Same Sex Marriage V Same Sex Unions

[Rainbow]

Which name would you prefer to solemnize your relationship.
The Federal government is resisting "Gay Marriage" do you think that they will accept the term "Same Sex Union" as they are so paranoid that we will take over their institution. If every state in OZ had a relationship register we could overcome the hurdles of trying to get "Gay Marriage" without having to have a Civil Marriage Celebrant, it could be performed by JPs.

[piggles]

Personally the term itself does bother me as long as the rights are the same.
Union is my personal preference simply because of the connotations of the white dress, and other poxy Cosmo centre spread visuals that Marriage provides me.

[ChrisDude]

I'd favour marriage, on the basis that separate-but-equal is rarely actually equal. But if we got the same rights as marriage under a different name, I'd be happy.

The problem seems to be, though, that anything approximating the rights of marriage seems to get slapped down, whatever you call it. It's the rights that they don't want us to have, what we call it is a mere detail.

[Mr Azza]

I'm pretty much A-OK with same sex unions, as long as they carried the same legal bindings as a hetrosexual marriage.

I totally agree with ChrisDude, its not a matter of what you call it, its a matter of what the rights are.

[voiceOUT]

I think it's important we contribute to educating people what a gay relationship is all about (not just sex, drugs and dance parties) so they may become more empathetic to our cause.

Personally I prefer the term "civil union" or some such term, "marriage" to me conjures up ideas of religious oppression.

Sydney City Council has a Same Sex Relationship register which is a good tool for us to develop a formal (accurate) account of how many committed relationships we have in Australia (the Census does nothing to contribute to that information) and perhaps present to this new Federal Government as a means to quantify our need for same sex relationship rights.

I just did an interesting podcast interview with Sydney City Council about their Same Sex Relationship Register maybe some of you would like to LISTEN (http://www.voiceout.com.au/podcasts.html) to it.

[Rainbow]

INDEED - Tasmania's Association of Recognised Partners

Media Statement
December 31st 2007

NEW GROUP FOR TAS REGISTRY PARTNERS:
Association's priority will be more education, recognition

To mark the fourth anniversary tomorrow of Tasmania's landmark Relationships Act and registry, a new organisation for recognised partners called InDeed has been launched.

InDeed spokesperson, Peter Power, said partners who have formalised their unions by taking out a Deed of Relationship have a common interest in seeing such Deeds more widely understood, respected and recognised.

"InDeed would like to see more education in Tasmania about the relationships registry so that couples understand the benefits of taking out a Deed of Relationship", Mr Power said.

"We will also be seeking recognition of State Deeds of Relationship by the Federal Government."

As at December 3rd 100 couples had registered Deeds of Relationship with the State Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

Mr Power said the number is comparable to other places with civil union or registry schemes such as New Zealand.

"The number of recognised couples in Tasmania is keeping pace with other places, but there are still thousands of Tasmanian couples who would benefit from a Deed of Relationship who aren't informed of these benefits."

"We hope to change that over the coming years."

Tasmania remains the only Australian state to formally recognise same-sex and other relationships.

Despite the Federal Government's policy of state-based relationship registries, only Victoria and the ACT have flagged similar schemes.

The benefits of registering a Deed of Relationship include:
a) immediate access to all relationship rights in state law
b) ability to verify these rights if challenged
c) symbolic importance of recognition from government and society

For more information contact Peter Power on 0417 017 105.

[Vanilla_Gorilla]

I would prefer we come up with something catchier than 'Civil Union', sounds like an accounting term.

But yeah, I would prefer to stay away from 'Marriage', brings up images of those ghastly archaic straight weddings.


But thank god the average australian didnt have to vote this time around, with my job I travel around to different sites throughout the year, apart from inner Sydney and Melbourne, the rest of Australia has no idea what gay is.

I'm a big tank of a man, to this day if I'm out in the burbs, I still get "....You're gay?.... But your so rugged!" The mind boogles

[Anthony Mahera]

3 years later and nothing has changed :rolleyes:

[longhornie]

I'd like to see 'Unions' be the universal terminology for civil/legal relationships regardless of the genders involved.

I think being perceived as trying to 'take over' the use of the word 'marriage' is creating more obstacles and opposition than might otherwise be the case.

I reckon 'marriage' ought to be a term relegated to religious institutions to dole out as they best see fit, but not given any legal bearing/recognition at all.

In this case all currently 'married' couples would receive a certificate of civil union which would secure their rights and perogatives under the law with the 'Marriage' label being an optional faith-based rider with no implications outside of the particular religious community.

[kngo6803]

Maybe they should call it a biunion, if they want to keep it monogamous. Marriage would then be referred to as biunity, with biunial as the adjective. :eek:

[Arial91]

I think civil unions are better. I prefer the idea of marriage for the normal families, but I think they will end up legalizing gay marriage eventually.

[Arial91]

I think civil unions are better. I prefer the idea of marriage for the normal families, but I think they will end up legalizing gay marriage eventually.