here, but you can’t have them here” that’s an even sillier position and discriminates against those who cannot afford to travel internationally to be married.

      We need to follow the KISS principle and make same-sex marriages legal (allowing churches to refuse to perform any marriages they choose not to allow).

    • Mark says:

      07:59am | 29/01/12

      Still Groce, however you look at it.

    • Mike says:

      08:47am | 29/01/12

      @Craig:  Brilliant!  I love it!  Only in Australia!

    • Emisfor says:

      02:51pm | 29/01/12

      same old dilemma folks - marriage was, is and continues to be an institution for male and female. Nothing to do with religion, that is how nature programmed us and that is how we evolved the institution.

      So let’s find a format suitable for homosexual unions, recognise the purpose of the homosexual union in law and entitlements / rights etc, and introduce legislation to formalise that.

      Homosexual relationships in general have some fundamental differences to heterosexual relationships. As all of us here are smart enough to know that no relationship form is 100% relative to all participants, you can save us some time and not pepper the comments with the perceived exceptions, that go on to prove the rule in any case…

      Marriage, being a heterosexual union, has in the majority of cases the ability and purpose of founding a family. A family in the sense of producing offspring.

      Yes was all know people that we all know someone of some couple who ae serenely happy with no kids at all, but the population of planet Earth shows us that in the majority of the cases that is one of the prime purposes.

      And yes, we are all already aware that children can be conceived out of marriage, and often grow up to be just wonderful adults.

      Still does not change the core fundamental of marriage and families.

      And yes most of us are aware that there are bugs or animals that asexual, or genderless, or appear to be homosexual.

      Humans though are neither bugs nor animals. Noe omebas or whatever examples I have seen listed in the past to try and substantiate homosexuality as a totally valid human condition, relationship form and thus qualifying for marriage status as heterosexuals do.

      Perfect world? Nope… Is it valid that heterosexuals can have a union format that is valid for heterosexuals and not for homosexuals? Yep.

      Is it a human right for a homosexual couple to be able to have a union called marriage and then partake of the rights, responsibilities and community position of the heterosexual union called marriage? Nope.

      Never was, is not, never will be.

      Do homosexuals have a right to a form of permanent union appropriate for the form of their union: Sure do in Australia.

      Is that marriage, a heterosexual union? Nope.

      And you can spare us all the questions about proof of that, 100% airtight references to that somewhere else, statements from scientists, philosophers, rights activists, politicians or whoever…

      Our system is not perfect as humans are not perfect, but that does not justify changing the meaning of a term in order to allocate rights and validity to one form of union, that is unique to another form of union. Words, terms, meanings become meaningless.

      And just because other people do it does not make it right, it just makes it one very bad habit that should be avoided…

    • chopper knows says:

      11:48am | 30/01/12

      It would be interesting to know what other cultures think about this. Can a man marry a another man in certain asian countries? eg China/Thailand/Japan? how about in Africa? How about Papua new guinea?? yep, we know all about Canada which says Yes and the middle east which is an obvious No, but what are the laws in other non western, non muslim countries? Does it even matter? Do Americans/Australians wanting to marry their same sex partner do they even care?

    • marley says:

      12:51pm | 30/01/12

      According to the ever (somewhat) reliable Wiki, the following countries have legalized same-sex marriage:  Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden.  Also, it’s legal in parts of the US, Brazil and Mexico.  And Israel, Brazil and Mexico all recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere.

      I find it curious that some of the countries that have legalized it are predominantly Catholic.  I think it’ll be a cold day in hell, though, before a Muslim country legalizes it.

    • chopper knows says:

      11:51am | 30/01/12

      Most of the middle aged white me with Filipino wives are not doing it to “gift” a free ticket to theie wifes. They just can’t find any “suitable” partners in AUstralia thus the need to “import” one from a less fortanate one.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Just saw the Waratahs result. Can someone tell me how hard the kick was for the Tahs to win? #SuperRugby

Daniel Piotrowski

@SquigglyRick likewise!

Daniel Piotrowski

Hurray racism is fixed no protesters at anti-Islam demonstration http://t.co/hRFbZq8u9h

ToryShepherd

OI TWITTER! Need your best misheard lyrics pronto for @891adelaide's #thebuzz! Hit me, please!

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter