gay marriage
12 May 2008
This is No Dog Registry
Australia's first and best civil union scheme has become collateral damage in the gay marriage debate, writes Rodney Croome
No, I'm not talking about the ACT's thwarted attempt at civil partnerships. I'm referring to Tasmania's globally groundbreaking relationship registry. The registry is important because, for the first time anywhere in the world, it enshrines freedom of choice as the fundamental principle behind relationship law.The definition of a personal relationship in Tasmanian law is now so wide that it allows people to choose for themselves who the most important person in their life is, and for that relationship to be given equal relationship rights and protections without any questions asked.
No longer do partners have to swear they are in a ‘til-death-us-do-part marriage-like relationship before having their relationship recognised, or jump through the cohabitation and shared-bank-account hoops facing de facto couples.
Under Tasmanian law, couples are also free to enter a new legal relationship in the way that suits them best, by simply filling out forms, or by having a solemn ceremony.
This also contrasts with marriage, where a formal ceremony is mandatory, or de facto law where it is completely absent. In short, under Tasmanian law all personal relationships ¬ same-sex opposite-sex, companionate and familial are equally entitled and respected.
To reinforce the point that Tasmanian relationships law is now thoroughly egalitarian, all old, hierarchical relationship terms like "husband", "wife" and "defacto partner" have been removed from the State's statutes and replaced with the one inclusive term: "personal relationship".
All these developments have been either ignored or diminished in the debate on same-sex marriage.
To better spruik its more marriage-like civil union scheme, the ACT Government has compared a relationship register to a dog register. Not only is this denigrating of recognised Tasmanian same-sex partners, it's wrong.
In Tasmania it is not a relationship which is registered but a Deed of Relationship, just like a marriage certificate, by a Registrar, on a register, in a registry.
The Federal Government has also misrepresented the Tasmanian scheme as simply a way to register existing de facto relationships. It has done this to present the scheme as a foil to the gay community's demand for same-sex marriage, a foil which is nonetheless acceptable to religious lobbyists.
But in reality the Tasmanian registry allows partners to declare their intention to enter a new legal relationship, just like marriage. On this basis the Tasmanian registry is recognised in the law of other countries as a fully fledged civil union scheme.
The bigger point is that it is unfair for the Federal Government to put forward the Tasmanian registry as a substitute for same-sex marriage. It was designed not to replace marriage for same-sex partners, but to sit alongside the more traditional institution, as an alternative way to entitle and protect diverse personal relationships.
As debate on same-sex marriage has focussed on the legislated ceremonies formerly provided in the ACT Civil Partnership Bill, so criticism of the Tasmanian model has shifted to the absence of such ceremonies, with the registry being described as "bland" and only allowing "pretend ceremonies".
It was a deliberate decision not to include mandatory ceremonies.
As I've indicated, couples should be free to choose how they enter their new legal relationship. Furthermore, even where ceremonies are a prerequisite for entering a relationship, they do not have the effect of legally creating or recognising that relationship.
Only the Registrar General can do this when she signs the official forms, usually several days after the ceremony, in a process that is the same no matter what the scheme is called or what ceremonies it provides for.
On paper the Tasmanian registry may look "bland" - but so does marriage.
In Tassie, officials who combine the roles of federal marriage celebrant and state Commissioner of Declarations, conduct ceremonies around the signing and witnessing of Deeds of Relationship which are just as affirming and solemn as other civil union or marriage ceremonies.
If there is a difference, it is that couples are freer to create the ceremony which suits them.
Choice, flexibility, greater freedom: these are the hallmarks of a new type of relationship law. These qualities can be distorted and ignored by mainland governments fighting bitterly over same-sex marriage. But they cannot be extinguished, for they are increasingly what our modern society demands.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Yet another hijacking of the gay marriage debate.
It is not primarily about sex rights, relationship rights, property rights, inheritance rights or all the other ‘rights’ alluded to; but about marriage as the institution that exists in all cultures without exception, to protect the nurturing of children. This is the only issue that is common to all marriage structures at all times throughout history.
The needs of babies, infants and children have not changed. They still require love, affection, commitment and guidance through these formative years and, as any midwife will tell you, the full parents who bond with that baby from the outset, provide the best insurance of these needs being met. Marriage exists to reinforce that protective structure.
Anthropology identifies the disparate cultural attachments to marriage, which evolved in response to changing environments; and also to configurations of power; with flat power cultures providing the most nurturing environments for children (ie traditional Aboriginal), to hierarchical cultures, within which children are more likely at risk due to unequal distribution of resources.
Gay radicals would seek to redefine anthropology and the nature of man, and this is an unprincipled betrayal of those of us who literally fought for an end to bullying and vilification of our homosexual citizens.
And before the predictable rationalisations begin, to dredge up examples of conventional marriages that did not achieve utopian outcomes is the classic non sequitur. Children’s needs are still better served with nature’s system, and no pseudo politico-social science can change this.
The gay and lesbian lobby, as opposed to some genuinely caring gays I have known, has adopted an essentially anti-children and anti-family position; all to secure purely selfish civil privileges.
As the family unit is the pivotal feature of all cultures, these ruthless manipulators can be regarded as socially unconscionable, especially in their attempts to grossly inflate their representation in the community (-1% not 18%) and therefore to undermine the rights of others. What is needed is genuine democratic informed discussion within the community, and not by lobbyists or so-called experts.
According to our door-to-door surveys of a complete demographic corridor on the Sunshine Coast, a highly representative region, 48% agreed that gay couples should be able to adopt children, and 61% opposed gay marriage as this term is applied to ‘husband and wife, in a context of family’.
Full and informed community discussion could very well overturn those statistics and in spite of my serious reservations, I for one will go along with the democratic majority; as will, I believe, the vast majority of gays. It is then that the lobby itself will identify its true attitude to democracy and Australians.
Hi Rodney,
I admire your tireless commitment to working with Labor to get better rights for gay people, but to me it is a simple matter.
Gay people aren’t sub-human, so let us marry.
Why all this messing about with regiistries?
Great work!
(I posted the following as a comment when I posted this article to my facebook)
Good points raised here. Weddings are total BS, and I can’t be bothered with the whole fuckwitage surrounding it anymore. Which is why when people ask me ‘when’s the wedding’ I get all flustered.
I’ll be honest- Mickey and I are already doing the same exact thing that married couples do. For us, it’s not about changing one’s name (over my dead body) or my learning to make 2 minute noodles properly like a good housewife.
The value of marriage for us is about sharing and celebrating our relationship with our friends and family (and an excuse to get all my American friends and relatives to Australia to meet this man I’ve been living in sin with for 5 years).
I’ve decided that when I can be bothered with the whole wedding BS, it’s So happening in Tassie (Mickey are you reading this???)
Tonia
Oh and my apologies to Tony for advocating this article despite the fact that a label of ‘gay radical’ could hardly be applied to my personal life experience.
Just shows you how useless it is to categorise people.
Tonia
Tonia
I like your direct and honest approach to life and love. My intuition is, stick to your guns and the world will respect you for it. It also augers well for your relationship.
Re: Tony Ryan
Hijacking the gay marriage debate? I thought this article was about Tasmania’s relationship registry, which Mr Croome went to great lengths to differentiate from marriage. But since you seem so keen to buy into the marriage debate, I may as well put in my two cents worth. While it’s true that some people want the full title of marriage as a matter of principle, I believe the majority of us (same sex attracted people) just want to be treated equally before the law. Let me explain. That means that any two consenting adults who are living in a committed domestic relationship should not be penalised simply because of their gender. The financial realities are a side issue, what the government is saying is that these relationships are sub-standard. Many people get squeamish when the words gay and marriage are used together, so some clever individual came up with the term civil union. The ACT tried to run with that but Howard and Ruddock said "Nope, it’s too much like a marriage". It seems that Mr Rudd is being just as obstructive, but in a more roundabout way. Now Tony, you say that children’s needs are still better served with nature’s system, and no pseudo politico-social science can change this. Apart from the fact that there is no proof that children in queer families are any worse off than those from traditional families, this is also a side issue. If gay or lesbian people want to start a family they will find a way, and the government can’t stop them. It’s also been noted that those who have kids through unconventional means are more likely to be good parents, because of the effort they have made. It’s just a bitch that children of same sex parents are disadvantaged by a government that accepts their parent’s taxes just like anybody else. Finally Tony, your assertion that gay radicals seeking to redefine anthropology and the nature of man is an unprincipled betrayal of those of you who literally fought for an end to bullying and vilification of our homosexual citizens, should be taken for what it is - empty rhetoric.
Regards - Stephen
Re: Tony Ryan
Hijacking the gay marriage debate? I thought this article was about Tasmania’s relationship registry, which Mr Croome went to great lengths to differentiate from marriage. But since you seem so keen to buy into the marriage debate, I may as well put in my two cents worth. While it’s true that some people want the full title of marriage as a matter of principle, I believe the majority of us (same sex attracted people) just want to be treated equally before the law. Let me explain. That means that any two consenting adults who are living in a committed domestic relationship should not be penalised simply because of their gender. The financial realities are a side issue, what the government is saying is that these relationships are sub-standard. Many people get squeamish when the words gay and marriage are used together, so some clever individual came up with the term civil union. The ACT tried to run with that but Howard and Ruddock said "Nope, it’s too much like a marriage". It seems that Mr Rudd is being just as obstructive, but in a more roundabout way. Now Tony, you say that children’s needs are still better served with nature’s system, and no pseudo politico-social science can change this. Apart from the fact that there is no proof that children in queer families are any worse off than those from traditional families, this is also a side issue. If gay or lesbian people want to start a family they will find a way, and the government can’t stop them. It’s also been noted that those who have kids through unconventional means are more likely to be good parents, because of the effort they have made. It’s just a bitch that children of same sex parents are disadvantaged by a government that accepts their parent’s taxes just like anybody else. Finally Tony, your assertion that gay radicals seeking to redefine anthropology and the nature of man is an unprincipled betrayal of those of you who literally fought for an end to bullying and vilification of our homosexual citizens, should be taken for what it is - empty rhetoric.
Regards - Stephen
Oops, I sent it twice. I suppose that proves I’m sub-human.
Stephen,
You write that ‘any two consenting adults who are living in a committed domestic relationship should not be penalised simply because of their gender.’
How are they currently penalised ? You lost me there. Aren’t homosexuals just as able to live together as heterosexuals ? Is it legal for landlords to discriminate against one or the other ? Do you have to pay higher rates ? Perhaps you’re not allowed to keep pets ? Is there a curfew imposed on homosexuals ? I’m very concerned about anything which might penalise them.
Of course, two heterosexual men (for example, two brothers) cannot, as far as I am aware, adopt a child, and neither can two homosexual men, but I may be wrong.
Joe Lane
Joe
Hey Joe, two homosexuals living together are penalised because they don’t get the same tax breaks, medicare threshold, superannuation sharing or many other benefits that their heterosexual counterparts would take for granted. If one of them served in the armed forces and then dies, the surviving partner is not entitled to a bereavement payment, let alone a war widow’s pension. I’m so pleased about your concern in this regard. Perhaps you’d like to take part in demonstrations for International Day Against Homophobia, coming up on Saturday. Email thequeernoise@2ser.com, and I’ll give you the drum.
Why should they ? Are one of them home looking after kids and maintaining a household etc. like most widows have been doing ? Or do you also want to put in for maternity allowance ? Sorry, I just don’t see how it all applies to homosexuals, and frankly I don’t really care one way or the other. There are so many, many more important issues in the world today. Suck it up.
War widow’s pension. Jesus give me strength.
Joe
Joe, I’m a little surprised that someone who states same sex rights are not an important issue is spending an inordinate amount of time talking about it.
I am not implying anything. Simply you keep commenting on something you confess to be uninterested in and to be blunt, you’re views are somewhere between the Boer War and the post-Catatonic era. Get a blog.
What I don’t understand is why so many non-gay men spend so long talking about and whinging about gay people. I just want to live my life quietly and law-abiding. I pay my taxes and contribute to society. Yet there are so many people, like the Victorian Nationals and Federal Labor, and people like rmg1859 that keep dragging my personal life into the spot-light by passing laws that ban gay marriage (like in 2004) or blocking my right to visit my partner in hospital (although admittedly that is changing soon).
Why are so many so-called conservatives OBSESSED with gay people? Why do they keep forcing their obsession with gay people on every one else? Just leave us alone!
Hi Rachel,
I guess I was trying to focus attention on more important issues, human rights in Burma etc. Sorry about those, if they keep intruding into your concerns.
Joe
Obsessed? Now there’s a startling piece of non-logic.
Why is less than 1% of the Australian population making such disproportionate noise? Why are you in our face? Back off, and we will back off.
And if you want to dispute the 1% tag, I live on the Sunshine Coast. Join me in one of my surveys and let us settle, once and for all, the real percentage of gays. With you along, nobody will be too intimidated to tell the truth; right? You will, by the way, sign a contract to publicly witness the results.
I have already done this survey so I know the outcome. I am in the business of working with demonstrable facts, and the actual percentage is of no personal interest to me. But what should interest you is that I have discovered a factor in homosexuality that pretty much undermines current proselytised beliefs. I haven’t bother to publicise this yet because, as Joe points out, there are infinitely more important issues at stake.
Hi Tom,
Why do you think those 1% of Australians feel the need to make noise? I believe it is because they are treated shabbily by the government.
My parents got married. My Mum’s parents were married, my Dad’s parents were married. My brother is married. I naturally assumed when it was my turn I would get married. I mean afterall, my family has a long tradition of partaking in marriage.
Then in 2004 Libs + Labor got a law passed that banned gay marriage. So tell me again who is meddling in whose life? Why should politicians in Canberra get to destroy hundreds of years of tradition in my family by stopping me from getting married? It is an outrage.
All I’m saying is that why do people like you feel the need to stick your noses in my life? If you anti-gay whingers would just leave people like me alone and let us pay our taxes, get married and have families just like my ancestors have, then I would be happy.
In 2004, were gay relationships banned ? No. So what exactly are you complaining about, Coconaut ? You can still live with whomever you like ? So what’s the issue ? I’m sure that many heteros are not opposed to what you are asking, just baffled about what on earth it might all be about ? What is it about marriage that you want ? Just when marriage is losing its significance anyway. Of all my brothers and sisters, and in-laws (fourteen in all), only four bothered to get married and the rest have had various forms of relationships. If anything, marriage has been a problem in that one has to go through the rigmarole of divorce rather than a mutual agreement to part and be done with it. So marriage has as many minuses as pluses, but if you want to press on with trying to enter that arena, go for it.
Best of luck. Either way, it doesn’t make you any less (or more) a fellow human being whose rights deserve to be protected.
Joe Lane, Adelaide
Is this the new justification for the 2004 ban on gay marriage? That you are in fact protecting gay people from divorce? That’s a pretty lame argument and quite condescending. I’m sorry your family is so bad at marriages, but my family has a long tradition of success using the institution and so it’s a pity you have to project your failures onto families that are successful, and try to wreck hundreds of years of tradition in my family and community.
Why are opponents to gay marriage trying to make life more difficult for other people? God knows a successful relationship is hard enough without complete strangers meddling in your private lives. It’s just a weird situation if you ask me.
"What is it about marriage that you want ?"
It’s really simple. I want the right to get married just like my parents had that right, and my grandparents had that right. I don’t want civil unions, or dog registries, or commitment ceremonies, or any other crystal-gazing hippy sh*t, I just want to get married like my parents got married. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? Why is that a bad thing? And why is the government trying to complicate the matter???
So to that end, I want the 2004 ban reversed, and an apology from the Federal Parliament because they knew it was wrong at the time, but they did it any way.
Sorry, Coconaut, I didn’t mean to be condescending, only I’m really not sure why on earth you want to enter into a marriage with another person of the same sex, it just doesn’t make sense to me why it has any efficacy at all. If you want to live together, that’s fine, my best wishes, but what does marriage have to do with it ? And it’s not a failure not to be married, that’s simply another choice, no big deal either way.
