The recent strides forward by same-sex couples around the world, with marriage equality landing in Sweden and in two more US states (Iowa and Vermont), suggest it will not be too long before the queer community in Australia is faced with a tough decision: marriage, civil unions, or both?

The campaign for marriage equality has now been raging for several years. The arguments are now quite familiar. But that debate has occurred in the context where its attainment seemed a long way off. Civil unions, on the other hand, are said to be a pragmatic alternative, achievable in the short term: it is said they are more palatable politically; that queers want practical equality regardless of its name; and that we need a fresh institution to avoid the “baggage” of marriage.

Then there are those who argue for both. Rainbow Labor, the ALP’s gay and lesbian caucus, advocated this option in its submission to this year’s ALP National Conference. Same-sex couples should have a choice, it is usually argued, and it would be presumptuous to make this decision for them. This seems at first to be the diplomatic, “catch-all” solution.

But by advocating marriage and civil unions simultaneously we give the government a convenient choice. For overly-cautious parties, there is only one outcome: yes to civil unions, no to marriage. Supporting both may be “hedging your bets”, but in effect, it forsakes the option for which there is most support in the queer community – marriage.

“But we can continue to advocate for marriage too,” you might say. This ignores one thing: civil unions will come to be seen as “equality achieved”. In fact, it is anything but equality.

Same-sex couples in the UK are now realising they are not equal. Discrimination in parenting rights continued long after civil partnerships began. Disparity in insurance rights persists, despite “formal” equality. And there are no legislated ceremonies, only informal ones. Those in US states that allow civil unions have been denied rights by their employers, the justification being civil unions are not marriage and therefore do not attract the same rights.

Furthermore, choosing civil unions as a “stepping stone” to marriage seems like a whole lot of effort for little return. A 2008 Galaxy poll found that a majority (54 per cent) of Queenslanders support same-sex marriage, while only 6 per cent more prefer civil unions. “Placating the Right” is a myth: those few who violently oppose same-sex marriage are equally inflamed by civil unions, which they see as a “back door” to marriage.

It may be argued that Australia is already achieved “practical” equality, so the choice of recognition makes little difference. But social inequality continues while the dominant institution in society recognising the value and importance of relationships declares same-sex couples unworthy. Having separate institutions provides an ongoing excuse to treat them differently.

Courts are now realising that civil unions are not equality. The Iowan Supreme Court held that accepting civil unions instead of marriage would be “difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in the constitution”. South Africa and southern US states taught us long ago that there is no such thing as “separate but equal”.

What about state relationship registers (a type of civil union)? Don’t they perpetuate inequality? If seen as an alternative to marriage, yes. But they were always meant to go beyond marriage, by recognising non-conjugal relationships, and by being available to heterosexual couples. I support state-based civil unions, because that may be as far as states can go – “marriage” is largely a Commonwealth concern. But whatever states do, the need for marriage equality at the federal level remains.

The only logically consistent and politically wise position to advocate is equal civil marriage at the federal level and civil unions at the state level. This will maximise choice and equality. And the very act of extending marriage to queers will emphasise its civil as opposed to religious nature. State civil unions should continue to provide recognition of diverse relationships.

Let’s be proud to say that our community deserves the very best, and will not settle for a national civil union scheme as an alternative to marriage. Let the debate begin!

John Kloprogge is a member of Equal Love (Victoria). These views are his own.

Equal Love’s National Day of Action for marriage equality is on Saturday, August 1, 2009, to coincide with the ALP National Conference. Visit: http://equallove.info

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Website
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment