|
If it quacks like a duck…
Nearly four years after same-sex couples in Australia were banned from marriage, the ongoing marriage/civil partnership/relationship registration drama takes another twist, in a plot so involved and convoluted it would make the life of Dr Marlena Evans appear mundane by comparison.
With the ACT and federal governments still apparently unable to reach agreement on the territory’s civil partnerships bill, the idea of a ‘roaming registrar’ is now being floated – someone who can complete the paperwork for a partnership registration (as per the existing Tasmanian scheme) at any commitment ceremony a couple may choose to perform, perhaps at a slightly more romantic setting than the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
This may placate the demands of the federal Attorney-General, who is resolutely opposed to the ‘marriage-like’ ceremonial aspect of civil partnerships.
As I’ve argued previously here, Robert McClelland appears to be channelling John Lithgow’s anti-dance mayor in Footloose by denying two adults the option of celebrating their commitment through a public ceremony.
It really does paint the Attorney-General, and by association Kevin Rudd, in a particularly petty, mean-spirited light. Not to mention, it contradicts Tanya Plibersek’s and Joe Ludwig’s claims last year that Labor wasn’t about to stop people ‘having parties’. Clearly, this is precisely what they want to do.
Of course, not all couples will want the pomp of a ceremony when formalising their relationship – but many will. What possible reason could there be to deny two people the opportunity, should they so choose, to affirm their love and commitment to one another before a crowd of their friends and family, somewhere beyond a bureaucratic office?
Historically, human beings have demonstrated a passion and flair for theatre around major rites of passage, be it marriages, births, Bar Mitzvahs, high school graduations, whatever.
Even a registration scheme that does not officially allow for ceremonies will not be reason alone to prevent people throwing them, which is why a roaming registrar, odd though the concept may be, may be the only workable compromise in what is becoming an unnecessarily complex scheme.
The key elements of marriage – two individuals, ceremony, vows, paperwork signing and witnessing, new legal relationship created – would still be evidenced under a registration scheme with a roaming registrar, so why on earth is the Rudd government setting up these obstacles instead of facilitating an easier form of solemnising the types of legal relationships it otherwise fully supports?
At least the Howard government approach to same-sex couple relationships was straightforward – closed for business, not interested. Unlike the Rudd government approach, figuring this out wasn’t enough to do your head in.
 |
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
