28 March 2006


hey, cool. a step further than the tasmanian deal... not a 'registration' but a scheme which "will essentially create domestic relationships." (how it creates a "domestic relationship" is, as yet, unclear).

i like this article from the age ( http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/03/28/1143441116253.html ) because it also points out that: "This is an acceptance of other relationships for same-sex couples and indeed for those opposite sex couples who don't wish or don't choose to pursue a marriage under the Marriage Act."

and yet... and yet... if it's gonna be there in all but name, what the fuck is the point of dividing it up? i mean, REALLY! ... unless we make "marraige" a thing that people can only get through a religious institution. it's religious morons (and not all religious people fall into this category) who have a problem with it; it's them who think that allowing two people who love each other and are committed to each other get married is wrong, just because the two people happen to have the same BITS; it's them who think allowing such a union is an 'attack on marriage'... so maybe we should have civil unions for EVERYONE, and marriage only for religious people who choose it - or even have RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE and CIVIL MARRIAGE - then we'd solve the 'problem' (and the problem here is not same-sex couples or intersex people or trans people)...

anyway, enough ranting for today.

No comments:

Post a Comment