- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
I fully understand where you are coming from. You are Law trained. The argument you hold to is very 'dry' and has credibility in a strict legal sense, but it does leak a fair bit of common sense when applied to the more complex and impure 'real' world. (I hate using that term, but...)You do understand what legal rights are, don't you?
If heterosexual and homosexual unions are treated equally under the law, there is no legal differentiation. The terminology used in statute is irrelevant.
The law is only one aspect of deep and bitter debate. At the heart of it is acceptance.
If the law (as it now stands) does differentiate, then it is discriminatory. It was specifically changed by Howard to ensure that it discriminated. No amount of legislation to inflate any peripheral 'rights' of gay unions will ever compensate for the removal of a prime right - to be included in what is available to other legal couples: marriage.
At the very best, civil unions will give a parity in a legal sense, but it rings hollow when that legal 'parity' actually reinforces other inequalities; such as social exclusion.