The Adventures of QueerPenguin

How Do We Love? Let Us Count The Ways

Since the last open floor posting was quite successful, I thought I might give it another shot again.

The following is a feature scheduled to be published in SX this week.

Have a read, and then at the end I'd like to do a little survey of which of the following options people would personally prefer for their partnerships (real or speculative) and why. Or if there's another option I've missed. Or if none of these appeal.

For this post I'd just like to hear from the gays and dykes in the village; nothing against the breeders, it's just that this isn't really relevant to youse at this late stage.

PS - For the record, I fully support enactment of 3 and 4 but for myself would go with 3.

*****************************************************************************

The federal government is ignoring it in the hope it will go away; Labor is “consulting the community” about it; the Greens believe they’ve already got it sorted and Family First – well, they’re still chopping up the best kindling wood with which to burn lesbians at the stake.

Yes, it’s That Beast That Must Not Be Named: Formal relationship recognition for same-sex couples.

Many of us are such couples, know couples personally, or have heard the horror stories, of how a continued denial at federal level of our relationships can hurt us emotionally and financially. And with the vast majority of Australians supporting, and only a tiny minority of fringe extremists opposing some means of ending discrimination against law-abiding, tax-paying civil citizens in committed, long-term relationships, the question now seems to be not when it will happen, but how, and to what extent.

The way I read the situation, there are 4 possible avenues to go down in the quest to end discrimination:

1. Law reform only, no formal models

Pros: This is actually a possibility under the Howard government, as we’ve seen with its various piecemeal policy reforms in the areas of defence, migration and veterans’ entitlements, as well as extending same-sex couples as “interdependents” for the purposes of private sector superannuation. It resolves some, but not many, of the practical difficulties of legal discrimination, in a very quiet, unheralded manner least likely to frighten the horses.

Cons: There is no commitment ceremony involved and certainly no legally-binding contract at the end of this. It frustratingly acknowledges the reality of same-sex couples while concurrently denying them the opportunity for formal recognition of their relationships, implying we deserve no more than the absolute barest minimum.


2. Interdependency

Pros: There is an existing precedent on which the federal government could base a model of interdependent relationship recognition – that is, the Tasmanian Personal Relationships Registration scheme, where 2 people who can prove interdependency, including same-sex couples, heterosexual couples, primary carers and elderly friends to name a few examples, are able to register their relationship. Such a registration comes complete with all relevant rights and responsibilities under Tasmanian law.

Interdependent relationship registration is theoretically supported even by the strongest opponents of homosexuality, such as Family First. Where FF has argued (recently in South Australia, for example) that same-sex state law reform is “discriminatory” against non-sexual relationships, this argument becomes moot when there is broader interdependent application.

Cons: Such a scheme essentially desexualises our relationships by equating same-sex with non-sexual relationships. In essence, there is a denial of one of the key factors of a same-sex partnership that distinguishes us from the elderly friends or carers – that is, that we fuck.

Furthermore, proving interdependency comes with a whole new set of difficult criteria to establish and prove, criteria that is unnecessary or already assumed in de facto relationships.


3. Civil unions

Pros: Civil unions are supported by many individual MPs in both the Labor and Coalition parties, even if neither has an official party position on the matter either way. Given the growing number of countries enacting civil union or equivalent schemes all over the world, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to defend Australia’s intransigence, especially considering we were one of the first countries to begin decriminalising homosexuality many years ago and all but one of our states and territories now mostly equate same-sex couples with unmarried de facto heterosexual equivalents.

Civil unions are distinct from and do not “mimic” the existing institution of marriage, which is irrelevant, patriarchal and/or antiquated to many queer people.

Cons: Enactment of civil unions ultimately entrenches inequality by establishing a 2-tier level of relationships. Essentially, they reinforce the fallacy that queer people are not “good enough” to get married.

There is also the tension between state and federal jurisdictions to consider here. While our federal Attorney-General argues his government has no scope over civil unions, as we have seen recently with the ACT he is only too willing to overturn any civil unions enacted in the territories, and no doubt the states, he argues are in conflict with the federal law definition of marriage.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister has basically made clear he opposes civil unions altogether, and with his stranglehold on the government so tight it’s difficult to see well-meaning civil union supporters, such as Warren Entsch, getting unqualified support from enough of their colleagues for such a Bill.


4. Marriage

Pros: By definition, marriage rights for same-sex couples indicate total equality. Allowing same-sex couples to marry might revolutionise an institution already considered redundant by a growing number of people, queer and straight, and perhaps most importantly would give those gay boys and dykes who’ve dreamed of a white wedding a chance to see their dreams come true.

Cons: Same-sex marriage automatically implies parity between queer and straight relationships, where many people of both persuasions argue our relationships are just too different for this to be the case.

Also, given the 2004 same-sex marriage ban was supported by both the parties currently capable of forming government, it’s unrealistic to assume this will become a reality in Australia anytime soon. There is a perception, correct or otherwise, that same-sex marriage does not sit well in mainstream federal politics. The solution of the Greens, to legislate for state same-sex marriages, runs the same risk as civil unions – that is, if they were overturned, we’d effectively be taking one step forward, two steps back in the quest for equality.

While I don’t know for certain the best way to go, I do know that while politicians continue their standard electoral point-scoring rhetoric throughout this debate, same-sex couples continue to suffer and Australia falls further behind the rest of the world. Some even leave the country they love so that their commitment can be fully celebrated and endorsed.

Is our country really so very different, so unique, that enactment of the second, third or fourth of the abovementioned schemes is utterly unthinkable?

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, April 26, 2006