Well what Civil Union scheme do people think Abbott and Gillard will support? Certainly not one that mentions words like “To be treated as if married”, or “To be treated equally where the Marriage Act is mentioned”.

Carr is proposing a Civil Union scheme called spin. A scheme that will not offer any couple body armour, should they stare down the barrel of the gun called discrimination. Take private superannuation as just one example, where they blatantly sought to exclude same-sex couples from automatic protection, while selling this as fixing all discrimination in superannuation. They stopped at Commonwealth superannuation, and gave private super companies a lend of the gun called Discrimination and shouted “shoot the fags”. Sure not every Trustee does that, but they have the where empowered to discriminate.

Abbott and Gillard have yet to agree on including us in the Federal Equal Opportunity Act.

I think I understand you are saying marriage should have nothing to do with government. The goods and services, afforded to those in the Marriage Rewards Program, directly discriminates against those who do not want to marry. Rather then give special privileges to those married, give the privillages to all individuals or give none. Not to do this, creates an elite class of people- those who fit the governments definition of marriage. Presently we are all paying taxes to subsides the benefits of those married.

Is this what you are saying Baz?

You get your rocks off abusing same-sex parents and making things up about people, you clearly need professional help. Baz and I disagree, but he is no nasty little troll looking for any excuse to abuse people on the basis of their sexuality.

Contradiction! Anything that bewstows ‘special’ rights on some but not others can’t possibly be called equality. Quite the opposite.

I’ve noticed elsewhere Dave that you’ve adopted an argument about marriage being a club with membeship rewards. Maybe it is but where’s the equality? It just sounds like elitism.

Think of it like this: Slavery was as institution that took many, many years to change. But in order to do that did they open it up to more people in the name of equality? No! They outlawed it altogether. Everyones equality is in their freedom. Marriage in the form of a licesne issued by a government is neither.

What did Carr expect? Having Bible Bashers like Jim Wallace wonder into our homes, and lecture us on who we can marry, was always going to cause a stir. Most marriages are Civil and have no Church involvement. The public slams the door when Bible Bashers come knocking, so why would we be different? I have no sympathy for politicians feeling squeezed. The polls show over and over the public supports marriage equality, of course Carr wants to be seen as doing something.

Civil Unions are unable to offer the rights and protections of Marriage. I would love them if they could, and were open to heterosexual couples also- not a form of segregation. Why can’t they be the same as Marriage? Because it would take years and years, to unravel the 1084 pieces of legislation, that refers to the Marriage Act. Labor and Liberal have already opposed ending all discrimination in superannuation against same-sex couples, their heart is not in it. Every piece of legislation would have to be put before the Lower House, and then go to the Upper House. Carr knows this more than most. He is being sly selling silly spin- a Civil Union certificate with no legal power!

Marriage is not just a word in law. It is a legal instrument that affords participants special rights and protections. The argument is about equity, the inability of people to access those rights and protections based on being same-sex attracted. Call this argument Government sanctioned discrimination against same-sex attracted people- Carr’s Civil Unions, are simply the polite way of saying this.

Civil unions area a step in the right direction, this fight is a process and one that will take time.

Civil Unions are not armed with the legal authority of Marriage. They offer no protection against discrimination from the 1084 pieces of legislation that refer to the Marriage Act. They give hope to some, that the government recognises their love, while to others, they offer a certificate of apartheid, a form of segregation from the legal benefits and protections of marriage.

My concern is, Civil Unions allow Labor to continue a narrative that all discrimination has ended. They say this now about superannuation, and no doubt will say about this about your relationship once they introduce Civil Union legislation. It is worth putting into perspective, we are not included in the Federal Equal Opportunity Act, but Marriage is, so how will you fair will a Civil Union go giving the legal rights and protections of Marriage?

We bought ourselves matching wedding bands years ago – and with laws protecting our rights – and with legally binding and accepted documents in place – (wills, medical directives, etc.), I am no longer willing to waste time, money, or energy on Gay Marriage at this point in time – We don’t have the votes and will not have the votes until Gillard is out and Abbot is out – and spending $31,000 to have lunch with them is not going to change a thing. Perhaps it is better to fight a smaller battle that can be won.