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

Subscribe!
Subscribe





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.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Equity, choice and inclusion

By Rodney Croome and Wayne Morgan - posted Thursday, 6 November 2008


This emphasis on equity, choice and inclusion contrasts sharply with overseas schemes. Heterosexual and non-sexual partners are excluded from the UK civil partnership scheme, which also has no official ceremonial component. Most other schemes also exclude non-sexual partners and insist on an “I-take-thee”-style ceremony, even when a couple doesn’t want or need one.

This is because of the most fundamental difference between Australian and overseas schemes. Civil unions in other places have generally been established as politically-expedient substitutes for same-sex marriage. In contrast, Australia’s registries have been developed as an alternative to marriage for couples who can’t or don’t wish to marry.

In other words, Australia’s civil partnership registries can and should exist side-by-side with opposite and same-sex marriage, and with legal protections for de facto couples, in the kind of three-tiered system of legal recognition that already exists in Canada and the Netherlands.

Advertisement

Figures from Tasmania and the ACT demonstrate that there is a need for the kind of flexible recognition registries offer with the proportion of partnership registrations matching those of overseas civil union schemes, and with couples taking up both the ceremonial and non-ceremonial options, regardless of their gender.

In light of this, it is a double tragedy that the Rudd Government has consistently put forward registries as an inappropriate response to the demand for same-sex marriage.

Not only does it divert attention from marriage discrimination and the harm this discrimination does to both same-sex couples and the institution of marriage. It also diverts the anger of gay couples about this discrimination to the wrong target, civil registries.

We urge the Australian public not to be deceived by myths and misunderstandings that distort and diminish registries. Instead, we urge call for a more honest and better informed debate about relationship law reform, one that tackles same-sex marriage in its own right, but also takes us beyond marriage to a choice and equity-based system of relationship laws within which registries play a pivotal role.

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


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

1 post so far.

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

About the Authors

Rodney Croome is a spokesperson for Equality Tasmania and national advocacy group, just.equal. He who was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2003 for his LGBTI advocacy.

Wayne Morgan was a consultant to the Tasmanian Attorney General when the Tasmanian law was drafted. He is a Senior Lecturer at the ANU, College of Law.

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Rodney Croome
All articles by Wayne Morgan

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

Article Tools
Comment 1 comment
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy