The bill to implement a statewide relationships register passed the lower house of state parliament last night.

This is good news for GLBT people in Victoria, as it will enhance the rights of people in same-sex relationships. It’s far from perfect, however – the implementation of a separate, less-than-equal status for people same-sex relationships creates a legal and social anomaly that will have to be corrected in the future (presumably, in the distant future, by amendment of the federal Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples full access to marriage or civil unions with equal status to marriage). The bill doesn’t add any new rights to same-sex couples, and the rights of same-sex couples are much the same whether they choose to register their relationship or not.
Importantly, the bill doesn’t add any particular rights for GLBT people in relationship to parenting, custodianship, or adoption. Victoria does not allow same-sex couples to adopt children, except in the case of stepchild adoption. It won’t improve access to IVF, either. But it’s a step in the right direction.

Interestingly, the definition of ‘registrable relationship’ in the bill (i.e. the definition of who is allowed to apply for their relationship to be added to their register) specifically excludes people who are married. I wonder whether this applies to Brent and I (we were married in Canada in 2004, but of course that marriage is not legally recognised here. But we are married.)

Unsurprisingly, the debate in the state parliament last night was peppered with the usual nonsense about erosion of the institution of marriage.

“What this Bill does is to establish a structure which is a step toward equalising the notion of a same-sex relationship, in particular, with that of marriage,” he [National Party leader Peter Ryan] said. “I must say I think that anybody who does not see this legislation in that context is being naive and is kidding themselves.” (Herald Sun)

Honestly I don’t get (a) the logic of that; or (b) what difference it makes. The argument goes that marriage is somehow cheapened by allowing gay men and lesbians access to it – in other words, the strength or value of marriage is contingent on its capacity to exclude some people. This seems absurd to me. And in practical terms, I guess it has to be pointed out that in countries where same-sex couples can marry (Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain) the sky has not fallen. Different-sex couples in those countries don’t seem to have fallen into disarray (any more than is normal) since their laws were changed.

As a way forward, let me suggest this as a compromise which would make everybody (the churches, teh gays, et al) happy. Let’s redefine ‘marriage’ as something that ONLY the churches can confer, and change the existing marriage laws to refer instead to ‘civil unions’ (or ‘domestic partnerships’ or whatever). A small change in the law would say that couples can enter a civil union either by being married (in the church of their choice) or via a non-religious civil ceremony. The rights and privileges we currently ascribe to married couples would be given to anyone in a civil union, however they chose to formalise their relationship.

This arrangement would allow the religious to continue to profess that ‘marriage’ is a religious institution. Undoubtedly some enlightened churches would allow same-sex couples to marry, and good for them if they do – less progressive churches would simply refuse to recognise the religious validity of such unions (the Roman Catholic church already does this). The churches could also decide whether or not they would allow couples to divorce and in what circumstances they would do so (a plus for some conservative churches!) but of course this would not prevent the dissolution of the civil union.

It astounds me that this modest, workable proposal has not been canvassed more widely. The existence of a religious institution (marriage) as a key part of our civil law is a historical anomaly and needs correction. My plan does that. It respects the right of all religions (from the completely sex-obsessed loony right to the merely deluded left) to define for themselves what ‘marriage’ and ‘divorce’ mean. And it puts all relationships – straight, gay and miscellaneous – on an equal footing.

Doesn’t it?

CC-licensed image above: Izzy’s dream, by Liz Henry.

Technorati Tags: 2008, Australia, gay, law reform, legal rights, lesbian, marriage, politics, religion, relationships, same-sex, Victoria