When is equal not equal?
When it’s separate and
equal.
Civil unions are not an
alternative to marriage
equality.
They don’t deliver the
same legal rights or social
recognition.
As a result, civil unions
overseas are increasingly
being challenged as
inadequate or upgraded to
same-sex marriages.
We believe that Australia
should learn from this and
not enact a national civil
union scheme instead of
removing discrimination from
the Marriage Act.
The
problem with civil union
schemes goes back to their
origin. They were a
compromise designed to
placate opponents of
same-sex marriage.
Supporters of this
compromise said civil unions
would gradually acquire the
same legal and social status
as marriage, but this has
not happened.
Recently released research
in the United States and
Britain shows that employers
and insurance companies
consistently fail to
recognise civil union
partners, refuse to grant
them their legal
entitlements or find other
ways to discriminate against
them.
Additionally, many
governments fail to
recognise each other’s civil
union schemes, including
some governments that
recognise same-sex marriage.
Numerous court decisions
have also pointed to the
lower social status of civil
unions, and their failure to
meet basic standards of
legal equality.
US courts, especially, have
compared civil union schemes
to the separate and (not so)
equal segregation suffered
by African Americans until
the 1960s.
The growing consensus is
that ‘marriage’ is a word
which makes a world of
difference.
As a result, the push is on
from Sweden to Vermont, to
abolish civil union schemes
and allow same-sex marriage
instead.
The implications for
Australia are clear.
If we establish a national
civil union scheme instead
of removing marriage
discrimination we will be
entrenching the second-class
status of same-sex couples.
One argument previously used
to push civil unions in
other countries is that, in
the absence of marriage
equality, civil unions
provide same-sex couples
with at least some legal
protection.
This is not relevant to
Australia because same-sex
de facto couples already
have their entitlements
recognised and protected at
state and federal level.
Another argument is that
civil unions provide an
alternative form of
recognition for couples who
don’t wish to marry.
This is also irrelevant
because increasingly,
Australian states and
territories provide couples
with the alternative of
state civil partnership
schemes.
The final argument for civil
unions is simply that they
are easier to achieve.
This is also dubious in the
Australian context.
Federally, both major
parties oppose both marriage
and civil unions.
The most recent national
poll on marriage equality
showed 57 per cent community
support. A recent Queensland
poll showed only slightly
more support for civil
unions, at 60 per cent.
Clearly, the effort it will
take to convince Australia’s
leaders to support equal
marriage is not much greater
than the effort required to
establish civil union
schemes.
This begs the question: why
bother with second-best?
We say
"yes" to full marriage
equality because we believe
same-sex couples deserve the
same rights and the same
social acceptance as their
heterosexual counterparts.
We say "no" to the
alternative of an additional
national civil union scheme
because it will not only not
achieve these goals, it will
actively undermine them.
Peter Furness is national
convenor of Australian
Marriage Equality. Stevie
Clayton OAM is CEO of
the AIDS Council of NSW.
