I’m fed up with these religious leaders rattling on about why the definition of marriage should not be amended. “We’re here, we’re queer get used to us!” When the Civil Partnerships legislation was first introduced there were celebrations. My thoughts then are my thoughts now. If it is a move to create equality, why separate legislation? My view is that the definition of marriage needs to be amended and that’s it.

Aside from having separate legislation, there are provisions that have been excluded in the CP Act such as the right to petition for dissolution (divorce) based on adultery. The excuse given upon protestations back then was that the drafters could not think of an appropriate definition of adultery for same sex couples and secondly, to plead adultery is regressive and contrary to the ‘no fault’ divorce thinking. There was so much excitement about being given 'the gift' of legal recognition that it was all accepted with celebrations and gratitude galore. I don’t accept that a definition for adultery cannot be changed just as I don’t accept that the definition of marriage cannot be changed. If adultery is regressive for same sex couples, it is regressive for heterosexual couples. We don’t want different treatment, we want THE SAME treatment. For me, this is like dealing with racism. Would we contemplate separate legislation for different races? That’s all.

Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use. The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated. But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention. If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here