Civil union plan about politics not people

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.