Civil union plan about politics not people

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.

This is because most people don't know what a civil union is, what it means and what legal effect it has.

Worse, civil unions create a separate and second-class status for same-sex couples that studies have shown can actually foster discrimination and stigma rather than remove it.

Apart from being unnecessary and damaging, a national civil union scheme would also be immensely impractical because it will require referrals from the states which some would be loath to provide, as well as new system of celebrants and certificates, and the amendment of all official forms.

Marriage equality requires a six word amendment to existing legislation.

Why do we need to establish a completely new system for recognising relationships at a national level when we already have a perfectly good one called marriage?

The answer is that the civil union proposal has nothing to do with what benefits same-sex couples, and everything to do with what benefits politicians.

Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott continue to feel the heat over their increasingly isolated opposition to marriage equality.

Abbott in particular is being attacked from all quarters, including by a former Howard Government minister and in TV ads, for not allowing members of the Party of individual freedom the freedom to vote according to their individual consciences.

The civil union proposal is designed to let them off the hook.

Of course, it will fail.

Momentum for marriage equality is so strong, and support so high, particularly in the gay community, that civil unions will only ever look like a sop.

Rather than ending the campaign for full equality a civil union bill will inflame it.

The last thing those who want to bring an end to the marriage equality debate should do is support civil unions.

Instead, the best way forward on marriage equality is to support a conscience vote on marriage equality from both major parties.

I can tell you from my lobbying that when there is a bi-partisan conscience vote on marriage equality naysayers will be surprised by the level of support it will have.

At best Entsch and Fitzgibbon are misjudging what level of support there is for marriage equality among their colleagues and at worst misrepresenting it.

I challenge Warren Entsch and Joel Fitzgibbon to prove me wrong about what motivates them.

If they genuinely believe in making life better for same-sex couples and not their political bosses, they will allow marriage equality legislation to be properly debated with a bi-partisan conscience vote before they pre-empt it with their compromise.

If they sincerely believe civil unions are the way forward, they will submit their bill to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality so it can be properly scrutinised by legal experts and by those it will most affect.

If they don't, they open themselves to the accusation that, just like their party leaders, they are playing politics with people's legitimate aspirations for equality and respect.