tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2705033360941967502.post772625889818016865..comments2024-01-17T22:28:55.593+10:00Comments on Selena Silcox: One small step for Gays....SR Silcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02733549270044085017noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2705033360941967502.post-30942877069564263142011-10-27T22:27:58.626+10:002011-10-27T22:27:58.626+10:00I've been thinking about this Civil Union thin...I've been thinking about this Civil Union thing a little more seriously over the past couple of days, since it hit the news headlines (and facebook newsfeeds).<br /><br />Things I don't like about the proposed Civil Union legislation:<br /><br />(1) It's being introduced at state level. I wish it were being done at federal level. Why should a Civil Union be available in Queensland but not in another state.<br /><br />(2) It still won't be possible for same-same couples (even in Civil Unions) to adopt.<br /><br />(3) Andrew Fraser (et al) are not doing a good job explaining how Civil Unions compare to 'de facto' relationships, and how this legislation will impact on people in de facto relationships (positively or otherwise).<br /><br />(4) It's still not marriage. And it's about bloody time Australia had men marrying men and women marrying women, and it's about bloody time Marriage Celebrants didn't have to say that rubbish about 'a man and a woman'.<br /><br />Things I like about the proposed Civil Union legislation:<br /><br />(1) It applies equally to couples of any gender combination. (Too bad the media is so skewed on the proposed Civil Unions being gay gay gay same-sex same-sex same-sex, rather than reporting it factually, as being for all. Sigh.)<br /><br />(2) It gives male-female couples the option of receiving the legal protections of a civil union which marriage would otherwise provide, if they so choose. Except, of course, they wouldn't be able to adopt. (Because only MARRIED couples make suitable adoptive families, did you know that?)<br /><br />(3) It provides simple documentary 'proof' of a relationship, which may come in handy in the event of a legal or medical issue, or death of one of the partners. I have fortunately not had to deal with this kind of scenario myself, but I suppose that if you are in a de facto relationship, it would be harder to prove, especially in the event of an emergency.<br /><br />(4) Related to the point above, there are some countries in the world that recognise couples who are in a civil union for the purpose of immigration, but not if they are only de facto (I have heard this is the case in Ireland, for example). In Australia, this isn't an issue (so long as you can prove you have lived together as a couple for 1 year or more), but for Australians travelling, working or retiring overseas, being able to simply prove the relationship status would probably help. That being said, I'm not sure why the government doesn't just allow de facto couples to apply for a certificate stating they are in a de facto relationship, which act as the same thing. Hmmmm, maybe because 'de facto' is short for 'de facto marriage'?<br /><br />(5) And, further related to the point above, although Australia has a long history of recognising de facto couples (of which we can be proud - not forcing couples to marry to get certain rights, like in the US and many other countries), the term 'de facto' is not well understood outside Australia. So, adopting the term 'Civil Union' for Australian de facto relationships would probably help communicate these relationships more easily internationally.<br /><br />But, would I get a Civil Union? I don't see the point. I'm already in a de facto relationship, and I don't need a piece of paper to prove it.<br /><br />Marriage, on the other hand...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com