Queensland deputy premier Andrew Fraser has introduced a bill to recognise civil unions in Queensland.
Like many social conservatives I have concerns about this bill. But I’m not just a social conservative — I’m a gay-rights campaigner.
A civil union is an interesting concept. It has no meaning under federal law.
Under Queensland’s proposed legislation a couple can opt to register their relationship.
In exchange for a couple of statutory declarations, a form and a fee, the state will issue a certificate of union. Their relationship rights will already be covered as a de facto relationship, and aside from that certificate there will be no statutory distinction between a de facto relationship and a civil union.
Dissolving the union can be done by court order or simply by marrying someone else.
Fraser’s proposal is not a Government bill — it is a private member’s bill. Queensland’s Legislative Assembly has set aside two hours each Thursday afternoon to debate such business. Many private members bills (like a proposal to introduce daylight savings in Queensland) have been on the agenda for years and still haven’t reached the top of the pile.
The debate in the Legislative Assembly was about suspending those rules so Fraser’s bill could be voted on before the last sitting, scheduled for November. Why? Where is the urgency?
There are two alternatives: this bill is either very clever electioneering or it represents a genuine attempt to do the “right” thing.
The Bligh Government is in trouble. After 13 years there is a sense of ‘It’s Time’ building in parts of the community.
Bligh’s personal approval rating even reached below 25 percent before the Queensland floods. News poll after news poll shows that this is going to be a very tight election and it has even been suggested that Katter’s Australia Party may hold the balance of power in Queensland.
Fraser’s seat (the tree-lined, inner-west, upper-middle-class suburb of Mt Coot-tha) is seen as at risk. Former ABC presenter Andrew Carroll (now a member of the Greens) has been a strong campaigner.
Fraser is carrying personal baggage too — he is treasurer of a state that no longer enjoys a AAA credit rating. Rumours abound that Bligh will call a snap election either before Christmas or early next year with the former Brisbane Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman, running a campaign to become premier from outside the Parliament.
Australian Marriage Equality published a Galaxy Poll showing that the ALP’s primary vote could improve by 5 percent if they supported gay marriage, but this was a federal poll so it is unclear if those results would apply to the state election.
While the civil union bill amends 42 Acts, it leaves one piece of state-based discrimination in place. Every homosexual couple in Queensland is automatically disqualified from adoption.
Even if Fraser’s bill passes, the law in Queensland will still maintain this discriminatory restriction. This is the most obvious clue that the civil union bill is blatant electioneering on behalf of the Bligh Government.
And, the amazing thing is that Newman (on record as supporting full marriage equality for homosexual couples) fell for it! If the LNP had allowed a conscience vote on civil unions, the ALP’s wedge would have failed.
Those members’ seats at risk from Katter’s party would have been able to vote against a meaningless legislative measure, and those who wanted to show support to the gay community could have done so.
Even the most conservative member could have argued that a civil union is a symbol that won’t actually change anything, except the number of certificates issued by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. The bill only adds “or civil union” right after “de facto relationship” in most state-based laws (except for adoption rights).
It is possible, however, that this isn’t a wedge. Bligh and Fraser are both very intelligent. They might see the writing on the wall for this Government and they may want to leave a positive legacy that will help push the idea of gay marriage forward.
Fraser’s speech when introducing the act was full of commitment and compassion. It might be a way of helping the gay marriage cause long-term, by showing society that the world will not end if homosexuals have a certificate from their government acknowledging their relationship.
I have concerns about implementing civil unions in Queensland. The first is that it is effectively a register of de facto relationships. In time it might be argued that de facto relationships are not valid unless registered.
While most judges in Australia are sensible, my fear is that a judge might decide to follow the legal axiom “if it is not explicitly included, it is implicitly excluded” and rule that a domestic relationship did not exist because it was not registered. This could potentially strip protections away from all de facto couples, not just homosexuals who wait for ‘marriage proper’.
