One of the arguments against gay marriage is that civil unions are available (in some states in Australia, but more on that below) to gay couples as an alternative to marriage. It’s the same thing, right?
This video will make you think about your answer……
According to Australian Marriage Equality:
Australia currently has civil unions in the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and Victoria.
These civil union schemes are only open to residents of the particular state or territory which provides them and are generally not yet recognised by other Australian states or territories. Some other countries, however, do recognise Australian civil unions, for example, the United Kingdom.
The provision of civil unions, whilst ensuring couples have access to most relationship entitlements, should not be confused with equality.
Yesterday’s Herald Sun reports
…In recent weeks Prime Minister Julia Gillard has come under pressure from within her own party – including from openly gay senator and cabinet minister Penny Wong – to change the Labor party’s policy on same-sex unions, which currently only recognises marriage as between a man and a woman.
Do you think a civil union is an acceptable alternative to marriage for gay people? Would you be happy with it for your relationship?
[poll id=”52″]
PM: Misidentified Bondi Attacker Settles With Seven, National DV Rallies Planned
The Quicky
Top Comments
It is probably too late for anyone to pay any attention to this, but I will give it a go:
Whilst I disagree with same sex marriage I would agree with it if marriage became a multi-tiered thing, without excluding anyone from any of the tiers.
The first would be 'de facto': that is, that a de facto couple would come under Australian Family Law once they had been co-habiting for a year. They could split without divorce of course, and would have property matters and parenting handled by the courts where private agreement could not be reached.
The next tier would be civil unions, where a couple could enter into a civil union, and could get the equivalent of a divorce after 6 months of separation. Neither partner could enter into another civil union before the previous union was disolved.
Marriage as we know it would be the next tier, using current Family law.
The next tier is something different. I would call it: "Marriage Plus" and would be entered into completely voluntarily by those who are so serious that they would put themselves under the pre-1975 family law, with the exception that sexual assault within marriage and domestic violence would be treated in the same way as it is now, not as it was in 1974.
"Marriage Plus" would require 5 years of separation before divorce, or the marriage being dissolved for adultery, cruelty, deprevation of affection and the like. Any property division would take fault into account, as well as the needs of the children.
Each tier would be only be entered into voluntarily, and 'marriage plus' would require an engagement of at least 12 months, so that it could not be entered into at haste.
The question is, which groups in society would be more likley to enter into each tier of these relationships?
Interesting survey:
Quote:
Is a civil union an acceptable alternative to marriage?
* No, gay people should be able to marry.
* It's not something I give too much thought to.
* Yes, it's pretty much the same thing
Unquote
What about some other options like:
Is a civil union an acceptable alternative to marriage?
* No, fault free divorce has rendered traditional marriage meaningless
* No, we need to put extra meaning into marriage between women and men
* Yes, people who are civilly unioned should need to have to go through the same requirements to get un-unioned as married people have to to get divorced
* Yes, Civil unions should have the same result of marriage, that a person can seek maintenance from an ex civil union partner decades after the relationship breaks up
* Yes, Those who are civilly unioned should have the same responsibilities (not just rights) as those who are married