Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Civil union plan about politics not people

By John Kloprogge - posted Friday, 3 February 2012

The proposal by Warren Entsch and Joel Fitzgibbon to pre-empt the marriage equality debate with a national civil union scheme has nothing to do with benefitting the gay community and everything to do with politics.

In terms of the aspiration of same-sex couples for equality, the plan makes no sense at all.

It's unnecessary because over 80% of Australians already have access to civil unions at a state and territory level.


If same-sex couples believed these provided equality they would flock to them in droves, but the fact is only a tiny proportion of same-sex partners have signed up.

Of those same-sex partners who have "civilly unionised" in Australia, 78% say they would prefer to be married according to a national University of Queensland study.

At the same time, the numbers of same-sex couples entering state and territory civil unions seems to be in decline.

It's true that the numbers of heterosexual couples signing on to state and territory civil union schemes is increasing, but this is because such schemes are at best an alternative for those who don't want to marry marriage, not a substitute for those who can't.

The failure of our civil unions to be a substitute for full equality is reflected around the world, where countries are either moving on from such schemes (Sweden, Norway, the UK) or bypassing them altogether and adopting marriage equality instead (Spain, Argentina, Portugal).

I've read the argument from Bob Carr and others that the UK shows Australia has to go through a civil union phrase before it moves on to marriage equality.


My response is that the UK is moving to marriage equality not because it has changed but because the world has changed.

The reason civil unions are less and less popular among same-sex partners is because they failed to solve the problems these couples face.

Overseas studies show they do not provide same-sex couples with same level of acknowledgement as married couples, and sometimes not even full relationship entitlements.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

44 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Kloprogge is a marriage equality advocate based in Canberra.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John Kloprogge

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 44 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy