Rodney Croome . gay advocate

d) Family, relationships and marriage

Case studies of the benefits of inter-jurisdictional recognition of personal unions

The following case studies were taken from briefing materials for Tasmanian MPs published in August 2010.

1. Examples of the practical benefits of UK recognition of Tasmanian Deeds of Relationship

a) Mary-ann (surname withheld), Launceston

Our Deed of Relationship made it possible for Jen to have me recognised by her UK work pension as her partner when the UK Government finally decided to recognise same-sex relationships in 2005. It was very easy. All we needed to do was send a certified copy of our Tasmanian Deed.

b) David Samson, Huon Valley (taken from evidence given to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission inquiry into same-sex entitlements in Hobart in October 2006 )

I’m 59 and looking at retiring in the next year or so. I’m trying to set up provision to protect Kevin should I die before he does. I expect to be able to access my British local government superannuation pension next year. The British Government will recognise our relationship if we take out a civil partnership under the Tasmanian legislation.

When I wrote (our HREOC) submission I was that annoyed it seemed Kevin and I would have to go all the way to the UK or go to the UK Embassy and take out a civil partnership agreement under British legislation rather than enter into a recognised relationship in Australia. That seemed an impost, particularly for Kevin who’s not a British citizen. Now we don’t actually have to do that. All we need to do is go across the road and register our partnership under Tasmanian law and the British Government will recognise that.

The British pension I’m looking forward to comes in the form of a partial lump sum payment and an annual pension. Once I access that pension, if I should die, heaven forbid one year after I retire, then Kevin will get one year’s worth of pension, but after that, without us having gone into a Tasmanian civil partnership, Kevin would have had to fight for (the rest). Whether he would have been successful I don’t know (but) certainly under British law we understand he will be successful if we have that Tasmanian civil partnership.

c) Jason (surname withheld), Lenah Valley

My partner was from England and moved to Tasmania to be with me. We had our relationship registered under the Tasmanian Relationships Act 2003. We were so relieved that our relationship recognition in Tasmania was recognised under UK Law. It meant that if my partners parents fell ill and needed care, or for whatever reason we needed to move to the UK, we had the peace of mind knowing that under immigration laws, that reciprocal recognition meant a much easier process of relocating. I am sure there must be reverse instances of those who move to the UK from Tasmania who would want that peace of mind. There is also something to be said for the simple principle of equality before the law. Heterosexual couples enjoy mutual recognition of their marriages or relationships across jurisdictions, so why shouldn't same sex couples? When I discovered the UK recognised the registration of our relationship, it was a significant feeling of validation of myself and my relationship. As a gay man, I felt recognised not marginalised.

[ read more... ] [ comments? ]

d) Family, relationships and marriage

Julia Gillard and the choice to marry

This article was published on the Drum on 7.7.10.

By opposing same-sex marriage, Julia Gillard has denied her fellow citizens a choice she proudly and publicly claims for herself - the choice to marry.

As a woman in a de facto relationship, Gillard is the beneficiary of the hard work of generations of feminists who believed women should not be forced to marry.

They reacted indignantly against the idea that women are too weak and irrational to make a decision as important as when and who to wed, and that this decision should lie instead with women’s families, communities or the state.

The goal of Gillard’s foremothers was to ensure that a woman’s decision to marry should be hers, together, equally, with her partner.

[ read more... ] [ comments? ]

d) Family, relationships and marriage

For Julia Gillard the personal is all too political

A version of this article was published in the Age on 2.7.10.

What reason could Julia Gillard possibly have for personally opposing same-sex marriages?

As Labor leader she can claim to be up-holding her Party’s policy against marriage equality, even though the Labor Party in her home state of Victoria has voted overwhelmingly to end that policy.

But as a “personal” stance, Gillard’s opposition to gay people marrying is inexplicable.

She is an atheist, so it can’t be because she believes God ordained marriage as a holy sacrament and condemns homosexuality as a sin.

She has no children, so it can’t be because she believes there’s an obligatory link between procreation and the right to marry.

[ read more... ] [ comments? ]

d) Family, relationships and marriage

NSW register is a step backwards

This article was published on the National Times on May 17, 2010.

It was once my hope that as more states enacted schemes to formally recognise unmarried couples they would build on existing schemes by granting ever more recognition to an ever wider range of relationships.

I’m not saying I wanted these schemes to replace marriage. That is something they could never do.

Instead I expected them to evolve to become ever more responsive to the needs and aspirations of partners who want to formalise their union but can’t or don’t want to marry.

I saw them becoming a third tier of relationship recognition; a viable alternative to marriage and de facto status rather than a poor substitute for the former or an add-on to the latter.

Tragically, this is not happening.

[ read more... ] [ comments? ]

d) Family, relationships and marriage

Walking in our shoes

This article was published in SX News and MCV on 7.3.10.

I’ve just returned from a series of LGBT state election forums around Tasmania.

The forums, in places like Launceston and Burnie, gave LGBT people a chance to question Labor, Liberal and Green candidates on whatever issues are important to them.

To my surprise, the issue which dominated debate was same-sex marriage, even though it is not widely considered a state issue.

The parties have given commitments on a wide range of issues, from school anti-homophobia programs to adoption equality, and these issues were discussed.

But same-sex marriage sparked the most passionate and intimate exchanges between candidates and community members. When it came to marriage equality forum participants made the most honest, if sometimes difficult, personal connection.

[ read more... ] [ comments? ]

d) Family, relationships and marriage

Marriage law puts freedoms at risk

This article was published in the Canberra Times on 14.1.10.

Benedict XVI is so worried about same-sex marriage he has labelled it an attack on Creation.

St Paul’s letters and the Book of Leviticus, once the primary arsenals for religious homophobes, have been sidelined by the Pope as he rolls out the big gun, Genesis.

He’s right to be concerned. In the last few weeks some very unlikely Catholic countries have seized the initiative on marriage equality.

At the same time as same-sex marriage struggles to become legal in places like California and New York, Portugal, Mexico City and even the Argentinian state of Tierra del Fuego have allowed same-sex partners to wed.

[ read more... ] [ comments? ]

d) Family, relationships and marriage

It’s time to flex our electoral muscle

This article was published in MCV on 13.01.10

When Holland, Belgium and Canada allowed same-sex marriage but Australia refused, it was very annoying.

When Norway, Sweden, Spain, South Africa, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa allowed same-sex marriage and Australia still refused, it was deeply frustrating.

But now that the Portuguese Parliament, and states in Argentina and Mexico, have allowed same-sex nuptials and Australia still hasn’t moved forward, it’s just downright embarrassing.

[ read more... ] [ comments? ]

d) Family, relationships and marriage

Civil partnerships no substitute for marriage equality

The following letter to the editor from Australian Marriage Equality was published in the Melbourne Age on 16.12.09 in response to an opinion piece by Professor Mark Peel.

Dear Editor,

Professor Mark Peel is wrong to claim Australia should follow the UK example on civil partnerships.

Australia already has schemes for the formal recognition of unmarried couples, in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT.

Compared to the UK scheme, Australia’s civil partnership schemes provide a greater range of spousal rights (in state and federal law) to a much wider range of couples.

[ read more... ] [ comments? ]

d) Family, relationships and marriage

Whither marriage equality?

This article was published in MCV and SX on 2.12.09.

That’s the question many supporters of equality will be asking now the months-long Senate inquiry into the issue has said “no” to reform.

The result wasn’t all bad. The inquiry supported lifting the ban on issuing gay and lesbian Australians the documents they need to marry overseas. It has also recommended an inquiry into relationship laws by the Australian Law Reform Commission, which will be a step forward if same-sex marriage is included.

But on the key issue –the right of same-sex partners to marry – the Labor Senators, who were in majority, put prejudice before principle and toed the Prime Minister’s line.

[ read more... ] [ comments? ]

d) Family, relationships and marriage

Registering a civil partnership, step by step

The following table compares steps by same-sex couples in the ACT to register a civil partnership, first under current arrangements (as at 26.11.09) and second under proposed arrangements (yet to be enacted).

1. Couple give notary (i) notice of intent and (ii) Stat Dec
1. Couple give notary AND registrar-general (i) notice of intent and (ii) stat dec

2. notary gives couple notice setting out legal effect of a civil partnership
2. no change

[ read more... ] [ comments? ]