So I’m still baffled how this can make life for you more difficult or easier or whatever, and how are people meddling in your private lives ? Do what you like, live how you like, but how is ‘marriage’ relevant ? What you might have is worthy, it’s fine, it’s a valid relationship, a deep and loving friendship, but how is it marriage ? And why worry one way or the other ?
All the best,
Joe Lane, Adelaide
This argument seems to have continued for days, and it’s become as circular as a Bridgestone tyre. Okay Joe, we understand that you don’t get it. You’ve made that clear. Trouble is, you also disagree with it. Do you disagree with everything you don’t understand?
I like Stephen Pickells’ thinking…
Tonia
And Joe- we ought not have to pick and choose what’s important.
A lot of things are important. One important thing need not ‘win’ over another. In a sense the hard bit is that we need to change the way we think- I think the budget displays that need well (why for instance is the baby-bonus treated as a welfare benefit when in fact it was introduced to silence demans for paid maternity leave? doesn’t that make it Australia’s version of paid mat leave? Doesn’t that mean it’s not welfare and should thus not be means tested? Why in all the major news sources the day after the budget was there SO LITTLE reflection on closing the gap? Isn’t closing the gap meant to be a top priority for the Rudd gov???). I could go on. And on. And on. The truth is that a lot of people think about these things, but valuing one issue over another is not the answer.
I found this article so great because as a woman, I understand that there are historical factors involved in what is expected of me today. This understanding has been furthered since I got engaged. I also feel very strongly about participating in a wedding, with my partner, when it is legally required that the celbrant must say that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yes, my partner is a man, yes I am a woman, but my values tell me that I don’t believe marriage must be between a man and woman, and thus I struggle with getting married under terms which says that that is the case. I simply think it’s wrong.
Tonia
Stephen and Tonia,
Sorry, but no, I still don’t get it. Do I disagree with everything that I don’t understand, at least until I understand it ? Of course. What sort of mug would do otherwise ? Tonia, I’ve read your second paragraph over and over and still am baffled why and how it could apply to same-sex couples. Sorry. If anything, you have persuaded me that women need marriage more than men (i.e. in different-sex relationships) if only for the illusion of stability that it may provide. In fact, I’m questioning the relevance of marriage between mature-age different-sex couples. Live together, love each other, but what’s marriage got to do with it ?
But I think I’m slowly getting there ;)
Joe
I recall at the time of the ban, a lot of straight people said that banning gay marriage actually diminished the institution in their eyes, because what was supposed to be a joyous inclusive celebration was now a discriminatory, exclusionary institution.
I have been to quite a few weddings since then, and, because I love these people and respect them I act completely cool and happy the entire time, and I never give any indication that the new celebrant speech reeks … after all, this is their day totally and there is definitely a time and place for discussions like this (and a wedding is not one of them) … but at almost every single one, the couple have made a point of saying they disagree with the text, even two celebrants have prefaced the text by saying they disagree with it but are required by the 2004 law to say it.
Maybe it’s just a Melbourne thing, but straight people find the ban on gay marriage partly devalues the institution in their eyes.
Forgive Rip Van Winkle here but when was this ‘ban’ ? When have homosexual couples ever been included under the rubric of ‘marriage’ ? To many of us ignorant heteros out here, the extension of marriage to homosexual couples is a bit like extending the rights of accouchement leave to men, a right which is hardly relevant to them. People under a certain age are not ‘banned’ from accessing the age-pension, until they reach that age: it is not relevant to them until that time. Banning is not the issue, relevance is.
To get back to the subject of this thread, a civil registry - wouldn’t this cover it ?
Joe
The Marriage Amendment Act 2004 specifically narrowed the definition of marriage to a "union of a man and a woman to the exclusion
of all others" … up until then it was Common Law.
Interestingly, the 2004 Act also banned recognising gay marriages from overseas, breaking 500 years of English-speaking tradition of recognising marriages from fellow Commonwealths like the UK and Canada. Another reason why the 2004 ban was wrong, because it drove a wedge between the great English speaking nations of the Earth. But radicals like John Howard didn’t care about stuff like that.
