'Short on romance'

This letter to the editor was sent to the Australian newspaper on 26.5.08. An extract from the article by Christian Kerr to which the letters responds comes first.

(From 'Gay outcry, roos in the land of Grassby lovers', the Weekend Australian, May 24-25, p31)

Exciting (the new ACT registry) may be, but it can also come up a little short on romance. Couples wishing to register their relationship have four options to choose from. Two of these are simply over-the-counter transactions: pay $192.50, get the paperwork fixed and that’s it.

They can go down the path of a full commitment ceremony with a civil celebrant, but that will give them no further legal standing. The process effectively offers nothing but a statutory declaration.

*

Letters to the Editor
The Australian

Dear Editor,

In his recent commentary on the new ACT civil partnerships scheme, Christian Kerr mischaraterises this scheme in a way which illustrates a broader misunderstanding in Australia about what constitutes a civil union.

Partnership certificates, as they are currently issued in Tasmania, the ACT or soon Victoria, are not as Kerr claims "effectively statutory declarations".

Like marriage certificates, they must be validated by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages before they take effect, and when they do take effect that effect is the same as a marriage certificate (in state or territory law).

Also the ACT's now-thwarted plan for mandatory relationship ceremonies would not have given couples "further legal standing".

Partnerships officially recognised in the three places I've mentioned have the same legal standing, and the same, or almost the same, legal rights, as married partners.

In short, the civil partnership registries which now exist in Australia have more in common with the ACT Government's former proposal than it might admit, and more in common with marriage than the Federal Government would ever admit.

To illustrate the point, the British civil partnership scheme, which is universally seen as a fully-fledged civil union scheme and often wrongly called "gay marriage", has weaker ceremonial provisions, and in some areas provides fewer rights to a narrower range of couples, than any of Australia's state or territory civil partnership registries.

It's time to give Australia's existing state and territory civil partnership schemes the credit and recognition they deserve.

Yours Sincerely,
Rodney Croome.