Rodney Croome . gay advocate

‘No ceremonies’ - 8

The new Federal Government may still be antagonistic to ACT civil partnerships, but at least it's honest about why.

Like a giant galleon in some sail-ship dual, the Federal Government has finally rounded on the smaller, feistier frigate we know as the ACT Government, and responded to the latter’s weekend cannonade in support of a civil partnerships scheme with its own barrage against such a scheme.

According to Federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, the ceremonial aspects of the proposed ACT Civil Partnerships Bill are "inappropriate".

The obvious question is why?

The previous Federal Government was evasive about its opposition to ACT civil unions.

When justifying the Howard Government’s position, former A-G, Philip Ruddock, preferred to talk about “mimicking marriage” and to quibble over red herrings like the role of federal marriage celebrants and age limits for entering a legal union. Only very rarely did he get to the nub of the issue: official ceremonies.

Good-natured McClelland is at least more honest. But with that honesty comes a responsibility to explain exactly why it’s “inappropriate” to officially and publicly solemnise same-sex unions.

And beyond that issue looms the no less important question, what next?

Both governments say they are willing to negotiate, but they’re fast running out of things to negotiate about.

The Territory insists that new legal relationships should come into existence when the relevant documents are signed and witnessed, as with a marriage (giving that signing greater symbolic and ceremonial significance).

The Feds insist it should come into being when the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages signs and validates said forms a few days after they have been signed by the partners, as with a Tasmanian Deed of Relationship (giving the partners greater flexibility to have a less-official ceremony whenever they want).

Given the implacability of attitudes surrounding same-sex marriage in Australia, there seems to be no room for either government to move on this point, as arcane as it appears to many people.

Last week I wondered if a residency requirement, limiting the cultural and political impact of civil partnerships to the ACT, might resolve the dispute.

From what I now understand, that is unacceptable to the Feds too.

Unless I’m missing something, there nothing left for our two men-o-war but to continue their broadsides until one is sunk or sails off.

***

In other same-sex nuptial news,

NSW Young Lawyers is convening another same-sex marriage debate tomorrow in Sydney. Participants include Yours Truly and that other battleship of renown, Dreadnought.