So there was no ban, simply a formalisation of the law as it stood under common law ? Are you saying that Canada and the UK have had recognition of gay marriages for 500 years ? Sorry, Coconaut, which countries overseas recognised gay marriages back in 2004 ? Spain has extended the definition this year, I believe. Anywhere else ? How is the law phrased in those cases to make marriage relevant for those situations ?
Joe
"simply a formalisation" of older laws … wow … I understand some people are against gay marriage, but I wish at least they didn’t cowardly pretend it was their grandparents who outlawed gay marriage "way back in the distant past"… if you’re against gay marriage at least have the guts to admit it was you and your ilk that outlawed it in 2004. Up until that point gay marriage had never been tested in an Australian court, and had never been declared illegal.
You know, because last time I checked, people in Common Law countries have rights until they’re taken away by the law. I mean, it’s what my grandfather and my g-grandfather and their brothers fought in two World Wars for, right?
The law was rushed through in 2004 because two men had married in Canada and came back to Australia expecting their marriage to be recognised. Hence that strange bit in the 2004 Act that specifically excludes marriages overseas (breaking with 500 years of tradition in English speaking countries).
Quite a few countries have full equality … Canada, Spain, Holland and South Africa I believe are the "big ones" and some parts of the USA too (since it’s a state thing there).
Is any of this making you less hostile to the idea of undoing the ban on gay marriage, or are we just both steadfast rocks?
Yes, actually. That might be a first on NM. Thanks, Coconaut, the picture is getting clearer.
Joe
I realise that all you guys want to do is talk; and that the realities of history, culture, democracy and logic are of no interest to you whatsoever.
So before I abandon this wasted thread, lets have four things understood:
(1) Nobody passed a law banning gay marriage. It has always been banned, for thousands of years.
(2) Many politicians respond only to lobbies, but not to the democratic majority of their nations. These politicians have passed laws making gay marriage legal. This is the business of those nations, not Australia.
(3) Marriage is first and foremost about children. Not inheritance or tax issues; and even these were designed to protect children. Got it? Children! Children! Children.
(4) Gay marriage is not a priority to the vast majority of people. They are more concerned with other things.
(5) A majority in Australia does not support gay marriage. This issue of democracy is vastly more important to the people than your grossly uninformed opinion.
Women need marraige more than men Joe?
Think before you speak (or you probably are one who DOESN’T speak but hide solely behind the safety of a computer before you can say what you REALLY think).
Tonia
Hi Tony,
1) If it was always illegal then why did the government have to change the law in 2004? Surely they didn’t need to do anything? They were the ones that changed the law, not gay people.
2) How do you know the gay marriage ban was not the result of lobby groups like the Exclusive Brethren and the anti-family Australian Family Association?
3) Will you become pro-gay marriage when science allows the DNA from two men or the DNA from two women to be combined to make a new embryo? They are already able to do that in the lab for two women, biological same-sex parents are probably only 10 years away technologically.
4) The government does lots of things that aren’t a priority to people. Not sure what you mean by this point.
5) I would argue that the polls show majority support for gay marriage, or at the very worst, a 50/50 split. For example, this poll from last year in the Courier Mail shows 57% of Australians support gay marriage (even more support civil unions):
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21942896-953,00.html
6) Why are you so obsessed with the private lives of gay men?
Hi Tonia,
Yes, even if it provides only an illusion of an insurance policy against the guy pissing off. Yes, bourgeois illusion as it may be, marriage purports to offer some support for women, who after all are usually the ones left with the kids. Women pay for the moments of ecstasy, after all, long after the guy may have shot through. This is the point: what is the purpose of ‘marriage’ if there is no likelihood of kids ever being involved ?
Oh, I get it - ‘marriage’ is the first step, then adoptions, then ….. Gosh, that would get up mum and dad’s noses. Please tell me I’m wrong :)
Do you want my address as well ?
Joe Lane, Adelaide rmg1859@yahoo.com.au
Good news from California with the supreme court overturning the ban on gay marriage:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,618231…
I like the badge in the photo ‘Justly Married’!