History has shown clearly that separate but equal is never equal. The fundamental injustice of excluding people from an institution because they are different remains.
Obviously a state government can’t override the federal Marriage Act, but Bligh has been the ALP’s national president for nearly a year. What has she done to counter the factional powerbrokers like Joe de Bruyn or to rebuke John Murphy and “Don’t Meddle With Marriage”?
Regardless of the motivation behind the bill’s sudden urgency, I do welcome this step forward. Having read Fraser’s speech it seems his heart is in the right place.
Frankly, though, we are kidding ourselves if we believe it is going to actually change anything.
By JAMES NEWBURRIE
INFO: James Newburrie is an openly gay IT specialist living in Bob Katter’s electorate. Somewhere along the way he became a gay activist. Follow him on Twitter: @DifficultNerd
You May Also Like
We are constantly asked by our (mostly) straight friends what our feelings are about the possible legalisation of gay marriage and whether we will “do it”. For us personally we don’t give a rats crap whether it’s made legal or not. It’s not going to change anything for us, emotionally, financially, physically or any other way. If it’s what others want then fine. We both have all the necessary legal documentation in place to protect each other if and when one predeceases the other and we consider ourselves just as equal in every way as all our straight married couple friends. We have a great fridge magnet that depicts two guys in suits under an altar. The caption reads, “Let gays marry so they can suffer like everyone else”. Enough said..
Michael (October 30, 2011 at 6:35 pm), you sure have a lot of “buts” (no pun). I just love how you say “relationships are more complex than this” after having spent much of your comment putting up carping negative generalisations about same sex marriage and what you (wrongly) assume is the intention of those who support it. A word of advice: instead of speaking in the royal “We”, try using the singular “I” to represent your own opinion, because you sure as fuck don’t represent mine or many of my friends. Relationships are indeed more complex *and* diverse, so why simplify people’s deepest feelings and aspirations to cheap shots? So tired of bitter anti-marriage gays whining about marriage equality as if it somehow infringed on their rights or sensibilities.
A world where its ok to be gay? James, get in the real world. We don’t need the approval of others to be who we are, but this obession for all us to get married is like social engineering. I really don’t care if you want a wedding and tons of kids. Good luck. But as long as this nonsense continues to get us to be ‘clean’ and ‘legitmate’ I won’t support the Qld Government. Its electioneering, well that’s the real world. I really don’t look forward to the day i’m told by my peers I have to be married, have kids and be monogamous, and if single being asked like we are by our hetrosexuals “why are you not married, what’s wrong with you?”. You want supporters to help you: don’t tell us what to do in the bedroom with our husbands (wife and husband should not be used anyway), don’t tells us we are ‘dirty’ because we are more likely to sleep with others and don’t tell us to march to this gay marriage agenda while you set the moral boundaries for how we should behave. There is more to marriage than human rights and ‘we love each other’. Frankly, all I see is gay men wanting the adventure and then it will sour. Relationships are more complex than this. So tired of your agendas and being told how to live, I don’t mind if you get your marriage or unions or whatever but want support, divorce (no pun) morality from marriage. We have enough moralists outside the community.
Hi Daniel,
During our discussion on Facebook you made it abundantly clear that
you are a hard-core member of rainbow labor, and are very very
left-of-centre.
This isn’t an ALP bill, if it were an ALP bill, and if it removed the
adoption rights restrictions here in Queensland, then the case for
electioneering would be harder.
Most of we LGBTIQs tend to be left-leaning, so I’m hardly surprised
that people find my political analysis uncomfortable :)
As for the law: I’m no lawyer, however at UQ I did study two law
subjects under Associate Professor Nick James who drilled that phrase
into us. But you also told us on Facebook how difficult it is to
prove a de facto relationship now. Surely civil union will make that
even harder.
My job isn’t to mindlessly support anyone, my job is to try and bring
about a world where it is ok to be gay, where there is no statutory
discrimination and where true equality reigns. As an ALP member your
focus is on retaining power for your party.
Hi Daniel,
During our discussion on Facebook you made it abundantly clear that you are a hard-core member of rainbow labor, and are very very left-of-centre. You also told us all about how difficult it is to prove a de facto relationship now. Surely civil union will make that even harder.
This isn’t an ALP bill, if it were an ALP bill, and if it removed the adoption rights restrictions here in Queensland, then the case for electioneering would be harder.
As for the law: I’m now lawyer, however at UQ I did study two law subjects under Associate Professor Nick James who drilled that phrase into us.
My job isn’t to mindlessly support anyone, my job is to try and bring about a world where it is ok to be gay, where there is no statutory discrimination and where true equality reigns. As an ALP member your focus is on retaining power for your party.
Most of we LGBTIQs tend to be left-leaning, so I’m hardly surprised that people find my political analysis uncomfortable :)
Gay marriage advocate weighing in here. Have to disagree Daniel, but don’t think I don’t like the cut of your jib!
It’s nobody’s job to be mindlessly in favor of any and all political tactics to a singular end. It isn’t, nor should it be, a requirement that all gays be of one mind on this matter in order to get marriage equality in Australia. If we are going to call it equality, then it is going to be done because that’s the kind of country we are. It won’t be dolled out like candy apples.
What rot!
The fact of the matter is that the Queensland Labor Party is doing everything it can for gay and lesbian couples in that state. This is the closest they can legally come to marriage equality, and they’re doing it.
Our job as gay activists is to support those who are supporting us.
This is a step closer to full equality, and if it passes the parliament, it will allow Queensland ALP delegates to go to Conference and say ‘look, we’ve got civil unions in Queensland and everyone’s fine with it’, allowing them to allay the fears of the more conservative delegates who think recognition of gay relationships will prompt the sky to fall down.
Instead, your equivocation on the issue allows groups like the ‘Australian Marriage Forum’ to publish videos like this one -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-SfABpGDFM- and claim that “The gay community hasn’t even made up its mind on marriage, so why should we change it?”.
On a slightly different note, your claim that there is some legal axiom along the lines of ‘if it is not explicitly included, it is implicitly excluded’ is swill. There’s no such doctrine. There are, however, doctrines of statutory interpretation which mandate that Acts are interpreted from a ‘purposive’ approach, keeping in mind the intention of the original Act. The doctrines of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis mean that the existence of a civil union could never endanger a couple’s de facto status, leaving aside that such a determination could never be made unless someone brought an action in court, at which point any judge would point out that the phrase ‘de facto couple’ is defined in Section 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975.
I think that’s where you’ll find it’s “explicitly included”.
When gay couples separate, or one member of a couple dies, and there is a dispute over the division of the property, a civil union might allow a court to establish serious sustained commitment to a ‘mutually shared life’ , something currently established by a marriage certificate, and allow it to divide property more fairly than it currently can. There are a host of serious legal issues of discrimination faced by gay couples that civil unions could go some way to fixing. Of course full equality would be better, and this brings us one step closer to it.
Finally, your criticism of Queensland Labor is incredibly unhelpful.
You think this is electioneering? You think they’re just trying to get re-elected?
Guess what -you’re right!
If more people would vote for them if they introduced civil unions, then they should introduce civil unions. That’s what governments do in a democracy. Additionally, it’s in all gay and lesbian Queenslanders’ interests that the ALP gets re-elected, because Campbell Newman has shown –as, staggeringly, you seem to be aware– that his party will vote as a bloc against any kind of equality for gays and lesbians.
The LNP deserve your criticism, not the ALP. It’s not the ALP who, when asked if they want to take a step toward equality, answered “no fucking way”, it’s the Liberals! The depths of homophobia in the Queensland Liberal Party are unfathomable; some of them think homosexuality can be “cured”! The idea that this issue somehow ‘wedges’ them is laughable.
My point is this: stop criticising our supporters, and start helping them. Get on board the struggle toward equality, even if it means taking it one step at a time.