Saturday, September 04, 2004

should this couple have equal rights as married couples now, later, or not at all?



Here's a pic of a protester at the Destiny rally the other week. Her name is Donna and she is protesting for equal rights for her lesbian relationship. The small poster says "What do you mean, Homerphobic".


Here's her partner, who supports the legal recognition of her first lesbian relationship. How long have they been togther?

Less than two months.

Michael Cullen has said that the Civil Union legislation is designed to recognise those in long term relationships. It is not designed for those in short term relatinships - but those in short term relationships are to be caught in the net if the Relationships ( Statutory References ) Bill is not amended. Some people want to shack up today and have their relationship legally recognised overnight.

Those who are in the gay community want the same rights as married couples. However married couples started off unmaried without all the legal rights. Someone tell me why couples - gay or straight - should have all the legal rights that married couples do - but from day one of their relationship, as opposed to day one of their registered civil union.

UPDATE One reader says "if they've taken the step to solemnise their relationship, and presumably have other documented evidence in terms of their relationship, then they're in the context of a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' according to that evidence"

But there's one problem with that: Most people who have been together for just two months have not solemnised their relationship, do not have much - if any - documented evidence of that relationship - so why should they be treated as a relationship 'in the nature of marriage' just because they have sex with each other. The only real difference between the couple above and a pair of love struck 14-year olds is that the teenagers probably don't live together and the above couple probably do.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Because if they've taken the step to solemnise their
relationship, and presumably have other documented
evidence in terms of their relationship, then they're
in the context of a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' according to that evidence. DWI will certainly treat them as such if the CUB/RSRB goes through, remember. Personally, I'd prefer individualised benefits for all spousal partners, regardless of marital or civil union status, but you can't have everything.

Incidentally, you do realise that one could say much the same about those that 'marry at haste' and 'repent at leisure?' Unfortunately, no-one can protect people from making the consequences of bad decisions about relationships, straight or lesbian/gay, except through
the avenue of prior Relationship Services counselling.

Craig :)

Greyshade said...

Que pasa? If the couple join in a civil union their status will be the same as mine was when I had been married for two months (a very long time ago now). If they don't they will (for now) be treated as a short-term relationship which may become long-term in future or not as the case may be. What's the problem?